People are deeply rooted to the native place where they have been living for generations in harmony with nature. Every aspect of their social structure is delicately intertwined with the structure and function of the ecosystem in a unique manner that has been learnt by every new generation for hundreds of years. This system of learning is natural or traditional which has accumulated over time.
When an ecosystem is disturbed repeatedly beyond its capacity to recover then its structure and function is affected which in turn directly affect the people living in the proximity. This is obviously because of the dwindling ecosystem services on which they had heavily depended. As a result they are forcefully displaced to a new place.
Climate change is the most potent source of disturbance at present that has already shown its effect in various parts of the planet in form of increased instances of extreme events. The consequences may be in form of melting of glaciers, increased sea level, desertification of land, heavy rainfall, salinization of drinking water, ocean acidification, powerful cyclones, drying up of rain fed rivers and loss of biodiversity.
People are driven out either slowly or suddenly at a time depending on the type of calamity. Displacement of people creates a huge vacuum in the social structure of the particular community due to the depletion of traditional and natural knowledge based system which accumulated over hundreds of years. This leads not only to large scale unemployment but drastically changes their lifestyle from a less resource intensive and sustainable pattern to a more resource intensive unsustainable pattern of development. In order to sustain their livelihood they resort to haphazard and indiscriminate resource exploitation from the new system which soon become disturbed. It may further lead to antisocial and Naxalite activities.
The year 2009 was the hottest year in the decade and consequently India suffered prolonged dry spells throughout thus crippling the nations backbone i.e. agriculture. Jharkhand the state to which I belong was among the worst hit receiving less than 47% of the rainfall in the year 2009. Ranchi the capital of Jharkhand is situated in the Chhotanagpur plateau at a height of 2,140ft above the sea level. Forests in Jharkhand spread over an area of 23605 square kilometers, which constitutes about 29.61% of the total area of Jharkhand. Moreover, out of the 23605 square kilometers of forests, 82% of area falls under the protected forests, whereas 17.5% of the land falls under reserve forests. The forests are rich source of biodiversity on which the tribal population in the forest depends heavily. The State is also abundantly rich in minerals- Copper, Coal, Iron, Manganese, Mica, Chromite, Bauxite, etc. Reserves of Gold and Silver have also been found in the State.
Huge number of unregulated and unsustainable developmental activities has resulted in rampant destruction of the state’s fragile ecosystems. Forests along the rivers(Damodar and Subarnarekha) have been cleared at an alarming rate thus threatening the source of fresh water for the people.
This problem has been compounded by Climate change which has already shown its effect and will perhaps intensify in the coming days if the coming trend continues.
Earlier the summer temperature in Ranchi used to vary from 20.6ºC to a maximum of 37.2ºC but in recent years the maximum temperature has gone up to 42 ºC. The span of winter season has decreased. Rainfall has become erratic. In 2005 and 2006 the state received excessive rainfall. In 2007 heavy rainfall was accompanied with unusual hailstorm in the month of February and March. 2008 and 2009 was marked by extreme dry spells which had ravaged the paddy cultivation in the state. The Jharkhand government had declared the districts Chatra, Latehar, Palamu and Garhwa districts as drought hit. Scanty rains had made these districts drought-hit for the second consecutive year.
The effects:
1) Direct effect may be in form of injuries due to heat stroke, dust storms, and thunder bolts and due to flash floods in the river basins.
2) Indirect effects are the cause of long term socioeconomic problems.
- Dwindling ground water level due to poor rainfall, high summer temperature, deforestation and increased water demands due to urbanization. Most of the perennial water streams and waterfalls dry up during the drier seasons almost completely. This is because the aquifers are not sufficiently recharged.
- Due to failure of agriculture food security has become a big issues for the poor people of Jharkhand.
- Spread of vector borne diseases due to warmer climate like malaria and lymphatic filiarisis.
- Spread of water borne diseases like cholera, hepatitis and other dirrhoeal disease has shown an increasing trend.
- Sensitive ecosystems may are being severely damaged resulting in the loss of large number of animal and plants many of which are already threatened. A study shows change in pattern of distribution of plants along the hill slope due to warmer climate. The plants in the top of the hill are threatened the most because they can no more shift to higher altitudes. Many of these plants have immense medicinal value while others are still to be explored.
- The tribes are among the worst hit by the adverse affects of the climate change primarily because of their dependence on forest resources and agriculture. Recent years have seen mass migration of tribal population from their native villages in the forest to the urban areas in search of occupation and better lifestyle. Climate change will further aggravate the situation forcing more and more people out of their native place.
- This may further lead to depletion of traditional knowledge which has been gained by close association of people with nature.
- A fraction of the people resort to violent methods to seek justice and tend to defy the existing system of law and order.
- Anti social activities has also increased in the recent years.
- Several NGOs are working to conserve the remaining forests, water bodies, to replenish the ground water and to promote sustainable lifestyles by promoting the use of solar energy and geothermal energy instead of fossil fuel.
The future of our state depends on judicial blend of natural resource exploitation and adequate conservation measures.
In ‘The Age of Stupid’ (2009), these lines are uttered by the last man on Earth, in 2055. An archivist, he views footage from the early 21st century which arguably foretells the inevitable doom climate change is going to cause. Like numerous other documentaries, ‘The Age of Stupid’ too plays upon evoking fear in the viewer, depicting the planet destroyed, and at a point of no return.
Whether or not persuading people to take action by trying to scare them is effective, is psychologically debatable. ‘Defensive avoidance’ may arise, which entails avoidance or refusal to accept information put forth by the communicator if perceived as very upsetting. On the other hand, if suggestions about how to avert the doomed scenario are provided, and the viewer is convinced that hazardous consequences are indeed certain, then a strong appeal to fear may prove to be effective.
If the audience feels helpless to change the situation, the persuasion attempt fails. Piers Guy, a wind farm developer in England, is faced with outright rejection to his plans from the anti-wind campaign. Learning Piers’ story, one can actually feel powerless and think that no matter what their best intentions are, opposition will get the better of them. So while at present, those in favour of renewable sources of energy are in the minority, growth in their numbers may be thwarted by exposure to setbacks (such as Guy’s experience).
The documentary’s core message is that unless timely and appropriate actions are taken, we are going to reach a point of irreversible damage in the future. Psychologically though, people have the tendency to perceive threats as more relevant when they are concerned with the present rather than the future. This principle comes across in ‘The Age of Stupid’ with the businessman Jeh Wadia stating that his goal is to try and reduce the poverty in his country, India (with his low-budget airline, GoAir). Ultimately, it cannot be ignored that the primary focus of developing countries is to reach a certain level of development, and an offshoot of this striving is countless tonnes of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere.
The Extended Parallel Response Model (Witte, 1992) explains when fear appeals work and when they do not. In the absence of perceived susceptibility and severity on part of the viewer, a no response action will follow. A fear control response (denial, mocking, anger etc.) occurs when there is no response or self efficacy, i.e. belief that recommended action would effectively avert danger or that one is capable of performing the recommended action. A danger control response (adoption of recommended action) results when perceived efficacy is higher than the perceived threat. However, ‘The Age of Stupid’ lacks recommended action altogether, so while there is perceived susceptibility and severity, whether or not it will lead to any positive behaviour on part of the viewer is questionable.
Essentially there are four parts to a successful fear appeal: a threat, a definite suggestion about how the viewer should behave, viewer opinion that the suggestion will be successful in addressing the threat, and viewer opinion that they are capable of following the suggested behaviour. The threat is well explained with the portrayal of a doomsday scenario, and present signs we are choosing to ignore such as receding Alpine glaciers and hurricane Katrina.
While the tale of two young children who are refugees of the Iraq war, and Lafeya the Nigerian student who longs to ape the western lifestyle move you, ‘The Age of Stupid’ leaves you with the decision to carry on with things as they are at present, or else wake up and choose to act. A sense of fear is created and the threat definitely perceived, but the absence of recommended action deems the documentary as an unsuccessful appeal to fear. Conversely, while there are documentaries out there that tell you what measures you ought to take, they have limited success as they overlook crucial individual differences that exist among people, such as varied degrees of willingness to change. As commonsense suggests, messages customised to meet the interests and requirements of individuals or specific target groups are considerably more effective than general, universal ones. So perhaps it is good that there is no sense of preaching in ‘The Age of Stupid’, which was made with the aim of worldwide viewing.
In sum, director Franny Armstrong has adopted the proverb ‘you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink.’ We may decide to be ‘not stupid’ as the documentary concludes, but the choice is up to us.
- Preeti Venkatram
Preeti is a third year student, at Lady Shri Ram College, New Delhi. She has a keen interest in environmental issues and is studying B.A. Psychology (Hons.). She is interested in Environmental Psychology, that being anything that deals with people’s impacts on the environment and how the environment in turn impacts them.
When one thinks about it, in today’s modernised society, life without the purchase of products and services appears
impossible (unless we plan to go back to a prehistoric age). A demand for products creates their supply. Keeping this in mind, one can go to the extent of saying that all environmental concerns we face are due to consumerism. While it is impossible to survive without consuming, it then logically seems that it would be for our greater good that our consumerism be ‘green’ than otherwise.
An online survey conducted of people (most of who fell within the 18-25 years age group) showed the following results:
- 93% of the respondents felt that at a personal level, global warming is affecting them, or could affect them.
- 84% felt that their purchases affected the environment in a negative way.
These results showed that the sample of people surveyed were environmentally aware.
- If given a choice between an expensive ‘green’ product and a cheaper ‘non green’ product, while 59% said they would buy the ‘green’ product and 26% the cheaper one, 15% said they would not put any conscious thought into the matter.
- 47% stated that they would definitely compare two products in terms of their being ‘green’ before purchasing them, while 41% said that they might.
Again, it appeared that the respondents were mostly environmentally conscious and were willing to take the initiative in purchasing a product because it was an eco-friendly one.
When asked to mention eco-friendly practices they followed (if any), popular ones included the use of CFL bulbs, public transport, handmade paper, cloth bags and ensuring no unnecessary consumption of electricity and water at home. A few people did state that such practices are more of any eyewash and incapable of causing any real change.
- While 69% of the respondents said they sometimes thought about the environmental impact that the manufacturing of the products that they bought caused, 24% said they always did and 7% said they never thought about it.
- With regard to the environmental impact caused by disposal of their purchased products, 67% said they always or nearly always gave the matter a thought.
Manufacturing and disposal are two processes that one assumes a consumer dissociates one’s self from. It was heartening to see that this was contradicted. However to have any encouraging effects, consideration at the time of purchase alone will not do, but what is needed is the actual translation of thought into affirmative action.
- 48% while making a purchase, said they always considered the fact that even though an energy efficient product might be costlier than a product that is not, over time there would be savings in terms of electricity consumption. 42% they sometimes considered it while 9% said that they never did.
- 62% were aware of the Bureau of Energy Efficiency (BEE) star rating of electrical appliances.
BEE star ratings seem to be fulfilling their purpose, but to a greater extent would be desirable. Also, this sheds light on the fact that the concept of rating products in terms of their ‘greenness’ could be applied for other commodities as well, and not just electrical appliances.
- While 52% felt that there may be chances that stating one’s product is ‘green’ may well be a marketing gimmick, 24% felt that it definitely was.
After all, can a consumer actually be aware of all the processes involved in the life-cycle of the good (from procuring of raw materials, to transportation of the manufactured goods to the shop, to what happens to it after its disposal)? 
A downside of the ‘green’ consumerism concept is that often in attempting to ‘green’ one’s product, manufacturers use substances that have ill effects of another kind.
- On how willing to make ‘green’ purchases the respondents felt their friends and family were, 48% chose the midpoint between least willing and most willing.
The overall perception of the topic seems to be that while most agree it is a step in the right direction, there is great scope for improvement. ‘Green’ consumerism may achieve positive impacts in the long run if adequate and appropriate alternatives to the present unsustainable choices are created, and if Eco-friendly products are made within the reach of those not so economically well off.
- 39% perceived ‘going green’ as something ‘cool’ (i.e. a style statement of sorts) and an equal percentage disagreed.
Only time will tell if the concept of ‘green’ consumerism is a passing fad, or if it could lead to long term benefits.
- ‘Green’ consumerism could in fact create a significant change according to 65% of the respondents.
What is needed is a positive attitude and a willingness to see a change, along with acknowledging one’s own role in the realisation of the change. If people take strong actions such as boycotting ‘non-green’ products, there may well be transformations in the nature of goods produced.
While I tried my best to send out my survey to people from different backgrounds, it appears as if those who answered it were mainly those aware about environmental concerns. Though anonymity of responses was guaranteed, the social desirability factor while responding cannot be ruled out. Also, while it is easy to gauge people’s beliefs and views, in comparison it is difficult to gather data regarding actual practices. For if people actually behaved in accordance with the results obtained, I do not think our present scenario would be the sorry state that it is.
This article has been written by Ms. Preeti Venkatram
Preeti is a third year student, at Lady Shri Ram College, New Delhi. She has a keen interest in environmental issues and is studying B.A. Psychology (Hons.). She is interested in Environmental Psychology, that being anything that deals with people’s impacts on the environment and how the environment in turn impacts them.
The story of Narsimha
In the largest district of Anantpur, Andhra Pradesh, lies a small village called Chinna Jalapuram. This village is on its way to becoming a model for rural communities across the country.
The story of this village’s success dates back to four years ago when the Rural Integrated Development Society (RIDS) adopted this village. The first person to opt for natural farming was the leader of the villagers, Narsimha, who is now a vocal environmentalist. He and his son are practicing organic farming, and reap a good income, apart from its other benefits. These villagers are not aware of the fact that agriculture contributes to approximately 25 per cent of worldwide carbon emissions. They are also unaware of the fact that they are now a part of the solution for the same global crisis.
The story of Narsimha is not different to any farmer in India. With a loan of Rs. 50,000 on his head, he was living a hand to mouth existence. Then one night, four years ago, some RIDS members came to their village. They performed a play and facilitated an interaction between these farmers and those from other villages who were practicing sustainable farming. From that day, Narsimha became part of a true green revolution – an organic farmer – and a role model for the village. It was a tough job in the beginning but since then his income has increased five fold. In his own words, “I have become a rich man now.”
The organisation has brought sweeping change to the village. Narsimha and his friends now have access to a small seed bank and a micro-financing system to invest in farming practices has been started. They use only local materials such as Neem leaves, cow urine, jaggery, water and leaves of Ingua (local name of a tree with medicinal value) as pesticides and manure. Leftover food is also used to make compost. Drip irrigation, which reduces water consumption has also been implemented.
Speaking to his fellow farmers, Narsimha and his son Narayana said, “Providing food is a sacred profession, we should not spoil it by the mal-practices of chemical farming.”
This is just an overview of what’s happening in Andhra Pradesh. More than 15 lakh acres of the land of the state has been declared a pesticide- free zone. All of the credit goes to the Centre for Sustainable Agriculture which is paving the way by connecting organisations like RIDS with the farmers. India is truly in for a green revolution.
rful revolutions India has witnessed is the Green Revolution. It not only enabled the country to combat the food crisis but also helped in attaining self sufficiency in food production. The Indian farmers were more than overjoyed as the Green Revolution fetched them lucrative yields and profits. Since then there has been a drastic transformation of age-old traditional agriculture to modern farming.
“All that glitters is not gold”, is often unnoticed. The Green Revolution turned out to be a bane in disguise. It was based on the assumption that technology is a better alternative for nature’s limits. However, the assumption of nature as a source of shortage, and technology as a source of plenty, leads to the creation of new technologies which create new scarcities in nature through ecological destruction.
Use of chemical pesticides and fertilizers, for instance, has resulted in irreparable damage to the biodiversity and the health of soil. Also, the residues of pesticides on the vegetative parts of crops have proved to be a threat to health. We can never forget the incident at Kasargod district in Kerala. An organochlorine insecticide, Endosulfan was aerially sprayed on cashew plantations here for more than two decades. This led to physical deformities, reproductive failures and neurological disorders amongst the people living around the cashew plantations. Small children were the worst affected in the entire affair. Apart from Endosulfan there are other pesticides like DDT which tend to accumulate in the adipose tissues in the body when exposed to them. It takes about eleven to fifteen years to reduce the content to half of its quantity. Thus, it is evident that the technology has harmed mankind more than helping it on the path of development.
These problems have alarmed our country and have led them to go back to the arms of nature and follow what is called “Sustainable Agriculture”. The Indian Government, though at a smaller scale has been encouraging the concept of “Organic Agriculture”. As organic production shuns the use of any chemical inputs, it is likely to be free from any pesticidal residue. Hence, it becomes extremely important to demarcate it from the rest, which is brought about by certification. It is intended to assure quality, prevent fraud and to promote commerce. The Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Government of India launched the National Programme on Organic Production (NPOP), in the year 2000. The NPOP was responsible in providing mechanism for implementation of national standards for organic products through certification programmes. The Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India, has also set up a Regional Centre of Organic Farming (RCOF) at many places around the country like Bangalore, Bhubaneshwar, Nagpur, Hissar, Jabalpur and Imphal. The objective of the RCOF is to promote organic agriculture, encourage production of organic nutrients, initiation of research in organic farming, provision of training and extension to the farmers and assessment of organic market demand.
In spite of all the efforts taken by the Government, why are the farmers still reluctant to go organic? The farmer is quite aware that his organic produce without certification is of no value to the market. On the other hand, certification norms and procedures are quite stringent and demand a conversion period. Farmers succumb to heavy losses in this transition period. The cost of commercial organic fertilizes like the fishmeal, bone meal or the poultry manure is much higher than the chemical fertilizers used regularly, and hence the per unit input expenditure of an organic field increases manifold. Besides, the market for organic produce is sparse and not well developed. Also, there is no allocation of subsidies for organic production from the Government.
It is very simple to blame farmers and condemn them as non-Environment lovers. But what we generally forget is that making them care for the environment will not fetch them their daily bread. It is impossible to think about environmental protection and conservation when a person is struggling to arrange for two square meals a day for his family and himself. In the past it was us who lured them to the Green Revolution and now again we want them to abandon this technology and go back to the traditional methods of farming. It is time now that we stop expecting too much out of the farmers.
As responsible agricultural scientists, at this juncture what we should advocate is an integrated approach to farming, where the farmer can gradually decrease the use of agro-chemicals and replace them with the organic ones. Thus, the farmer will be exposed to meagre losses during transition. We also need to provide them with concrete evidence regarding the superiority of quality, of nutritional value and of yield in organically grown products. The Government and the non governmental organizations should work synergetically and impart training to farmers. The organic farmers must be encouraged to work in teams where they can handle issues related to production, market and processed goods independently. In this way, the dependencies on the middlemen can be kept at a bay.
Sustainable agriculture does not only show concerns towards environment. It aims at empowering both the society and environment. The farmer is a magician who can turn soil to gold. Let us take small efforts in the right direction to make him realize this fact.
(The author of this article, Ms. Samarpita Roy, is a PhD scholar at the Department of Environmental Sciences, University of Pune and is presently working on organic farming.)
Either way, this morning on the Guardian I came across this article on the newly founded Sustainable Restaurant Association that believes that consumers can make a difference in how our food is made. Essentially, restaurants can choose to be accredited by them if they commit to three Key Actions from their Charter of Actions such as sourcing at least 20% of produce from a supplier within 50 miles of the restaurant, ensuring products like tea and coffee are from fair-trade associations and sending only a certain percentage of waste to a landfill. They then need to keep adding three new actions to their pledge every year. The entire guide is available here as a PDF.
Why was I happy to see this? Because I agree with them. An action as small as taking one less paper napkin, turning down a plastic coffee glass for a thermos and saying no to eating an endangered fish can make a massive difference. And since our governments and policy makers don’t want to take sustainability seriously, it’s up to us to make it happen.
Take the Greenpeace campaign on Nestle for instance. It’s simply asking customers to make a choice and not eat Nestle’s products while they come at the price of millions of hectares of valuable rainforests. And it worked! I usually take a chocolate break post lunch and my colleague always buys a Kit Kat – since last week she’s replaced her daily break with another chocolate. And if enough people to do this, and cite the value of rainforests and orangutans as their reason, Nestle just might turn over a new leaf.
There are of course some other perspectives for and against this – blogger Jay Rayner has criticised the SRA’s criteria for accreditation – you can read his post here and I read an article long ago on the BBC about a former shark fin lover turning down a delectable meal because of her environmental awakening.
I suppose it all boils down to how much civil society can do in the face of negligent policy makers. I say we can do a whole lot.
Did you like this, become a fan
environmentpress.in | Become a fan
Guru Nanak Dev Engineering College, Ludhiana campus is on its way to become India’s first 100% LED campus in the country. Campus shall also rehabilitate the existing solar water heating system in the hostels. Plastic bags are already banned in the college market, marking it as the first step to make it a carbon neutral campus.
Next to it, a 40w tube-light is being replaced with 4w LED with same lumens and no loss of light. Moreover, a street lamp of 250w will be changed with 85w LED in result saving a large number electrical units in worth lacs annually. Not only it will save electricity but it will also compress the carbon emissions that emits from tubelight chokes. Electricity will be generated from solar energy that is being installed on each hostel and department, with electricity as its backup.
The Electrical Department of GNE will perform “before and after” case study to check the total carbon credit saved/earned. College will generate revenue through this to make this a sustainable project. They also have plans to introduce “solar common kitchens” in the hostels. In case someone needs to cook or boil something, student will not use electrics heater but will insist on solar heating devices.
The project is entirely funded by its large alumni network. Er. Navdeep Asija pledged to adopt a resolution in this regard and will also request others to support for the cause. Meanwhile, “Climate Change Group”, convened by Gurmehar Singh that will review the technicalities offered by various leading electric companies and implement it in phased manner.
This is really a consistent feature in the records of college, which is propelling it to attain the highest position of academic and overall excellence. There’s a lot more work to be done to reduce emissions and save energy, but climate change looms as the single most important challenge facing the next generation of students.
Did you like this, become a fan
environmentpress.in | Become a fan
Did you like this, become a fan
environmentpress.in | Become a fan
No one loves living in a hostel. But as the saying goes – “Beggers are not choosers”, I have no option and I am trying converting my room into a mini apartment where unfortunately everything is just 2 steps away. I have my hot plate on my study table that is just next to my bed and a small couch just next to my wardrobe where i spend most of my time reading and a bathroom attached to my room.
The day I came here I thought since I have to furnish this on my own, why not furnish it the green way and live a green life that would not only make me feel good and confident but also help the world. So I started listing things I could do that are not much expensive and my budget is not blown out of proportion. After all I am a student and with fixed amount of Pocket money coming every month, I have to make sure I have some money to spend on myself too J. Hence below I have listed few things that helped me go green with least expenses possible:
- Switch to compact fluorescent bulbs each time you replace an old incandescent bulb. Compact fluorescents save 75 percent in energy use and last up to 10 times longer. As a bonus, you’ll save money on your electric bill.
- Install a low-flow shower head. The newest models still produce strong water pressure while using much less water. This not very expensive and imagine you can save upto 280 gallons of water a month.
- Retrofit your hot-water system with a hot-water recirculation pump. These pumps recirculate cold water back to the water heater and only release water when it is hot. Go green and quit wasting water waiting for the cold water to get hot.
- Properly dispose of hazardous waste. Cleaners, oils, paints, pesticides, batteries and solvents should never go out with the household garbage; they end up contaminating the soil and groundwater in your community. I make a separate pack of all of these and give it separately to my cleaner. He collects all wastes like these and dispose off separately.
- Bring home superhero plants. Certain greens can help remove indoor air pollutants like formaldehyde and benzene. Golden pothos, English ivy, and peace lilies are all easy-to-grow toxin fighters.
- Protect the earth while you picnic. At your next outdoor party, ask people to write their names on disposable cups so they’ll use only one (to make it easy, put out markers).
Did you like this, become a fan
environmentpress.in | Become a fan
It is high time we start saving resources for the future generations along with saving money and assets for them. So why throw away things that could be recycled? To read these facts on recycling, it only takes a few seconds and to actually put it in practice would only take a few minutes in a day.
• It is believed that a ton of paper that is recycled saves 7000 gallons of water, 380 gallons of oil and as much electricity to electrify an average household for 6 months.
• One aluminium can recycling can save electricity needed to run a TV for 6 hours.
• Recycling one glass bottle saves as much electricity as to power a 100-watts bulb for 4 hours, so calculate the amount of energy one would save by using an energy saving bulb.
On one hand, the effects of throwing away leads to wastage of energy and resources, and on the other hand, the emission of carbon products into the atmosphere increases global warming. Have a look at what the consequences could be:
• Increase in sea level as a result of melting of ice caps hence making coastal plains uninhabitable.
• Agricultural productivity could be majorly affected due to global warming.
• Depletion of ozone layer
• Change in weather systems could occur due to warmer climate resulting in more droughts and floods and stronger storms and extremes of weather.
• Spread of diseases on a bigger scale due to increasing temperatures which would have otherwise been contained due to cold weather conditions.
• A major change to ecosystem could occur with most organisms moving towards the North and South pole.
It is not a mission impossible to reduce these carbon dioxide emissions. Developed countries have started taking various measures to reduce their emissions at all levels right from schools, universities and colleges to houses, supermarkets, industries, production units etc. Hence remember, even a small effort to reduce household emissions could help the future generations to a great extent.
Did you like this, become a fan
environmentpress.in | Become a fan
