The 5th of May of 2012 went down in History as the first day Japan does not depend on atomic power to generate electricity since 1970. As a response to the breakdown of the Fukushima plant triggered by the tsunami last year, the country has developed a series of safety measures that included closing down all of its nuclear reactors. Until last year, nuclear energy constituted 30% of Japanese power source. In the meantime, fossil fuels fill the gap left by atomic power, increasing considerably the levels of greenhouse gas emissions.

While the measures have received a great popular ovation, even ecologists in favour of nuclear power reduction have acknowledged the consequences of this action for the environment. The pressing needs of the economic crisis and the human distress produced by the Fukushima disaster have situated the priorities away from global warming awareness. As a result, no climate issue has dissuaded thousands of people to march in the streets of Tokyo and celebrate what they hope is the end of nuclear power in Japan. Several social organisations have encouraged the manifestation and urged Japanese people to keep up the pressure on the government to keep the nuclear plants closed.

The Fukushima catastrophe, the worst nuclear power plant accident since the Chernobyl disaster (Ukraine) in 1986, has outraged, shaken consciences and set off the alarms about the risks of nuclear plants in the Japanese society and political class. As a consequence, the authorities have initiated a period of inspection to certify the security conditions of the country's 50 reactors. However, local governments are sceptical about them being re-opened given the recent nuclear energy unpopularity.

As ecologists point out, it is possible to live without nuclear energy. The problem, however, comes when it is necessary to find promptly a substitute to generate electricity. The most beneficial answer for the environment would be to make up for it with renewable energies. Nonetheless, this action would take a long time, thus in the period in-between, fossil fuels are used as energy source.

Against all predictions and despite global warming, the impact of Greenland's shedding of icebergs may be considerably inferior to what was forecasted. A new study shows that this phenomenon is due to changes in the speed of ice movements in more than 200 Greenland's glaciers. The slowing down of these glaciers in their advance seaward means that the contribution of the north to the rise of sea levels in the XXI century could be significantly inferior to the predictions of worst-case scenarios.

“Up until now, in average, we have observed an increase of the speed of glaciers in a 30% in comparison to 30 years ago”, stated the main author of the study, which has been published in “Science”, Twila Luna. While preceding studies have suggested that ice melting from Greenland might increase sea levels as much as 46.7 centimetres by 2100, the new study forecasts that Greenland's contribution to sea-level rise will probably measure less than 9.3 centimetres over that interval.

Most previous studies of Greenland's 200-plus glaciers, however, have either focused on limited sectors of the ice mass or they only chronicle an insignificant period of time. The new study, conversely, offers a more complete view of Greenland's glaciers over a decade's worth of data. Researchers created a record of the glaciers speed changes based on data from satellite Radarsat-1 from the Canadian Space Agency, the German satellite TerraSAR-X, and the Advanced Land Observation Satellite from Japan. The data gathering started in the winter of 2000-1, and then researchers repeated the process for every winter up until 2010-11. The findings showed that the increase of glaciers speed is not nearly as dramatic as predicted.

Researchers, however, found no indication that the glaciers would not speed up during the rest of the century. In fact, the overall picture of glacial behaviour is rather complex. As Ian Joughin, a glaciologist from the University of Washington, states, the study gives answers at the time it raises questions since it shows there is too much variability. Actually, the researchers reported that the glaciers in north-western Greenland showed no uniform pattern of acceleration.

The environment is not delimited by national boundaries. Today, people are exposed to risks that are worldwide, such as global warming. Even though this environmental phenomenon is complex and cannot be positively attributed to human behaviour, it is a fact that the emissions of carbon dioxide have increased exponentially and dramatically in the last century. The factors of this escalation are the techno-social development of modern societies, consumerism and the logics of capitalism.

The threat that poses global warming has raised awareness in societies all across the world. To prevent the worst-case scenario or the mere destruction of the environment, global society has organised itself in lobby groups, non-governmental organisations, and activists to exert pressure on the national governments and raise awareness in the common people.

“Think global, act local” is ecologists' slogan. Indeed, there is no doubt that every person can help the environment by a series of measures that include recycling, saving water and electricity, protecting forests, using renewable resources, using public transport or other means of transportation that do not include fossil fuels.

However, even though the environment is global and whatever some do will affect everyone in the same measure, there is no global government to set fair rules for everyone to abide by or penalize those who break them. Instead, it comes down to national governments to reach agreements among each other in order to regulate themselves.

Unfortunately, these agreements are usually guided by national interests that answer to economic motives. Besides, in these political deliberations, the interests of the richer or more powerful countries usually prevail.

The Copenhagen talks showed once more how particular interests rule in the attempt to regulate environment at a global level. These particular interests, masked by hollow political statements, are usually driven by pressure at home from political or economic corporations. In fact, in the Copenhagen talks, the decisions were mostly influenced by the USA and China, while the beneficiaries of the agreement were countries like China, Brazil and South Africa. In the meantime, other developing countries failed to get their interests and message across.

While agreements are subject to national actors, it also depends on their willingness to commit to a certain treaty; for instance, the Kyoto protocol. On the one side, there is usually reluctance to commit economically in order to achieve sustainable development at either national or global level. This is because reducing carbon dioxide emissions, for instance, requires lowering industrial production. Thus, it slows down a country's economic development. On the other side, developed countries are indisposed to commit if there is no obligation by developing countries.

One of the greatest obstacles which lies between modern society and achieving a truly sustainable system is the problem of environmentally friendly economics. The world's economy currently depends on a massive amount of energy which is generated through non-sustainable and environmentally damaging methods, such as coal-fired power stations. At the same time, many of the materials which are required for the products which people buy and use are environmentally damaging, as well as often being produced though environmentally damaging processes.

While it would be environmentally favourable for countries world-wide to sever the link between these damaging systems and their consumer economies, the process is far more complex than that. A massive number of jobs are involved or depend upon damaging industries like this and the demand for this type of product still exists. As a result, the human and monetary cost of a poorly handled cold-turkey moment for the economy would by significant.

Tim Jackson has explored the idea of an economy which can be environmentally sustainable, and focuses on two main ideas. The first is the principle of 'decoupling' – the idea that as technology increases, growth in the economy doesn't have to represent more damage to the environment because of more efficient industrial methods and because of the increasing sale of services. Jackson, however, concludes that the pace of technological improvement is not fast enough to mean that there can be economic growth without damaging the environment more and more.

The rise in global temperature coupled with the fact that we are running out of coal and oil has led to a marked increase in interest in renewable energy. In itself, this is encouraging. The human race has finally realised that there's not much fuel left, rather like the buffet table at the end of a wedding – a couple of squashed prawn canapés which aren't worth the effort, and a collection of those odd fishy things that nobody seems to like.

And so, we're seeking other energy sources with renewed vigour. The UK has taken to wind power, for example, experimenting with constructing wind farms on and off shore. Hotter countries such as Greece have been dabbling in solar power for years, using the technology to heat water, for example. But recent years have seen a marked increase in nuclear power more than anything, particularly in France and Germany. Interest had also been climbing in the USA and many other countries until the Fukushima disaster in Japan (March 2011) caused a meltdown and several explosions.So is nuclear power an acceptable risk? It's a method which will always carry negative connotations – events such as Chernobyl and Fukushima weigh heavily on people's minds. And rightly so – nuclear power in these situations led to explosions and severe radiation poisoning. A similar situation almost arose in the USA, when a valve at the Three Mile Island power facility failed to close properly, causing widespread panic around the country.

The problem is that nuclear power is efficient and green. It produces a lot of energy for very little waste, which is precisely what we need in this day and age. Unfortunately, the trade-off for human lives understandably causes people to gulp. But there are one or two things to keep in mind before consigning nuclear power to the scrap heap.

Firstly, that the two most damaging nuclear catastrophes in history had mitigating circumstances. In one case, it was an ancient and poorly-designed reactor and poor control, and in the other case, it was a gigantic earthquake and tsunami. Despite this, nuclear energy is safer today than it has ever been. And secondly, the efficiency is significantly greater than using renewable energy such as wind and solar, because nuclear conditions can be controlled by humans and not just Mother Nature.

As any government, tax collector or official body will know, one of the greatest challenges of implementing radical enforced change in habits is getting people to listen. You might say that you can get a leopard to change its spots if you skin it, but this is not practical in modern democracy. Instead, here are some quotes from people who command a greater respect than the average politician, and so are more likely to change people's minds about climate change and global warming.


Judi Dench, famous UK actress: The need for global structure of control in the form of a world environment court is now more urgent than ever before.

David Suzuki, celebrity scientist: We have become a force of nature . . . not long ago, hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, droughts, forest fires, even earthquakes and volcanic explosions were accepted as ‘natural disasters' or ‘acts of God'. But now, we have joined God, powerful enough to influence these events.

James Lovelock, founder of the ‘Gaia' concept: I have a feeling that climate change may be an issue as severe as a war. It may be necessary to put democracy on hold for a while.

Leonardo DiCaprio, famous Hollywood superstar: Global warming is not only the number one environmental challenge we face today, but one of the most important issues facing humanity. We all have to do our part to raise awareness.

Arnold Schwarzenegger, actor/politician: We simply must do everything we can in our power to slow down global warming before it is too late. The science is clear. The global warming debate is over.

Paris Hilton, heiress/singer/designer/reality TV star/etc: Driving hybrid cars is the new way to go. Anyone can do it, no matter how old.

John Mayer, musician: No thinking about ‘offsetting your carbon footprint'. No rallies. No brow-beating people who think the Earth just has a fever. Pick one thing to change this year and keep the rest of your life the same.

Over the Internet, there are a lot of blog posts, articles and miscellaneous essays declaring that we need to save the planet. But there are much fewer explaining what we can do to achieve this on an international scale. The fact is that global warming isn't going to be prevented by that strange woman over the road has twenty different bins in her back garden. The bad habits of centuries can't be beaten out of us in half an hour. They have to come from on high, with our governments leading by example.
And that is why the Kyoto protocol is such a good idea. Signed in 1997 and effective from 2005, it was drawn up by most of the world, and holds the governments to an agreement to reduce CO₂ emissions which have been proven to heat the atmosphere. The agreement is also committed to stopping CFC emissions, which damage the ozone layer of Planet Earth.

While the Kyoto Protocol is an excellent demonstration of leading by example, there are one or two criticisms which are regularly made. Firstly, the two leading producers of CO₂ gas – the USA and China – have not ratified the treaty, and so continue unheeded to pump this dangerous gas into the air. Secondly, the treaty does not cover international aviation emissions, and although many governments have imposed an environmental tax on airlines, this is often simply passed onto the consumer. In order to encourage airlines to work on a solution, it has been argued that it should be illegal to do this, as the tax would then cut into their profit margins. Therefore, it would be in the airline's best interest to create a greener aircraft, and thus a long-term solution.

At the beginning of civilization earth had an abundance of natural resources. But with the development of technology humankind started destroying natural resources, without realising the effect it had on the earth. The majority of inventions, which make our lives easier, are also threatening the existence of life.

Take paper as an example. Without it, communication would come to a standstill. But tons of paper is mindlessly wasted year after year. For many, this is considered cruelty by mankind on the environment. Recycled paper is of course available, but its usage is still minimal.

The reduction in greenery has direct and indirect effect on our environment. The ill effects of an unbalanced ecosystem can cause low rainfall, global warming, and holes in ozone layer. The roots of the trees hold soil and prevent soil erosion. When large numbers of trees are cut, the soil gets carried away with rain water and deposited in rivers. This then raises the bottom of these rivers, which in the course of time causes flooding.

Saving the environment is not one man's job. It has to be done collectively and each person's contribution, whether small or big, makes a difference. Both urban and rural populations have their roles in saving the greenery. People in cities can contribute by not wasting the natural resources and planting more trees wherever possible. Those in the countryside can make a big contribution by not cutting trees in the forests and damaging more wildlife.

Here are a few tips which anybody can use to contribute towards saving the environment: only use paper when it is unavoidable, don't cut trees unless it is essential, do not encroach on forest areas, grow as many trees as possible in the surrounding areas, use natural resources for day to day requirements, use solar heat for cooking, heating water and other domestic purposes wherever possible, use windmills to generate electricity, and use solar lighting instead of electrical.

Water is one of the basic necessities for any living being. Due to many factors, including global warming and continuous usage, natural supplies of water have started to dwindle, threatening the existence of the human race. At this point in time, man is faced with various options. One of these is to extracting water from the ground.

When rain water falls on earth, it absorbs into the soil and collects underground. Over the years, civilized societies have learnt to extract this groundwater by constructing and operating extraction wells. This acts as a supplement for the requirement of fresh water during draughts, hot summer months and when no other fresh water source is available. About 20% of the fresh water used on the planet is ground water.

The reservoirs which contain groundwater are generally refilled by natural means. The usual cycle causes no problems, but it is often interrupted by the growth of civilization. More areas of the globe are becoming covered with concrete and this disrupts the absorbance of surface water into the soil, causing depleting ground water levels. Agriculturists, who depended on natural water sources like rivers and rain, have started using more and more ground water which, in turn, has been a major contributor for groundwater depletion. Pollution is another factor that has contributed to reduced ground water levels.

The problems continue, as when the ground water level reduces beyond the optimum level, it affects the eco-balance, increases global warming, and can cause collapsing of the ground. But there are options to reduce this, including reviving old water systems like ponds and lakes, reducing water usage for agriculture by using water-friendly methods, and maintaining available fresh water resources by not polluting them, and rain water harvesting where rain water is collected and stored.

In 1856, the manufacturing industry underwent a big revolution and saw the invention of parkesine, the first synthetic plastic. Since then, plastic has undergone tremendous changes at a very rapid pace. It has taken many forms and many reformations. Finally, it has evolved into today’s plastic, which is a polymer with high molecular mass. The world has become so dependent on plastic that it is now a part and parcel of life.

Plastic was once manufactured from natural materials like shellac. With continuous research and improved technology, the modern day plastic, which is derived from synthetic material and is more durable, was invented. Plastic now contributes to nearly every aspect of our day-to-day lives. Life without plastic has become unimaginable and the dependency on plastic and nylon is alarming. It is time to say no to plastic- the Slow Poison. Otherwise, we could face disaster.

The dependency on plastic is due to the convenience that it offers. From toothbrushes, to the car accessories, plastic is everywhere. The fact that it is light-weight, durable and easy to handle, has made it the most economic option for many uses. Plastic is used to form different fabrics, parachutes, paper clips, airplanes, and so much more. Carrier bags are one of the most well-used plastic creations. They are suited to packing shopping and other materials due to the fact that they are water and heat resistant and they do not get damaged easily.

The molecular bonds in plastic are highly durable and are resistant to natural processes of degradation. This can certainly be a benefit as well as annoyance. On the plus side, you have ease of use, durability and cheap cost. But the detriments include the huge mass of plastic waste, which is piling up everywhere due to it not being bio-degradable, as well as the potent toxic it sends out, which is harmful to the environment. The negativity continues, as plastic waste is found to be carcinogenic. The more we use plastic, the more harmful waste piles up. Though bio-degradable plastics are available, they are not as economical as other forms of plastic.