Does Our Environment Affect Our Welfare and Health?

There's no question that we are having a grave impact on our environment whether that is through climate change or habitat destruction. Many of us believe that in order to improve our happiness and welfare we need to have a high income and economic growth in our country but there have been many reports to suggest that there is a strong link between growing the economy and environmental degradation. So what does this mean for our health? Can we really be at our happiest and healthiest with the current trend of over exploitation?

According to the World Bank, in 2014 globally we emitted 36.2 million Ktonnes of CO2 in contrast to the 9 million Ktonnes emitted in 1960 which has made us more vulnerable to respiratory illness. The WHO has linked 3 million deaths each year to outdoor air pollution with reference to illness ranging from asthma and bronchitis to lung cancer. These reports also state these illnesses are higher in industrial areas and larger cities due to excess transport fumes and burning of fossil fuels. There has also been a link between high concentrations of air pollution and cardiovascular illness which puts us at greater risk of heart attack, stroke and angina. One way this occurs is through particulate matter entering the blood stream, restricting the movement of blood vessels, increasing blood pressure and therefore increasing our risk of suffering a heart attack.

Sunlight provides us with vitamin D which is needed to regulate calcium and phosphate within the body, helping to maintain healthy bones and muscles. We as humans require 10 micrograms of vitamin D a day, most of which we are supposed to get naturally through sunlight meaning we do have to step out of the house occasionally. A lack of vitamin D in extreme cases can cause rickets in children that leads to weak bones and deformities. This causes a high number of bone fractures and can eventually cause a curvature of the spine, leading to a permanent disability. Low vitamin D can also cause osteomalacia, which is similar to rickets, in adults causing bones to soften. With 1 in 5 people in the UK having low vitamin D levels, it is important we spend more time outdoors (and maybe consider a supplement in winter).

There have also been studies suggesting a link between time outside and an improvement in mental health with studies showing time outdoors reduces stress and reduces the symptoms of depression and anxiety. Scientists have suggested that urban and man made environments has 'constant simulation' that leads to mental fatigue, making those living in cities at greater risk of mental illness. Those living in rural areas also have better sleep with less noises keeping them awake. This will help to improve concentration, lower stress and improve moods which will allow people to be more productive.

There is also the obvious benefit that walking in a natural environment keeps us active, aids weight loss and maintains a healthy heart. Sitting down for too long can cause a decline in bone density and increase blood pressure after deposits in the blood vessels are not removed. All of these factors have been linked to a lower life expectancy by increasing our risk of stroke, heart disease and diabetes just to name a few.

So we all need to get outside in nature to help improve our health and wellbeing. However, I'm not saying that if you live in a city you're going to get ill and live a shorter life because that's not the case. Most large cities have parks and open spaces you can visit and city councils should be turning old sites into open spaces to encourage the urban population the get out and appreciate nature and we should all be doing our bit to protect it to protect the health of the future generations.


References
https://ourworldindata.org/air-pollution#death-rates-from-air-pollution
https://www.bhf.org.uk/informationsupport/support/practical-support/air-pollution
https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/vitamins-and-minerals/vitamin-d/
https://patient.info/health/osteoporosis-leaflet/vitamin-d-deficiency

Are Fireworks Damaging Our Environment?

Happy new year! Our beautiful planet has taken another journey around our sun meaning that we celebrate with over the top and elaborate firework displays and excessive drinking. Whilst watching the London fireworks on TV, I couldn't help but notice the large amount of smoke being emitted which got me thinking could these beautiful sparks of light actually be having a big impact on the environment?

A picture of fireworks. From pixabay.com

Before looking at the impact I was curious what these were actually made of. In the simplest form, fireworks are tubes filled with gunpowder, wrapped in flash paper and attached to a fuse, hence the explosion. However, to create the sparkle and the colour aluminium, iron, steel, zinc, or magnesium are added as these ensure that fireworks will burn for longer and brighter. Compounds of strontium, lithium, sodium, barium or copper are added to change the colour as these react with heat differently to produce different coloured flames, thus creating the beautiful displays we see twice a year. These additions are the biggest concern as in high concentrations, they can be toxic for both humans and wildlife. The fireworks create particulate matter containing the toxic elements that will eventually settle on land and, if landed on soil, can be taken into the plant system via the roots and enter the food chain via bio-magnification. Aluminium alone can affect the functions of gills in fish as it acts as an inhibitor for the enzyme responsible for the uptake of ions and will therefore reduce fish populations and any predators feeding on the poisoned fish.

Another issue is the smoke caused as it increases particulate matter levels and increases carbon dioxide concentrations within our atmosphere. Particulate matter is a collection of particles (under 100 micrometers) that are either produced naturally or, in the case of fireworks, are produced from chemical reactions. Minerals (including aluminium, silicon, iron and calcium) are producers of particulate matter and, as previously stated, some of these are included in the makeup of fireworks but this composition varies depending on colour. The monitoring of particulate matter has shown that pollution episodes (above average concentrations) occur around January and November implying there may be a link between New Year and Bonfire night. During these winter months, high PM concentration have been linked to temperature inversion that are responsible for trapping pollution at ground levels, in turn increasing our exposure time. There are a range of health impacts ranging from respiratory illness to affecting the cardiovascular system with these risks being greatest during inversions which is shown by the increase of breathing problems of over 30% during Diwali. However, there is also a large environmental impact the first one being the impact of photosynthesis as PM deposits on the leaves of green plants reducing the contact to sunlight. This can reduce the rate of plant growth and therefore lessening the amount of food available to primary consumers. This can affect of the rest of the food web as it reduces energy available for higher tropic levels (basically reducing food for top predators) especially if the primary consumer populations are affected.

The chemical process of lighting the gun powder has been linked to the pollution of sulphur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide, both of which are major polluting gases. Sulphur dioxide is directly linked to the production of acid rain that can corrode metal and limestone structures as well as the exoskeletons of invertebrates. As many small invertebrates are the basis of any food web, this can again affect higher tropic levels and affect the food availability within the ecosystem. This can also affect the pH of water bodies and has the potential to cause ocean acidification which is a cause for coral bleaching. As our coral reefs are currently in decline shouldn't we be doing everything in our power to reduce acid rain, especially for things that are not strictly necessary?  Nitrogen dioxide has been linked to increased eutrophication, decreasing the sunlight available to a water supply by the growth of algal blooms. This causes a decline in oxygen from a lack of photosynthesis affecting the populations of marine organisms thus reducing biodiversity. This, again, can affect human health and can cause nitrogen dioxide poisoning as it can irritate the mucous membrane in the lungs.

So with these major environmental impacts shouldn't we be focusing on reducing our use of fireworks rather than spending millions on elaborate firework displays every year? With so much advancement in scientific knowledge, it does seem strange to me that we have not found a more sustainable alternative, despite the fact that firework displays are unnecessary to our well being but I can see that it is a tradition and culturally we associate these with celebrations. With the development of renewable energy sources, light and laswer shows could be an alternative if done safely. With climate change being on the tip of everyone tongue, I think we should be looking at smaller issues, like fireworks, in order to help the bigger picture.


References

• B Rosseland, T Eldhuset, M Staurnes. Environmental effects of aluminium. 1990. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24202562
• Wonderopolis. How are fireworks made? 2014. https://www.wonderopolis.org/wonder/how-are-fireworks-made
• McLendon, R. Are Fireoworks Bad for the Environment? Earth Matters. 2018. https://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/translating-uncle-sam/stories/are-fireworks-bad-for-the-environment
• Fuller, G. Our prettiest pollutant: just how bad are fireworks for the environment? The Conservation. 2015. http://theconversation.com/our-prettiest-pollutant-just-how-bad-are-fireworks-for-the-environment-52451
• Compound Interest. The Dark Side of Fireworks. January 2017. https://www.compoundchem.com/2017/01/05/fireworks-environment/

Can Cotton Be Sustainable?

Image from www.heraldsun.com.au

I was in Primark the other day (not the most eco-friendly I'll admit) and I noticed that they had a sustainable cotton section. Cotton farming requires a huge amount of land that is often derived from unsustainable deforestation methods (i.e. slash and burn) and the growing and harvesting process has a huge environmental impact so I was happy to see a big retailer trying to reduce the environmental impact. However this did get me thinking what made this cotton sustainable? Can cotton farming ever be sustainable?

Firstly why is cotton farming so unsustainable? 

Cotton farming has huge ethical and environmental implications the first of which being the huge water consumption with the average water footprint being 10,000 litres per kilogram. With 730 million without access to clean water globally, cotton farming increases water scarcity in the areas with the greatest need for water. Cotton is also considered the 'dirtiest crop' by many organisations, such as the EJF, with cotton farming using 16% of all insecticides. Over 98% of all insecticides kill no target species causing a decline in the main pollinator species. There is also a risk of contamination of aquatic environments from runoff causing a decline in aquatic organisms. There are also health implications for workers and with 99% of all cotton farmers living in third world countries, there is a lack of safety and hazard testing. For example, a common pesticide used for cotton farming is easily absorbed via the skin and has the potential to kill. Other health implications of insecticides include respiratory illnesses, memory loss and seizures. There is also a huge amount of pollution produced as a result of deforestation and the chemicals used in the dyeing and bleaching process causes a large amount of environmental degradation. These chemicals include heavy metals and benzidine/chlorine bleaches which have been linked to an increased risk of cancer. 

There is also a huge socioeconomic impact with the workers in third world nations receiving low wages and the rich TNC's receiving the majority of profits, driving the poverty cycle. The majority of workers receive wages lower than the amount needed to meet their basic human needs. Many of these workers work long working days (with hours above the limit set by the International Labour Organisation) and overtime often goes unpaid. There is also a huge number of children working in the fields and Uzbekistan has been outed for shutting schools and forcing children to work in cotton fields. 

This begs the question what is the difference between 'normal' cotton and sustainable cotton, like the one used in Primark?

Sustainable cotton is defines as the sources being 'either organic, better or recycled' which has the potential to vastly reduce the environmental footprint of cotton farming. With the greatest amount of energy being used, resulting in a large amount of pollution, is during the extraction and processing of cotton so recycled cotton will greatly reduce the ecological footprint. Cotton that is certified GRS (Global Recycle Standard) ensures that cotton has been produced with minimal environmental and chemical impacts throughout the entire production process. This ensures the cotton farm has a chemical management system in place to meet all the legal requirements and to reduce the amount of pollution and run off. It also ensures that all companies meet the set target for energy use (as set by Textile Exchange) and there are frequent reviews to help improve energy efficiency. there are also set targets for water use and air pollution levels helping to reduce the environmental impact further.

Organic is defined as "produced or involving production without the use of chemical fertilisers, pesticides, or other artificial chemicals" in the Oxford dictionary. Although natural pesticides and fertilisers can still be harmful, there is less contribution to acidification and eutrophaction, reducing the impact on aquatic life and the soil in the surrounding area helping both the local people and the biodiversity. The chemicals used to treat regular cotton can bio-accumulate within the food chain meaning the impacts can be seen in the top predators even though they are not in direct contact with the chemical as it is stored in the fatty tissue of smaller, prey organisms. Pesticides have been linked to 67 million annual deaths in birds in the U.S. alone due to the bio-accumulating properties. With less pesticide use, there is a greater chance of bio-diversity recovering in cotton farming areas.

Photo of certified organic cotton labels from babycribbed.com

There are also major differences to the workers, with organisations working to improve working conditions. The Better Cotton Initiative ensure that farmers receive more of the profits, better working conditions and healthcare and has been based on UN labour standards. This mean there is a better quality of life for the workers as there is less fear of discrimination and better workers rights so they are not afraid of becoming unemployed if they do not receive a pay cut. The increase in disposable income means there is a greater chance of improving sanitation, education and access to clean water and food. The knock on effects mean that workers under these initiatives have a chance at a better quality of life.

There are a large number of cotton standards and projects to help improve the sustainability but with less than 1% of the worlds cotton being certified organic, there is still a huge amount of demand and need for unsustainable farming methods to meet the huge demand. With 120.8 million bales (at 480 pounds each) being produced in 2017, more retailers need to enforce these farming methods to ensure the minimal environmental impact and ensure we have cotton as a resource for the future. However, in my opinion cotton is one of the most unsustainable materials and there are better options for retailers to invest in with a much smaller impact. For example, not only is hemp a more durable material, which will help reduce the production demand, but also requires half the amount of land that cotton does and requires less water at 2,000 L per kg. There are also more sustainable materials such as linen and soy silk showing there are materials out there that can improve the sustainability of the fashion industry. A life cycle assessment carried out but the Textile Exchange staes that organic farmed cotton was "significantly more environmental friendly" but organic cotton also requires more land than convential cotton as it has a much lower yield so some believe that it may lead to an increase in deforestation, questioning the sustainability of organic cotton. There are also more sustainable materials such as linen and soy silk showing there are materials out there that can improve the sustainability of the fashion industry.

Overall, my personal view is that recycled cotton is a better option than organic and conventional cotton due to the reduced chemical and land use. Despite this I do feel that there are better options available and companies should be investing in these materials. I do feel that some responsibility should lie with the consumer as there are alternatives such as buying second hand clothing and choosing your clothing brands more carefully.



References - 

• Risks of cotton processing, Organic Cotton, (2016), https://www.organiccotton.org/oc/Cotton-general/Impact-of-cotton/Risk-of-cotton-processing.php 
• Ethical Issues in Cotton Production,  Ethical Consumer Research Association Ltd, (August 2017), http://www.ethicalconsumer.org/ethicalreports/fashionindustry/cotton.aspx
• Global Cotton Production, Statista, (2018), https://www.statista.com/statistics/259392/cotton-production-worldwide-since-1990/
• What Is the Most Animal and Eco-Friendly Material for Clothing?, Lindsay Patton, (January 26 2015),  http://www.onegreenplanet.org/environment/what-is-the-most-animal-and-eco-friendly-material-for-clothing/
• Global Recycled Standard, Textile Exchange, (2017), http://textileexchange.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Global-Recycled-Standard-v4.0.pdf
• 13 brands sign sustainable cotton pledge - but is organic cotton really better?, Vlvlan Herdrlksz, Fashion United, (7 June 2017), https://fashionunited.uk/news/fashion/13-brands-sign-sustainable-cotton-pledge-but-is-organic-cotton-really-better/2017060724755

Should We Tax Plastic?

Recently the UK government has introduced a new 'Sugar Tax' which means that high sugar drinks have become a higher taxed item. The main goal is to entourage companies to reduce the sugar content of drinks to lower the price as part of a healthy living initiative. This got me think if a similar approach should be applied to single use plastics, specifically packaging. If you visit a supermarket everything is covered in single use plastic that just isn't necessary. I remember getting new toys a child and how difficult it was to remove the unnecessary plastic. My poor parents on Christmas must have cut themselves numerous times.Walking around the supermarket makes me think what actually needs it and the items with less plastic or are biodegradable are often more expensive. Shouldn't it be the other way around? With supermarkets creating over 800,000 tonnes of plastic a year I feel the government should be doing more to reduce waste production.

Image from The Gaurdian

Although the general public should be encouraged to reduce waste, companies should be targeted more in my opinion. My idea is that once a product has passed a certain amount of plastic (so over what is deemed necessary) they should be taxed to cover disposal and the environmental cost. This will make single use plastic items more expensive to consumers which in turn will also encourage consumers to seek alternatives for plastic. This could also result in large TNC's to invest in alternatives that are biodegradable and potentially tackle the ever growing micro plastic problem as there will be less plastic breaking down in our oceans. Did you know that 80% of plastic debris in the oceans come from land? The breakdown of these items create micro plastic fragments which are easily ingested by fish, particularly those lower in the food chain. This also causes chemicals to be released into the natural environment, such as BPA, many of which are toxic to living organisms.

 Not only will a plastic tax make fish populations healthier, but it will reduce the amount of plastic we, as the human population, ingest. We ingest a range of plastics that enter our bodies through contaminated food and water. One plastic we ingest is Polyvinylchloride (#3PVC), a key chemical in plastic food packaging, that has actually been linked to an increased rate of cancer and birth defects. With over a third of all seafood caught in the UK containing plastic, those with a high fish diet have the highest rate of ingestion. One study has shown that those with a high shellfish diet consume up to 11,000 plastic fragments.

We can't also forget that less plastic used for useless, and quite frankly stupid, packaging will reduce our oil consumption which is especially important as we are in danger of reaching 'peak oil'. With 8% of global oil use being manufacturing plastics, it would encourage better management and distribution of our shrinking petroleum reserves as well as reducing global greenhouse gas emissions.

Overall, I feel the TNC's should be held more responsible for their unsustainble use of plastics to reduce the amount of toxic plastic that we throw away and the only way to do this is with a financial incentive because we all know that is the only way to ensure this. I feel a plastic tax will make the plastic alternatives cheaper and therefore more widely used.

Further Reading

• ICIS, Plastics and their impact on human health, http://iciscenter.org/plastics-and-their-impacts-on-human-health/ 
• Teach the Earth, Plastics in the Ocean Affecting Human Health, https://serc.carleton.edu/NAGTWorkshops/health/case_studies/plastics.html
• The Gaurdian, From sea to plate: how plastic got into our fish, https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/feb/14/sea-to-plate-plastic-got-into-fish