Human impact on the environment

Human impact on the environment (or anthropogenic environmental impact) refers to changes to biophysical environments^[1] and to ecosystems, biodiversity, and natural resources^[2] caused directly or indirectly by humans. Modifying the environment to fit the needs of society (as in the built environment) is causing severe effects^[3][4] including global warming,^[1][5][6] environmental degradation^[1] (such as ocean acidification^[1][7]), mass extinction and biodiversity loss,^[8][9][10] ecological crisis, and ecological collapse. Some human activities that cause damage (either directly or indirectly) to the environment on a global scale include population growth,^[11][12][13] neoliberal economic policies^[14][15][16] and rapid economic growth,^[17] overconsumption, overexploitation, pollution, and deforestation. Some of the problems, including global warming and biodiversity loss, have been proposed as representing catastrophic risks to the survival of the human species.^[18][19]

Human impact on the environment.

• Top-left: Satellite image of Southeast Asian haze.
• Top-right: IAEA experts investigate the Fukushima disaster.
• Middle-left: a picture from 1997 of industrial fishing, a practice that has led to overfishing.
• Middle-right: a seabird during an oil spill.
• Bottom-left: Acid mine drainage in the Rio Tinto.
• Bottom-right: depiction of deforestation of Brazil's Atlantic forest by Portuguese settlers, c. 1820–25.

The term anthropogenic designates an effect or object resulting from human activity. The term was first used in the technical sense by Russian geologist Alexey Pavlov, and it was first used in English by British ecologist Arthur Tansley in reference to human influences on climax plant communities.^[20] The atmospheric scientist Paul Crutzen introduced the term "Anthropocene" in the mid-1970s.^[21] The term is sometimes used in the context of pollution produced from human activity since the start of the Agricultural Revolution but also applies broadly to all major human impacts on the environment.^[22][23][24] Many of the actions taken by humans that contribute to a heated environment stem from the burning of fossil fuel from a variety of sources, such as: electricity, cars, planes, space heating, manufacturing, or the destruction of forests.^[25]

Human overshoot

Further information: Overshoot (population)

Overconsumption

Main article: Overconsumption

 

Chart published by NASA depicting CO₂ levels from the past 400,000 years.^[26]

Overconsumption is a situation where resource use has outpaced the sustainable capacity of the ecosystem. It can be measured by the ecological footprint, a resource accounting approach which compares human demand on ecosystems with the amount of planet matter ecosystems can renew. Estimates by the Global Footprint Network indicate that humanity's current demand is 70%^[27] higher than the regeneration rate of all of the planet's ecosystems combined. A prolonged pattern of overconsumption leads to environmental degradation and the eventual loss of resource bases.

Humanity's overall impact on the planet is affected by many factors, not just the raw number of people. Their lifestyle (including overall affluence and resource use) and the pollution they generate (including carbon footprint) are equally important. In 2008, The New York Times stated that the inhabitants of the developed nations of the world consume resources like oil and metals at a rate almost 32 times greater than those of the developing world, who make up the majority of the human population.^[28]

 

Reduction of one's carbon footprint for various actions.

Human civilization has caused the loss of 83% of all wild mammals and half of plants.^[29] The world's chickens are triple the weight of all the wild birds, while domesticated cattle and pigs outweigh all wild mammals by 14 to 1.^[30][31] Global meat consumption is projected to more than double by 2050, perhaps as much as 76%, as the global population rises to more than 9 billion, which will be a significant driver of further biodiversity loss and increased Greenhouse gas emissions.^[32][33]

Population growth and size

 

Human population from 10000 BCE to 2000 CE, increasing sevenfold after the eighteenth century.^[34][35]

Main article: Human overpopulation

Some scholars, environmentalists and advocates have linked human population growth or population size as a driver of environmental issues, including some suggesting this indicates an overpopulation scenario.^[11] In 2017, over 15,000 scientists around the world issued a second warning to humanity which asserted that rapid human population growth is the "primary driver behind many ecological and even societal threats."^[36] According to the Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, released by the United Nations' Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services in 2019, human population growth is a significant factor in contemporary biodiversity loss.^[37] A 2021 report in Frontiers in Conservation Science proposed that population size and growth are significant factors in biodiversity loss, soil degradation and pollution.^[38][39]

Some scientists and environmentalists, including Pentti Linkola,^[40] Jared Diamond and E. O. Wilson, posit that human population growth is devastating to biodiversity. Wilson for example, has expressed concern when Homo sapiens reached a population of six billion their biomass exceeded that of any other large land dwelling animal species that had ever existed by over 100 times.^[41]

However, attributing overpopulation as a cause of environmental issues is controversial. Demographic projections indicate that population growth is slowing and world population will peak in the 21st century,^[34] and many experts believe that global resources can meet this increased demand, suggesting a global overpopulation scenario is unlikely. Other projections have the population continuing to grow into the next century.^[42] While some studies, including the British government's 2021 Economics of Biodiversity review, posit that population growth and overconsumption are interdependent,^[43][44][45] critics suggest blaming overpopulation for environmental issues can unduly blame poor populations in the Global South or oversimplify more complex drivers, leading some to treat overconsumption as a separate issue.^[46][47][48]

Advocates for further reducing fertility rates, among them Rodolfo Dirzo and Paul R. Ehrlich, argue that this reduction should primarily affect the "overconsuming wealthy and middle classes," with the ultimate goal being to shrink "the scale of the human enterprise" and reverse the "growthmania" which they say threatens biodiversity and the "life-support systems of humanity."^[49]

Fishing and farming

Main article: Environmental impact of agriculture

The environmental impact of agriculture varies based on the wide variety of agricultural practices employed around the world. Ultimately, the environmental impact depends on the production practices of the system used by farmers. The connection between emissions into the environment and the farming system is indirect, as it also depends on other climate variables such as rainfall and temperature.

 

Lacanja burn

There are two types of indicators of environmental impact: "means-based", which is based on the farmer's production methods, and "effect-based", which is the impact that farming methods have on the farming system or on emissions to the environment. An example of a means-based indicator would be the quality of groundwater that is affected by the amount of nitrogen applied to the soil. An indicator reflecting the loss of nitrate to groundwater would be effect-based.^[50]

The environmental impact of agriculture involves a variety of factors from the soil, to water, the air, animal and soil diversity, plants, and the food itself. Some of the environmental issues that are related to agriculture are climate change, deforestation, genetic engineering, irrigation problems, pollutants, soil degradation, and waste.

Fishing

Main article: Environmental impact of fishing

 

Fishing down the foodweb

The environmental impact of fishing can be divided into issues that involve the availability of fish to be caught, such as overfishing, sustainable fisheries, and fisheries management; and issues that involve the impact of fishing on other elements of the environment, such as by-catch and destruction of habitat such as coral reefs.^[51] According to the 2019 Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services report, overfishing is the main driver of mass species extinction in the oceans.^[52]

These conservation issues are part of marine conservation, and are addressed in fisheries science programs. There is a growing gap between how many fish are available to be caught and humanity's desire to catch them, a problem that gets worse as the world population grows.^{[citation needed]}

Similar to other environmental issues, there can be conflict between the fishermen who depend on fishing for their livelihoods and fishery scientists who realize that if future fish populations are to be sustainable then some fisheries must reduce or even close.^[53]

The journal Science published a four-year study in November 2006, which predicted that, at prevailing trends, the world would run out of wild-caught seafood in 2048.^[54] The scientists stated that the decline was a result of overfishing, pollution and other environmental factors that were reducing the population of fisheries at the same time as their ecosystems were being degraded. Yet again the analysis has met criticism as being fundamentally flawed, and many fishery management officials, industry representatives and scientists challenge the findings, although the debate continues. Many countries, such as Tonga, the United States, Australia and New Zealand, and international management bodies have taken steps to appropriately manage marine resources.^[55][56]

The UN's Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) released their biennial State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture in 2018^[57] noting that capture fishery production has remained constant for the last two decades but unsustainable overfishing has increased to 33% of the world's fisheries. They also noted that aquaculture, the production of farmed fish, has increased from 120 million tonnes per year in 1990 to over 170 million tonnes in 2018.^[58]

Populations of oceanic sharks and rays have been reduced by 71% since 1970, largely due to overfishing. More than three-quarters of the species comprising this group are now threatened with extinction.^[59][60]

Irrigation

Main article: Environmental impact of irrigation

The environmental impact of irrigation includes the changes in quantity and quality of soil and water as a result of irrigation and the ensuing effects on natural and social conditions at the tail-end and downstream of the irrigation scheme.

The impacts stem from the changed hydrological conditions owing to the installation and operation of the scheme.

An irrigation scheme often draws water from the river and distributes it over the irrigated area. As a hydrological result it is found that:

• the downstream river discharge is reduced
• the evaporation in the scheme is increased
• the groundwater recharge in the scheme is increased
• the level of the water table rises
• the drainage flow is increased.

These may be called direct effects.

Effects on soil and water quality are indirect and complex, and subsequent impacts on natural, ecological and socio-economic conditions are intricate. In some, but not all instances, water logging and soil salinization can result. However, irrigation can also be used, together with soil drainage, to overcome soil salinization by leaching excess salts from the vicinity of the root zone.^[61][62]

Irrigation can also be done extracting groundwater by (tube)wells. As a hydrological result it is found that the level of the water descends. The effects may be water mining, land/soil subsidence, and, along the coast, saltwater intrusion.

Irrigation projects can have large benefits, but the negative side effects are often overlooked.^[63][64]

Agricultural irrigation technologies such as high powered water pumps, dams, and pipelines are responsible for the large-scale depletion of fresh water resources such as aquifers, lakes, and rivers. As a result of this massive diversion of freshwater, lakes, rivers, and creeks are running dry, severely altering or stressing surrounding ecosystems, and contributing to the extinction of many aquatic species.^[65]

Agricultural land loss

 

Urban sprawl in California

 

Soil erosion in Madagascar

Further information: land loss, land degradation, agricultural expansion, and desertification

Lal and Stewart estimated global loss of agricultural land by degradation and abandonment at 12 million hectares per year.^[66] In contrast, according to Scherr, GLASOD (Global Assessment of Human-Induced Soil Degradation, under the UN Environment Programme) estimated that 6 million hectares of agricultural land per year had been lost to soil degradation since the mid-1940s, and she noted that this magnitude is similar to earlier estimates by Dudal and by Rozanov et al.^[67] Such losses are attributable not only to soil erosion, but also to salinization, loss of nutrients and organic matter, acidification, compaction, water logging and subsidence.^[68] Human-induced land degradation tends to be particularly serious in dry regions. Focusing on soil properties, Oldeman estimated that about 19 million square kilometers of global land area had been degraded; Dregne and Chou, who included degradation of vegetation cover as well as soil, estimated about 36 million square kilometers degraded in the world's dry regions.^[69] Despite estimated losses of agricultural land, the amount of arable land used in crop production globally increased by about 9% from 1961 to 2012, and is estimated to have been 1.396 billion hectares in 2012.^[70]

Global average soil erosion rates are thought to be high, and erosion rates on conventional cropland generally exceed estimates of soil production rates, usually by more than an order of magnitude.^[71] In the US, sampling for erosion estimates by the US NRCS (Natural Resources Conservation Service) is statistically based, and estimation uses the Universal Soil Loss Equation and Wind Erosion Equation. For 2010, annual average soil loss by sheet, rill and wind erosion on non-federal US land was estimated to be 10.7 t/ha on cropland and 1.9 t/ha on pasture land; the average soil erosion rate on US cropland had been reduced by about 34% since 1982.^[72] No-till and low-till practices have become increasingly common on North American cropland used for production of grains such as wheat and barley. On uncultivated cropland, the recent average total soil loss has been 2.2 t/ha per year.^[72] In comparison with agriculture using conventional cultivation, it has been suggested that, because no-till agriculture produces erosion rates much closer to soil production rates, it could provide a foundation for sustainable agriculture.^[71]

Land degradation is a process in which the value of the biophysical environment is affected by a combination of human-induced processes acting upon the land.^[73] It is viewed as any change or disturbance to the land perceived to be deleterious or undesirable.^[74] Natural hazards are excluded as a cause; however human activities can indirectly affect phenomena such as floods and bush fires. This is considered to be an important topic of the 21st century due to the implications land degradation has upon agronomic productivity, the environment, and its effects on food security.^[75] It is estimated that up to 40% of the world's agricultural land is seriously degraded.^[76]

Meat production

Main article: Environmental impact of meat production

 

Worldwide, the animal industry provides only 18% of calories, but uses 83% of agricultural land and emits 58% of food's greenhouse gas emissions.^[77]

Biomass of mammals on Earth^[78]

  Livestock, mostly cattle and pigs (60%)

  Humans (36%)

  Wild mammals (4%)

 

A village palm oil press "malaxeur" in Bandundu, Democratic Republic of the Congo

Environmental impacts associated with meat production include use of fossil energy, water and land resources, greenhouse gas emissions, and in some instances, rainforest clearing, water pollution and species endangerment, among other adverse effects.^[79][80] Steinfeld et al. of the FAO estimated that 18% of global anthropogenic GHG (greenhouse gas) emissions (estimated as 100-year carbon dioxide equivalents) are associated in some way with livestock production.^[79] FAO data indicate that meat accounted for 26% of global livestock product tonnage in 2011.^[81]

Globally, enteric fermentation (mostly in ruminant livestock) accounts for about 27% of anthropogenic methane emissions,^[82] Despite methane's 100-year global warming potential, recently estimated at 28 without and 34 with climate-carbon feedbacks,^[82] methane emission is currently contributing relatively little to global warming. Although reduction of methane emissions would have a rapid effect on warming, the expected effect would be small.^[83] Other anthropogenic GHG emissions associated with livestock production include carbon dioxide from fossil fuel consumption (mostly for production, harvesting and transport of feed), and nitrous oxide emissions associated with the use of nitrogenous fertilizers, growing of nitrogen-fixing legume vegetation and manure management. Management practices that can mitigate GHG emissions from production of livestock and feed have been identified.^{[84][85][86][87][88]}

Considerable water use is associated with meat production, mostly because of water used in production of vegetation that provides feed. There are several published estimates of water use associated with livestock and meat production, but the amount of water use assignable to such production is seldom estimated. For example, "green water" use is evapotranspirational use of soil water that has been provided directly by precipitation; and "green water" has been estimated to account for 94% of global beef cattle production's "water footprint",^[89] and on rangeland, as much as 99.5% of the water use associated with beef production is "green water".

Impairment of water quality by manure and other substances in runoff and infiltrating water is a concern, especially where intensive livestock production is carried out. In the US, in a comparison of 32 industries, the livestock industry was found to have a relatively good record of compliance with environmental regulations pursuant to the Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act,^[90] but pollution issues from large livestock operations can sometimes be serious where violations occur. Various measures have been suggested by the US Environmental Protection Agency, among others, which can help reduce livestock damage to streamwater quality and riparian environments.^[91]

Changes in livestock production practices influence the environmental impact of meat production, as illustrated by some beef data. In the US beef production system, practices prevailing in 2007 are estimated to have involved 8.6% less fossil fuel use, 16% less greenhouse gas emissions (estimated as 100-year carbon dioxide equivalents), 12% less withdrawn water use and 33% less land use, per unit mass of beef produced, than in 1977.^[92] From 1980 to 2012 in the US, while population increased by 38%, the small ruminant inventory decreased by 42%, the cattle-and-calves inventory decreased by 17%, and methane emissions from livestock decreased by 18%;^[70] yet despite the reduction in cattle numbers, US beef production increased over that period.^[93]

Some impacts of meat-producing livestock may be considered environmentally beneficial. These include waste reduction by conversion of human-inedible crop residues to food, use of livestock as an alternative to herbicides for control of invasive and noxious weeds and other vegetation management,^[94] use of animal manure as fertilizer as a substitute for those synthetic fertilizers that require considerable fossil fuel use for manufacture, grazing use for wildlife habitat enhancement,^[95] and carbon sequestration in response to grazing practices,^[96][97] among others. Conversely, according to some studies appearing in peer-reviewed journals, the growing demand for meat is contributing to significant biodiversity loss as it is a significant driver of deforestation and habitat destruction.^{[98][99][100][33]} Moreover, the 2019 Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services by IPBES also warns that ever increasing land use for meat production plays a significant role in biodiversity loss.^[101][102] A 2006 Food and Agriculture Organization report, Livestock's Long Shadow, found that around 26% of the planet's terrestrial surface is devoted to livestock grazing.^[103]

Palm oil

Main article: Social and environmental impact of palm oil

Palm oil is a type of vegetable oil, found in oil palm trees, which are native to West and Central Africa. Initially used in foods in developing countries, palm oil is now also used in food, cosmetic and other types of products in other nations as well. Over one-third of vegetable oil consumed globally is palm oil.^[104]

Habitat loss

 

The rate of global tree cover loss has approximately doubled since 2001, to an annual loss approaching an area the size of Italy.^[105]

The consumption of palm oil in food, domestic and cosmetic products all over the world means there is a high demand for it. To meet this, oil palm plantations are created, which means removing natural forests to clear space. This deforestation has taken place in Asia, Latin America and West Africa, with Malaysia and Indonesia holding 90% of global oil palm trees. These forests are home to a wide range of species, including many endangered animals, ranging from birds to rhinos and tigers.^[106] Since 2000, 47% of deforestation has been for the purpose of growing oil palm plantations, with around 877,000 acres being affected per year.^[104]

Impact on biodiversity

Natural forests are extremely biodiverse, with a wide range of organisms using them as their habitat. But oil palm plantations are the opposite. Studies have shown that oil palm plantations have less than 1% of the plant diversity seen in natural forests, and 47–90% less mammal diversity.^[107] This is not because of the oil palm itself, but rather because the oil palm is the only habitat provided in the plantations. The plantations are therefore known as a monoculture, whereas natural forests contain a wide variety of flora and fauna, making them highly biodiverse. One of the ways palm oil could be made more sustainable (although it is still not the best option) is through agroforestry, whereby the plantations are made up of multiple types of plants used in trade – such as coffee or cocoa. While these are more biodiverse than monoculture plantations, they are still not as effective as natural forests. In addition to this, agroforestry does not bring as many economic benefits to workers, their families and the surrounding areas.^[108]

Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO)

The RSPO is a non-profit organisation that has developed criteria that its members (of which, as of 2018, there are over 4,000) must follow to produce, source and use sustainable palm oil (Certified Sustainable Palm Oil; CSPO). Currently, 19% of global palm oil is certified by the RSPO as sustainable.

The CSPO criteria states that oil palm plantations cannot be grown in the place of forests or other areas with endangered species, fragile ecosystems, or those that facilitate the needs of local communities. It also calls for a reduction in pesticides and fires, along with several rules for ensuring the social wellbeing of workers and the local communities.^[109]

Ecosystem impacts

See also: Human impact on marine life

Environmental degradation

 

Child demonstrating for actions to protect the environment (2018)

Main article: Environmental degradation

Human activity is causing environmental degradation, which is the deterioration of the environment through depletion of resources such as air, water and soil; the destruction of ecosystems; habitat destruction; the extinction of wildlife; and pollution. It is defined as any change or disturbance to the environment perceived to be deleterious or undesirable.^[74] As indicated by the I=PAT equation, environmental impact (I) or degradation is caused by the combination of an already very large and increasing human population (P), continually increasing economic growth or per capita affluence (A), and the application of resource-depleting and polluting technology (T).^[110][111]

According to a 2021 study published in Frontiers in Forests and Global Change, roughly 3% of the planet's terrestrial surface is ecologically and faunally intact, meaning areas with healthy populations of native animal species and little to no human footprint. Many of these intact ecosystems were in areas inhabited by indigenous peoples.^[112][113]

Habitat fragmentation

Main article: Habitat fragmentation

According to a 2018 study in Nature, 87% of the oceans and 77% of land (excluding Antarctica) have been altered by anthropogenic activity, and 23% of the planet's landmass remains as wilderness.^[114]

Habitat fragmentation is the reduction of large tracts of habitat leading to habitat loss. Habitat fragmentation and loss are considered as being the main cause of the loss of biodiversity and degradation of the ecosystem all over the world. Human actions are greatly responsible for habitat fragmentation, and loss as these actions alter the connectivity and quality of habitats. Understanding the consequences of habitat fragmentation is important for the preservation of biodiversity and enhancing the functioning of the ecosystem.^[115]

Both agricultural plants and animals depend on pollination for reproduction. Vegetables and fruits are an important diet for human beings and depend on pollination. Whenever there is habitat destruction, pollination is reduced and crop yield as well. Many plants also rely on animals and most especially those that eat fruit for seed dispersal. Therefore, the destruction of habitat for animal severely affects all the plant species that depend on them.^[116]

Mass extinction

Main articles: Holocene extinction, Defaunation, and Biodiversity loss

Further information: Ecological collapse and Ecological extinction

Biodiversity generally refers to the variety and variability of life on Earth, and is represented by the number of different species there are on the planet. Since its introduction, Homo sapiens (the human species) has been killing off entire species either directly (such as through hunting) or indirectly (such as by destroying habitats), causing the extinction of species at an alarming rate. Humans are the cause of the current mass extinction, called the Holocene extinction, driving extinctions to 100 to 1000 times the normal background rate.^[117][118] Though most experts agree that human beings have accelerated the rate of species extinction, some scholars have postulated without humans, the biodiversity of the Earth would grow at an exponential rate rather than decline.^[119] The Holocene extinction continues, with meat consumption, overfishing, ocean acidification and the amphibian crisis being a few broader examples of an almost universal, cosmopolitan decline in biodiversity. Human overpopulation^[120] (and continued population growth)^[121] along with overconsumption, especially by the super-affluent,^[122] are considered to be the primary drivers of this rapid decline.^[123][124] The 2017 World Scientists' Warning to Humanity stated that, among other things, this sixth extinction event unleashed by humanity could annihilate many current life forms and consign them to extinction by the end of this century.^[36] A 2022 scientific review published in Biological Reviews confirms that a biodiversity loss crisis caused by human activity, which the researchers describe as a sixth mass extinction event, is currently underway.^[125][126]

A June 2020 study published in PNAS argues that the contemporary extinction crisis "may be the most serious environmental threat to the persistence of civilization, because it is irreversible" and that its acceleration "is certain because of the still fast growth in human numbers and consumption rates."^[127]

High-level political attention on the environment has been focused largely on climate change because energy policy is central to economic growth. But biodiversity is just as important for the future of earth as climate change.

—Robert Watson, 2019.^[128]

Decline in biodiversity

See also: Decline in amphibian populations

 

Summary of major biodiversity-related environmental-change categories expressed as a percentage of human-driven change (in red) relative to baseline (blue)

Defaunation is the loss of animals from ecological communities.^[129]

It has been estimated that from 1970 to 2016, 68% of the world's wildlife has been destroyed due to human activity.^[130][131] In South America, there is believed to be a 70 percent loss.^[132] A May 2018 study published in PNAS found that 83% of wild mammals, 80% of marine mammals, 50% of plants and 15% of fish have been lost since the dawn of human civilization. Currently, livestock make up 60% of the biomass of all mammals on earth, followed by humans (36%) and wild mammals (4%).^[29] According to the 2019 global biodiversity assessment by IPBES, human civilization has pushed one million species of plants and animals to the brink of extinction, with many of these projected to vanish over the next few decades.^{[101][133][134]}

When plant biodiversity declines, the remaining plants face diminishing productivity.^[135] Biodiversity loss threatens ecosystem productivity and services such as food, fresh water, raw materials and medicinal resources.^[135]

A 2019 report that assessed a total of 28,000 plant species concluded that close to half of them were facing a threat of extinction. The failure of noticing and appreciating plants is regarded as "plant blindness", and this is a worrying trend as it puts more plants at the threat of extinction than animals. Our increased farming has come at a higher cost to plant biodiversity as half of the habitable land on Earth is used for agriculture, and this is one of the major reasons behind the plant extinction crisis.^[136]

Invasive species

Main article: Invasive species

Invasive species are defined by the U.S. Department of Agriculture as non-native to the specific ecosystem, and whose presence is likely to harm the health of humans or the animals in said system.^[137]

Introductions of non-native species into new areas have brought about major and permanent changes to the environment over large areas. Examples include the introduction of Caulerpa taxifolia into the Mediterranean, the introduction of oat species into the California grasslands, and the introduction of privet, kudzu, and purple loosestrife to North America. Rats, cats, and goats have radically altered biodiversity in many islands. Additionally, introductions have resulted in genetic changes to native fauna where interbreeding has taken place, as with buffalo with domestic cattle, and wolves with domestic dogs.

Human Introduced Invasive Species

Cats

Domestic and feral cats globally are particularly notorious for their destruction of native birds and other animal species. This is especially true for Australia, which attributes over two-thirds of mammal extinction to domestic and feral cats, and over 1.5 billion deaths to native animals each year.^[138] Because domesticated outside cats are fed by their owners, they can continue to hunt even when prey populations decline and they would otherwise go elsewhere. This is a major problem for places where there is a highly diverse and dense number of lizards, birds, snakes, and mice populating the area.^[139] Roaming outdoor cats can also be attributed to the transmission of harmful diseases like rabies and toxoplasmosis to the native wildlife population.^[140]

Burmese Python

Another example of a destructive introduced invasive species is the Burmese Python. Originating from parts of Southeast Asia, the Burmese Python has made the most notable impact in the Southern Florida Everglades of the United States. After a breeding facility breach in 1992 due to flooding and snake owners releasing unwanted pythons back into the wild, the population of the Burmese Python would boom in the warm climate of Florida in the following years.^[141] This impact has been felt most significantly at the southernmost regions of the Everglades. A study in 2012 compared native species population counts in Florida from 1997 and found that raccoon populations declined 99.3%, opossums 98.9%, and rabbit/fox populations effectively disappeared^[142]

Coral reef decline

This section is an excerpt from Environmental issues with coral reefs.[edit]

 

Island with fringing reef off Yap, Micronesia. Coral reefs are dying around the world.^[143]

Human activities have substantial impact on coral reefs, contributing to their worldwide decline.[1] Damaging activities encompass coral mining, pollution (both organic and non-organic), overfishing, blast fishing, as well as the excavation of canals and access points to islands and bays. Additional threats comprise disease, destructive fishing practices, and the warming of oceans.[2] Furthermore, the ocean's function as a carbon dioxide sink, alterations in the atmosphere, ultraviolet light, ocean acidification, viral infections, the repercussions of dust storms transporting agents to distant reefs, pollutants, and algal blooms represent some of the factors exerting influence on coral reefs. Importantly, the jeopardy faced by coral reefs extends far beyond coastal regions. The ramifications of climate change, notably global warming, induce an elevation in ocean temperatures that triggers coral bleaching—a potentially lethal phenomenon for coral ecosystems.

Scientists estimate that over next 20 years, about 70 to 90% of all coral reefs will disappear. With primary causes being warming ocean waters, ocean acidity, and pollution.^[144] In 2008, a worldwide study estimated that 19% of the existing area of coral reefs had already been lost.^[145] Only 46% of the world's reefs could be currently regarded as in good health^[145] and about 60% of the world's reefs may be at risk due to destructive, human-related activities. The threat to the health of reefs is particularly strong in Southeast Asia, where 80% of reefs are endangered. By the 2030s, 90% of reefs are expected to be at risk from both human activities and climate change; by 2050, it is predicted that all coral reefs will be in danger.^[146][147]

Water pollution

See also: Water degradation

Domestic, industrial and agricultural wastewater can be treated in wastewater treatment plants for treatment before being released into aquatic ecosystems. Treated wastewater still contains a range of different chemical and biological contaminants which may influence surrounding ecosystems.

This section is an excerpt from Water pollution.[edit]

Water pollution (or aquatic pollution) is the contamination of water bodies, usually as a result of human activities, so that it negatively affects its uses.^[148]: 6 Water bodies include lakes, rivers, oceans, aquifers, reservoirs and groundwater. Water pollution results when contaminants mix with these water bodies. Contaminants can come from one of four main sources: sewage discharges, industrial activities, agricultural activities, and urban runoff including stormwater.^[149] Water pollution is either surface water pollution or groundwater pollution. This form of pollution can lead to many problems, such as the degradation of aquatic ecosystems or spreading water-borne diseases when people use polluted water for drinking or irrigation.^[150] Another problem is that water pollution reduces the ecosystem services (such as providing drinking water) that the water resource would otherwise provide.

Sources of water pollution are either point sources or non-point sources. Point sources have one identifiable cause, such as a storm drain, a wastewater treatment plant or an oil spill. Non-point sources are more diffuse, such as agricultural runoff.^[151] Pollution is the result of the cumulative effect over time. Pollution may take the form of toxic substances (e.g., oil, metals, plastics, pesticides, persistent organic pollutants, industrial waste products), stressful conditions (e.g., changes of pH, hypoxia or anoxia, increased temperatures, excessive turbidity, changes of salinity), or the introduction of pathogenic organisms. Contaminants may include organic and inorganic substances. A common cause of thermal pollution is the use of water as a coolant by power plants and industrial manufacturers.

Impacts on climate

Climate change

 

The primary causes^[152] and the wide-ranging effects^{[153][154][155]} of global warming and resulting climate change. Some effects constitute feedbacks that intensify climate change.^[156]

Main article: Climate change

Further information: Runaway climate change, Climate change and ecosystems, and Effects of climate change

Contemporary climate change is the result of increasing atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, which is caused primarily by combustion of fossil fuel (coal, oil, natural gas), and by deforestation, land use changes, and cement production. Such massive alteration of the global carbon cycle has only been possible because of the availability and deployment of advanced technologies, ranging in application from fossil fuel exploration, extraction, distribution, refining, and combustion in power plants and automobile engines and advanced farming practices. Livestock contributes to climate change both through the production of greenhouse gases and through destruction of carbon sinks such as rain-forests. According to the 2006 United Nations/FAO report, 18% of all greenhouse gas emissions found in the atmosphere are due to livestock. The raising of livestock and the land needed to feed them has resulted in the destruction of millions of acres of rainforest and as global demand for meat rises, so too will the demand for land. Ninety-one percent of all rainforest land deforested since 1970 is now used for livestock.^[157] Potential negative environmental impacts caused by increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations are rising global air temperatures, altered hydrogeological cycles resulting in more frequent and severe droughts, storms, and floods, as well as sea level rise and ecosystem disruption.^[158]

Acid deposition

Main article: Acid deposition

 

Estimated change in seawater pH caused by anthropogenic impact on CO
₂ levels between the 1700s and the 1990s, from the Global Ocean Data Analysis Project (GLODAP) and the World Ocean Atlas

The fossils that are burned by humans for energy usually come back to them in the form of acid rain. Acid rain is a form of precipitation which has high sulfuric and nitric acids which can occur in the form of a fog or snow. Acid rain has numerous ecological impacts on streams, lakes, wetlands and other aquatic environments. It damages forests, robs the soil of its essential nutrients, releases aluminium to the soil, which makes it very hard for trees to absorb water.^[159]

Researchers have discovered that kelp, eelgrass and other vegetation can effectively absorb carbon dioxide and hence reducing ocean acidity. Scientists, therefore, say that growing these plants could help in mitigating the damaging effects of acidification on marine life.^[160]

Ozone depletion

This section is an excerpt from Ozone depletion.[edit]

Ozone depletion consists of two related events observed since the late 1970s: a steady lowering of about four percent in the total amount of ozone in Earth's atmosphere, and a much larger springtime decrease in stratospheric ozone (the ozone layer) around Earth's polar regions.^[161] The latter phenomenon is referred to as the ozone hole. There are also springtime polar tropospheric ozone depletion events in addition to these stratospheric events.

The main causes of ozone depletion and the ozone hole are manufactured chemicals, especially manufactured halocarbon refrigerants, solvents, propellants, and foam-blowing agents (chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), HCFCs, halons), referred to as ozone-depleting substances (ODS).^[162] These compounds are transported into the stratosphere by turbulent mixing after being emitted from the surface, mixing much faster than the molecules can settle.^[163] Once in the stratosphere, they release atoms from the halogen group through photodissociation, which catalyze the breakdown of ozone (O₃) into oxygen (O₂).^[164] Both types of ozone depletion were observed to increase as emissions of halocarbons increased.

Ozone depletion and the ozone hole have generated worldwide concern over increased cancer risks and other negative effects. The ozone layer prevents harmful wavelengths of ultraviolet (UVB) light from passing through the Earth's atmosphere. These wavelengths cause skin cancer, sunburn, permanent blindness, and cataracts,^[165] which were projected to increase dramatically as a result of thinning ozone, as well as harming plants and animals. These concerns led to the adoption of the Montreal Protocol in 1987, which bans the production of CFCs, halons, and other ozone-depleting chemicals.^[166] Currently,^[when?] scientists plan to develop new refrigerants to replace older ones.^[167]

The ban came into effect in 1989. Ozone levels stabilized by the mid-1990s and began to recover in the 2000s, as the shifting of the jet stream in the southern hemisphere towards the south pole has stopped and might even be reversing.^[168] Recovery is projected to continue over the next century, and the ozone hole was expected to reach pre-1980 levels by around 2075.^[169] In 2019, NASA reported that the ozone hole was the smallest ever since it was first discovered in 1982.^[170][171]

The Montreal Protocol is considered the most successful international environmental agreement to date.^[172][173] Following the bans on ozone-depleting chemicals, the UN projects that under the current regulations the ozone layer will completely regenerate by 2045, thirty years earlier than previously predicted.^[174]

Disruption of the nitrogen cycle

Main article: Human impact on the nitrogen cycle

Of particular concern is N₂O, which has an average atmospheric lifetime of 114–120 years,^[175] and is 300 times more effective than CO₂ as a greenhouse gas.^[176] NO_x produced by industrial processes, automobiles and agricultural fertilization and NH₃ emitted from soils (i.e., as an additional byproduct of nitrification)^[176] and livestock operations are transported to downwind ecosystems, influencing N cycling and nutrient losses. Six major effects of NO_x and NH₃ emissions have been identified:^[177]

1. decreased atmospheric visibility due to ammonium aerosols (fine particulate matter [PM])
2. elevated ozone concentrations
3. ozone and PM affects human health (e.g. respiratory diseases, cancer)
4. increases in radiative forcing and global warming
5. decreased agricultural productivity due to ozone deposition
6. ecosystem acidification^[178] and eutrophication.

Technology impacts

See also: Technology and society § Environment

The applications of technology often result in unavoidable and unexpected environmental impacts, which according to the I = PAT equation is measured as resource use or pollution generated per unit GDP. Environmental impacts caused by the application of technology are often perceived as unavoidable for several reasons. First, given that the purpose of many technologies is to exploit, control, or otherwise "improve" upon nature for the perceived benefit of humanity while at the same time, the myriad of processes in nature have been optimized and are continually adjusted by evolution, any disturbance of these natural processes by technology is likely to result in negative environmental consequences.^[179] Second, the conservation of mass principle and the first law of thermodynamics (i.e., conservation of energy) dictate that whenever material resources or energy are moved around or manipulated by technology, environmental consequences are inescapable. Third, according to the second law of thermodynamics, order can be increased within a system (such as the human economy) only by increasing disorder or entropy outside the system (i.e., the environment). Thus, technologies can create "order" in the human economy (i.e., order as manifested in buildings, factories, transportation networks, communication systems, etc.) only at the expense of increasing "disorder" in the environment. According to several studies, increased entropy is likely to correlate to negative environmental impacts.^{[180][181][182][183]}

Mining industry

 

Acid mine drainage in the Rio Tinto River

Main article: Environmental impact of mining

The environmental impact of mining includes erosion, formation of sinkholes, loss of biodiversity, and contamination of soil, groundwater and surface water by chemicals from mining processes. In some cases, additional forest logging is done in the vicinity of mines to increase the available room for the storage of the created debris and soil.^[184]

Even though plants need some heavy metals for their growth, excess of these metals is usually toxic to them. Plants that are polluted with heavy metals usually depict reduced growth, yield and performance. Pollution by heavy metals decreases the soil organic matter composition resulting in a decline in soil nutrients which then leads to a decline in the growth of plants or even death.^[185]

Besides creating environmental damage, the contamination resulting from leakage of chemicals also affect the health of the local population.^[186] Mining companies in some countries are required to follow environmental and rehabilitation codes, ensuring the area mined is returned to close to its original state. Some mining methods may have significant environmental and public health effects. Heavy metals usually exhibit toxic effects towards the soil biota, and this is through the affection of the microbial processes and decreases the number as well as activity of soil microorganisms. Low concentration of heavy metals also has high chances of inhibiting the plant's physiological metabolism.^[187]

Energy industry

 

Greenhouse gas emissions per energy source.

Main article: Environmental impact of the energy industry

The environmental impact of energy harvesting and consumption is diverse. In recent years there has been a trend towards the increased commercialization of various renewable energy sources.

In the real world, consumption of fossil fuel resources leads to global warming and climate change. However, little change is being made in many parts of the world. If the peak oil theory proves true, more explorations of viable alternative energy sources, could be more friendly to the environment.

Rapidly advancing technologies can achieve a transition of energy generation, water and waste management, and food production towards better environmental and energy usage practices using methods of systems ecology and industrial ecology.^[188][189]

Biodiesel

Main article: Environmental impact of biodiesel

The environmental impact of biodiesel includes energy use, greenhouse gas emissions and some other kinds of pollution. A joint life cycle analysis by the US Department of Agriculture and the US Department of Energy found that substituting 100% biodiesel for petroleum diesel in buses reduced life cycle consumption of petroleum by 95%. Biodiesel reduced net emissions of carbon dioxide by 78.45%, compared with petroleum diesel. In urban buses, biodiesel reduced particulate emissions 32 percent, carbon monoxide emissions 35 percent, and emissions of sulfur oxides 8%, relative to life cycle emissions associated with use of petroleum diesel. Life cycle emissions of hydrocarbons were 35% higher and emission of various nitrogen oxides (NOx) were 13.5% higher with biodiesel.^[190] Life cycle analyses by the Argonne National Laboratory have indicated reduced fossil energy use and reduced greenhouse gas emissions with biodiesel, compared with petroleum diesel use.^[191] Biodiesel derived from various vegetable oils (e.g. canola or soybean oil), is readily biodegradable in the environment compared with petroleum diesel.^[192]

Coal mining and burning

Main article: Environmental impact of coal mining and burning

 

Smog in Beijing, China

The environmental impact of coal mining and -burning is diverse.^[193] Legislation passed by the US Congress in 1990 required the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to issue a plan to alleviate toxic air pollution from coal-fired power plants. After delay and litigation, the EPA now has a court-imposed deadline of 16 March 2011, to issue its report. Surface coal mining has the greatest impact on the environment due to its unique extraction process requiring drilling and blasting, which releases macro amounts of airborne particles into the air. This airborne particulate matter releases harmful toxins into the atmosphere such as ammonia, carbon monoxide, and nitrogen oxides. These toxins then lead to many detrimental health effects such as respiratory illnesses and cardiovascular disease.^[194] Although coal is the most widely utilized source of energy around the world, the burning of coal emits poisonous toxins into the air, leading to various health ailments of the skin, blood and lung diseases, and various forms of cancer, while also contributing to global warming by the emission of these toxins into the environment. ^[195] The technology for mining activity has advanced over the years, leading to an increase in mine waste leading to more pollution problems, according to the Safe Drinking Water Foundation^[196] Studies that have been conducted in various countries like India, have proven that coal mining has a detrimental effect on other biotic and abiotic factors including vegetation and soil, leading to a decrease in plant populations in mining sites ^[197]

Electricity generation

This section is an excerpt from Environmental impact of electricity generation.[edit]

Electric power systems consist of generation plants of different energy sources, transmission networks, and distribution lines. Each of these components can have environmental impacts at multiple stages of their development and use including in their construction, during the generation of electricity, and in their decommissioning and disposal. These impacts can be split into operational impacts (fuel sourcing, global atmospheric and localized pollution) and construction impacts (manufacturing, installation, decommissioning, and disposal). All forms of electricity generation have some form of environmental impact,^[198] but coal-fired power is the dirtiest.^{[199][200][201]} This page is organized by energy source and includes impacts such as water usage, emissions, local pollution, and wildlife displacement.

Nuclear power

Main article: Environmental impact of nuclear power

 

Anti-nuclear protest near nuclear waste disposal centre at Gorleben in northern Germany

The environmental impact of nuclear power results from the nuclear fuel cycle processes including mining, processing, transporting and storing fuel and radioactive fuel waste. Released radioisotopes pose a health danger to human populations, animals and plants as radioactive particles enter organisms through various transmission routes.

Radiation is a carcinogen and causes numerous effects on living organisms and systems. The environmental impacts of nuclear power plant disasters such as the Chernobyl disaster, the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster and the Three Mile Island accident, among others, persist indefinitely, though several other factors contributed to these events including improper management of fail safe systems and natural disasters putting uncommon stress on the generators. The radioactive decay rate of particles varies greatly, dependent upon the nuclear properties of a particular isotope. Radioactive Plutonium-244 has a half-life of 80.8 million years, which indicates the time duration required for half of a given sample to decay, though very little plutonium-244 is produced in the nuclear fuel cycle and lower half-life materials have lower activity thus giving off less dangerous radiation.^[202]

Oil shale industry

Main article: Environmental impact of the oil shale industry

 

Kiviõli Oil Shale Processing & Chemicals Plant in ida-Virumaa, Estonia

The environmental impact of the oil shale industry includes the consideration of issues such as land use, waste management, water and air pollution caused by the extraction and processing of oil shale. Surface mining of oil shale deposits causes the usual environmental impacts of open-pit mining. In addition, the combustion and thermal processing generate waste material, which must be disposed of, and harmful atmospheric emissions, including carbon dioxide, a major greenhouse gas. Experimental in-situ conversion processes and carbon capture and storage technologies may reduce some of these concerns in future, but may raise others, such as the pollution of groundwater.^[203]

Petroleum

Main article: Environmental impact of petroleum

The environmental impact of petroleum is often negative because it is toxic to almost all forms of life. Petroleum, a common word for oil or natural gas, is closely linked to virtually all aspects of present society, especially for transportation and heating for both homes and for commercial activities.

Reservoirs

Main article: Environmental impact of reservoirs

 

The Wachusett Dam in Clinton, Massachusetts

The environmental impact of reservoirs is coming under ever increasing scrutiny as the world demand for water and energy increases and the number and size of reservoirs increases.

Dams and the reservoirs can be used to supply drinking water, generate hydroelectric power, increasing the water supply for irrigation, provide recreational opportunities and flood control. However, adverse environmental and sociological impacts have also been identified during and after many reservoir constructions. Although the impact varies greatly between different dams and reservoirs, common criticisms include preventing sea-run fish from reaching their historical mating grounds, less access to water downstream, and a smaller catch for fishing communities in the area. Advances in technology have provided solutions to many negative impacts of dams but these advances are often not viewed as worth investing in if not required by law or under the threat of fines. Whether reservoir projects are ultimately beneficial or detrimental—to both the environment and surrounding human populations— has been debated since the 1960s and probably long before that. In 1960 the construction of Llyn Celyn and the flooding of Capel Celyn provoked political uproar which continues to this day. More recently, the construction of Three Gorges Dam and other similar projects throughout Asia, Africa and Latin America have generated considerable environmental and political debate.

Wind power

This section is an excerpt from Environmental impact of wind power.[edit]

 

Livestock grazing near a wind turbine.^[204]

The environmental impact of electricity generation from wind power is minor when compared to that of fossil fuel power.^[205] Wind turbines have some of the lowest global warming potential per unit of electricity generated: far less greenhouse gas is emitted than for the average unit of electricity, so wind power helps limit climate change.^[206] Wind power consumes no fuel, and emits no air pollution, unlike fossil fuel power sources. The energy consumed to manufacture and transport the materials used to build a wind power plant is equal to the new energy produced by the plant within a few months.^[207]

Onshore (on-land) wind farms can have a significant visual impact and impact on the landscape.^[208] Due to a very low surface power density and spacing requirements, wind farms typically need to be spread over more land than other power stations.^[209][210] Their network of turbines, access roads, transmission lines, and substations can result in "energy sprawl";^[211] although land between the turbines and roads can still be used for agriculture.^[212][213]

Conflicts arise especially in scenic and culturally-important landscapes. Siting restrictions (such as setbacks) may be implemented to limit the impact.^[214] The land between the turbines and access roads can still be used for farming and grazing.^[212][215] They can lead to "industrialization of the countryside".^[216] Some wind farms are opposed for potentially spoiling protected scenic areas, archaeological landscapes and heritage sites.^{[217][218][219]} A report by the Mountaineering Council of Scotland concluded that wind farms harmed tourism in areas known for natural landscapes and panoramic views.^[220]

Habitat loss and fragmentation are the greatest potential impacts on wildlife of onshore wind farms,^[211] but they are small^[221] and can be mitigated if proper monitoring and mitigation strategies are implemented.^[222] The worldwide ecological impact is minimal.^[205] Thousands of birds and bats, including rare species, have been killed by wind turbine blades,^[223] as around other manmade structures, though wind turbines are responsible for far fewer bird deaths than fossil-fuel infrastructure.^[224][225] This can be mitigated with proper wildlife monitoring.^[226]

Many wind turbine blades are made of fiberglass and some only had a lifetime of 10 to 20 years.^[227] Previously, there was no market for recycling these old blades,^[228] and they were commonly disposed of in landfills.^[229] Because blades are hollow, they take up a large volume compared to their mass. Since 2019, some landfill operators have begun requiring blades to be crushed before being landfilled.^[227] Blades manufactured in the 2020s are more likely to be designed to be completely recyclable.^[229]

Wind turbines also generate noise. At a distance of 300 metres (980 ft) this may be around 45 dB, which is slightly louder than a refrigerator. At 1.5 km (1 mi) distance they become inaudible.^[230][231] There are anecdotal reports of negative health effects on people who live very close to wind turbines.^[232] Peer-reviewed research has generally not supported these claims.^{[233][234][235]} Pile-driving to construct non-floating wind farms is noisy underwater,^[236] but in operation offshore wind is much quieter than ships.^[237]

Manufacturing

 

Waste generation, measured in kilograms per person per day

Cleaning agents

Main article: Environmental impact of cleaning agents

The environmental impact of cleaning agents is diverse. In recent years, measures have been taken to reduce these effects.

Nanotechnology

Main article: Environmental impact of nanotechnology

Nanotechnology's environmental impact can be split into two aspects: the potential for nanotechnological innovations to help improve the environment, and the possibly novel type of pollution that nanotechnological materials might cause if released into the environment. As nanotechnology is an emerging field, there is great debate regarding to what extent industrial and commercial use of nanomaterials will affect organisms and ecosystems.

Paint

Main article: Environmental impact of paint

The environmental impact of paint is diverse. Traditional painting materials and processes can have harmful effects on the environment, including those from the use of lead and other additives. Measures can be taken to reduce environmental impact, including accurately estimating paint quantities so that wastage is minimized, use of paints, coatings, painting accessories and techniques that are environmentally preferred. The United States Environmental Protection Agency guidelines and Green Star ratings are some of the standards that can be applied.

Paper

This section is an excerpt from Environmental effects of paper.[edit]

 

A pulp and paper mill in New Brunswick, Canada. Although pulp and paper manufacturing requires large amounts of energy, a portion of it comes from burning wood residue.

The environmental effects of paper are significant, which has led to changes in industry and behaviour at both business and personal levels. With the use of modern technology such as the printing press and the highly mechanized harvesting of wood, disposable paper became a relatively cheap commodity, which led to a high level of consumption and waste. The rise in global environmental issues such as air and water pollution, climate change, overflowing landfills and clearcutting have all lead to increased government regulations.^{[238][239][240]} There is now a trend towards sustainability in the pulp and paper industry as it moves to reduce clear cutting, water use, greenhouse gas emissions, fossil fuel consumption and clean up its influence on local water supplies and air pollution.

According to a Canadian citizens' organization, "People need paper products and we need sustainable, environmentally safe production."^[241]

Environmental product declarations or product scorecards are available to collect and evaluate the environmental and social performance of paper products, such as the Paper Calculator,^[242] Environmental Paper Assessment Tool (EPAT),^[243] or Paper Profile.^[244]

Both the U.S. and Canada generate interactive maps of environmental indicators which show pollution emissions of individual facilities.^{[245][246][247]}

Plastics

Further information: Plastic § Environmental effects

 

Great Pacific garbage patch

Some scientists suggest that by 2050 there could be more plastic than fish in the oceans.^[248] A December 2020 study published in Nature found that human-made materials, or anthropogenic mass, exceeds all living biomass on earth, with plastic alone outweighing the mass of all terrestrial and marine animals combined.^[249][24]

Pesticides

Main article: Environmental impact of pesticides

The environmental impact of pesticides is often greater than what is intended by those who use them. Over 98% of sprayed insecticides and 95% of herbicides reach a destination other than their target species, including nontarget species, air, water, bottom sediments, and food.^[250] Pesticide contaminates land and water when it escapes from production sites and storage tanks, when it runs off from fields, when it is discarded, when it is sprayed aerially, and when it is sprayed into water to kill algae.^[251]

The amount of pesticide that migrates from the intended application area is influenced by the particular chemical's properties: its propensity for binding to soil, its vapor pressure, its water solubility, and its resistance to being broken down over time.^[252] Factors in the soil, such as its texture, its ability to retain water, and the amount of organic matter contained in it, also affect the amount of pesticide that will leave the area.^[252] Some pesticides contribute to global warming and the depletion of the ozone layer.^[253]

Pharmaceuticals and personal care

This section is an excerpt from Environmental impact of pharmaceuticals and personal care products.[edit]

The environmental effect of pharmaceuticals and personal care products (PPCPs) is being investigated since at least the 1990s. PPCPs include substances used by individuals for personal health or cosmetic reasons and the products used by agribusiness to boost growth or health of livestock. More than twenty million tons of PPCPs are produced every year.^[254] The European Union has declared pharmaceutical residues with the potential of contamination of water and soil to be "priority substances".^[3]

PPCPs have been detected in water bodies throughout the world. More research is needed to evaluate the risks of toxicity, persistence, and bioaccumulation, but the current state of research shows that personal care products impact the environment and other species, such as coral reefs^{[255][256][257]} and fish.^[258][259] PPCPs encompass environmental persistent pharmaceutical pollutants (EPPPs) and are one type of persistent organic pollutants. They are not removed in conventional sewage treatment plants but require a fourth treatment stage which not many plants have.^[254]

In 2022, the most comprehensive study of pharmaceutical pollution of the world's rivers found that it threatens "environmental and/or human health in more than a quarter of the studied locations". It investigated 1,052 sampling sites along 258 rivers in 104 countries, representing the river pollution of 470 million people. It found that "the most contaminated sites were in low- to middle-income countries and were associated with areas with poor wastewater and waste management infrastructure and pharmaceutical manufacturing" and lists the most frequently detected and concentrated pharmaceuticals.^[260][261]

Transport

Main article: Environmental impact of transport

 

Interstate 10 and Interstate 45 near downtown Houston, Texas in the United States

The environmental impact of transport is significant because it is a major user of energy, and burns most of the world's petroleum. This creates air pollution, including nitrous oxides and particulates, and is a significant contributor to global warming through emission of carbon dioxide,^[262] for which transport is the fastest-growing emission sector.^[263] By subsector, road transport is the largest contributor to global warming.^[262]

Environmental regulations in developed countries have reduced the individual vehicles emission; however, this has been offset by an increase in the number of vehicles, and more use of each vehicle.^[262] Some pathways to reduce the carbon emissions of road vehicles considerably have been studied.^[264] Energy use and emissions vary largely between modes, causing environmentalists to call for a transition from air and road to rail and human-powered transport, and increase transport electrification and energy efficiency.

Other environmental impacts of transport systems include traffic congestion and automobile-oriented urban sprawl, which can consume natural habitat and agricultural lands. By reducing transportation emissions globally, it is predicted that there will be significant positive effects on Earth's air quality, acid rain, smog and climate change.^[265]

The health impact of transport emissions is also of concern. A recent survey of the studies on the effect of traffic emissions on pregnancy outcomes has linked exposure to emissions to adverse effects on gestational duration and possibly also intrauterine growth.^[266]

Aviation

Main article: Environmental impact of aviation

The environmental impact of aviation occurs because aircraft engines emit noise, particulates, and gases which contribute to climate change^[267][268] and global dimming.^[269] Despite emission reductions from aircraft engines and more fuel-efficient and less polluting turbofan and turboprop engines, the rapid growth of air travel in recent years contributes to an increase in total pollution attributable to aviation. In the EU, greenhouse gas emissions from aviation increased by 87% between 1990 and 2006.^[270] Among other factors leading to this phenomenon are the increasing number of hypermobile travellers^[271] and social factors that are making air travel commonplace, such as frequent flyer programs.^[271]

There is an ongoing debate about possible taxation of air travel and the inclusion of aviation in an emissions trading scheme, with a view to ensuring that the total external costs of aviation are taken into account.^[272]

Roads

Main article: Environmental impact of roads

The environmental impact of roads includes the local effects of highways (public roads) such as on noise pollution, light pollution, water pollution, habitat destruction/disturbance and local air quality; and the wider effects including climate change from vehicle emissions. The design, construction and management of roads, parking and other related facilities as well as the design and regulation of vehicles can change the impacts to varying degrees.

Shipping

Main article: Environmental impact of shipping

The environmental impact of shipping includes greenhouse gas emissions and oil pollution. In 2007, carbon dioxide emissions from shipping were estimated at 4 to 5% of the global total, and estimated by the International Maritime Organization (IMO) to rise by up to 72% by 2020 if no action is taken.^[273] There is also a potential for introducing invasive species into new areas through shipping, usually by attaching themselves to the ship's hull.

The First Intersessional Meeting of the IMO Working Group on Greenhouse Gas Emissions^[274] from Ships took place in Oslo, Norway on 23–27 June 2008. It was tasked with developing the technical basis for the reduction mechanisms that may form part of a future IMO regime to control greenhouse gas emissions from international shipping, and a draft of the actual reduction mechanisms themselves, for further consideration by IMO's Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC).^[275]

Military

 

An Agent Orange spray run by aircraft, part of Operation Ranch Hand, during the Vietnam War

See also: Environmental impact of war

General military spending and military activities have marked environmental effects.^[276] The United States military is considered one of the worst polluters in the world, responsible for over 39,000 sites contaminated with hazardous materials.^[277] Several studies have also found a strong positive correlation between higher military spending and higher carbon emissions where increased military spending has a larger effect on increasing carbon emissions in the Global North than in the Global South.^[278][276] Military activities also affect land use and are extremely resource-intensive.^[279]

The military does not solely have negative effects on the environment.^[280] There are several examples of militaries aiding in land management, conservation, and greening of an area.^[281] Additionally, certain military technologies have proven extremely helpful for conservationists and environmental scientists.^[282]

As well as the cost to human life and society, there is a significant environmental impact of war. Scorched earth methods during, or after war have been in use for much of recorded history but with modern technology war can cause a far greater devastation on the environment. Unexploded ordnance can render land unusable for further use or make access across it dangerous or fatal.^[283]

Light pollution

 

A composite image of artificial light emissions from Earth at night

Main article: Ecological light pollution

Artificial light at night is one of the most obvious physical changes that humans have made to the biosphere, and is the easiest form of pollution to observe from space.^[284] The main environmental impacts of artificial light are due to light's use as an information source (rather than an energy source). The hunting efficiency of visual predators generally increases under artificial light, changing predator prey interactions. Artificial light also affects dispersal, orientation, migration, and hormone levels, resulting in disrupted circadian rhythms.^[285]

Fast fashion

Main article: Environmental impact of fashion

Fast fashion has become one of the most successful industries in many capitalist societies with the increase in globalisation. Fast fashion is the cheap mass production of clothing, which is then sold on at very low prices to consumers.^[286] Today, the industry is worth £2 trillion.^[287]

Environmental impacts

In terms of carbon dioxide emissions, the fast fashion industry contributes between 4–5 billion tonnes per year, equating to 8–10% of total global emissions.^[288] Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, meaning it causes heat to get trapped in the atmosphere, rather than being released into space, raising the Earth's temperature – known as global warming.^[289]

Alongside greenhouse gas emissions the industry is also responsible for almost 35% of microplastic pollution in the oceans.^[288] Scientists have estimated that there are approximately 12–125 trillion tonnes of microplastic particles in the Earth's oceans.^[290] These particles are ingested by marine organisms, including fish later eaten by humans.^[291] The study states that many of the fibres found are likely to have come from clothing and other textiles, either from washing, or degradation.^[291]

Textile waste is a huge issue for the environment, with around 2.1 billion tonnes of unsold or faulty clothing being disposed per year. Much of this is taken to landfill, but the majority of materials used to make clothes are not biodegradable, resulting in them breaking down and contaminating soil and water.^[286]

Fashion, much like most other industries such as agriculture, requires a large volume of water for production. The rate and quantity at which clothing is produced in fast fashion means the industry uses 79 trillion litres of water every year.^[288] Water consumption has proven to be very detrimental to the environment and its ecosystems, leading to water depletion and water scarcity. Not only do these affect marine organisms, but also human's food sources, such as crops.^[292] The industry is culpable for roughly one-fifth of all industrial water pollution.^[293]

Society and culture

Warnings by the scientific community

There are many publications from the scientific community to warn everyone about growing threats to sustainability, in particular threats to "environmental sustainability". The World Scientists' Warning to Humanity in 1992 begins with: "Human beings and the natural world are on a collision course". About 1,700 of the world's leading scientists, including most Nobel Prize laureates in the sciences, signed this warning letter. The letter mentions severe damage to the atmosphere, oceans, ecosystems, soil productivity, and more. It said that if humanity wants to prevent the damage, steps need to be taken: better use of resources, abandonment of fossil fuels, stabilization of human population, elimination of poverty and more.^[294] More warning letters were signed in 2017 and 2019 by thousands of scientists from over 150 countries which called again to reduce overconsumption (including eating less meat), reducing fossil fuels use and other resources and so forth.^[295]

See also

•  Environment portal
•  Ecology portal
•  Earth sciences portal
•  Biology portal
•  World portal

• Attribution of recent climate change
• Barriers to pro-environmental behaviour
• Biome
• Built environment
• Citizen Science, cleanup projects that people can take part in.
• Doomsday Clock
• Environmental impact
• Environmental impact of meat production
• Environmental impact of fishing
• Environmental impact of Gulf wars
• Environmental impact of Mardi Gras beads
• Environmental impact of automobiles
• Environmental impact of concrete
• Environmental impact of development in the Sundarbans
• Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing
  • Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing in the United States
• Environmental impact of iron ore mining
• Environmental impact of pig farming
• Environmental impact of the chemical industry in Sarnia
• Environmental impact of the coal industry
• Environmental issues
• Hemeroby
• Human overpopulation
• Human–wildlife conflict
• Livestock's Long Shadow (2006 FAO report)
• Marine debris
  • Great Pacific garbage patch
  • Indian Ocean garbage patch
  • North Atlantic garbage patch
  • South Pacific garbage patch
• Overconsumption
• Planetary boundaries
• Sustainability
• The Sixth Extinction: An Unnatural History
• Tree planting

References

1. Wuebbles DJ, Fahey DW, Hibbard KA, DeAngelo B, Doherty S, Hayhoe K, Horton R, Kossin JP, Taylor PC, Waple AM, Weaver CP (2017). "Executive Summary". In Wuebbles DJ, Fahey DW, Hibbard KA, Dokken DJ, Stewart BC, Maycock TK (eds.). Climate Science Special Report – Fourth National Climate Assessment (NCA4). Vol. I. Washington, DC: U.S. Global Change Research Program. pp. 12–34. doi:10.7930/J0DJ5CTG.
2. Sahney, Benton & Ferry (2010); Hawksworth & Bull (2008); Steffen et al. (2006) Chapin, Matson & Vitousek (2011)
3. Stockton, Nick (22 April 2015). "The Biggest Threat to the Earth? We Have Too Many Kids". Wired.com. from the original on 18 December 2019. Retrieved 24 November 2017.
4. Ripple, William J.; Wolf, Christopher; Newsome, Thomas M.; Barnard, Phoebe; Moomaw, William R. (5 November 2019). "World Scientists' Warning of a Climate Emergency". BioScience. doi:10.1093/biosci/biz088. hdl:1808/30278. from the original on 3 January 2020. Retrieved 8 November 2019. Still increasing by roughly 80 million people per year, or more than 200,000 per day (figure 1a–b), the world population must be stabilized—and, ideally, gradually reduced—within a framework that ensures social integrity. There are proven and effective policies that strengthen human rights while lowering fertility rates and lessening the impacts of population growth on GHG emissions and biodiversity loss. These policies make family-planning services available to all people, remove barriers to their access and achieve full gender equity, including primary and secondary education as a global norm for all, especially girls and young women (Bongaarts and O'Neill 2018).
5. Cook, John (13 April 2016). "Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming". Environmental Research Letters. 11 (4): 048002. Bibcode:2016ERL....11d8002C. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002. hdl:1983/34949783-dac1-4ce7-ad95-5dc0798930a6. The consensus that humans are causing recent global warming is shared by 90%–100% of publishing climate scientists according to six independent studies
6. Lenton, Timothy M.; Xu, Chi; Abrams, Jesse F.; Ghadiali, Ashish; Loriani, Sina; Sakschewski, Boris; Zimm, Caroline; Ebi, Kristie L.; Dunn, Robert R.; Svenning, Jens-Christian; Scheffer, Marten (2023). "Quantifying the human cost of global warming". Nature Sustainability. 6 (10): 1237–1247. Bibcode:2023NatSu...6.1237L. doi:10.1038/s41893-023-01132-6. hdl:10871/132650.
7. "Increased Ocean Acidity". Epa.gov. United States Environmental Protection Agency. 30 August 2016. from the original on 23 June 2011. Retrieved 23 November 2017. Carbon dioxide is added to the atmosphere whenever people burn fossil fuels. Oceans play an important role in keeping the Earth's carbon cycle in balance. As the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere rises, the oceans absorb a lot of it. In the ocean, carbon dioxide reacts with seawater to form carbonic acid. This causes the acidity of seawater to increase.
8. Leakey, Richard and Roger Lewin, 1996, The Sixth Extinction : Patterns of Life and the Future of Humankind, Anchor, ISBN 0-385-46809-1
9. Ceballos, Gerardo; Ehrlich, Paul R.; Barnosky, Anthony D.; Garcia, Andrés; Pringle, Robert M.; Palmer, Todd M. (2015). "Accelerated modern human–induced species losses: Entering the sixth mass extinction". Science Advances. 1 (5): e1400253. Bibcode:2015SciA....1E0253C. doi:10.1126/sciadv.1400253. PMC 4640606. PMID 26601195.
10. Pimm, S. L.; Jenkins, C. N.; Abell, R.; Brooks, T. M.; Gittleman, J. L.; Joppa, L. N.; Raven, P. H.; Roberts, C. M.; Sexton, J. O. (30 May 2014). "The biodiversity of species and their rates of extinction, distribution, and protection" (PDF). Science. 344 (6187): 1246752. doi:10.1126/science.1246752. PMID 24876501. S2CID 206552746. (PDF) from the original on 7 January 2020. Retrieved 15 December 2016. The overarching driver of species extinction is human population growth and increasing per capita consumption.
11. Crist, Eileen; Ripple, William J.; Ehrlich, Paul R.; Rees, William E.; Wolf, Christopher (2022). "Scientists' warning on population" (PDF). Science of the Total Environment. 845: 157166. Bibcode:2022ScTEn.845o7166C. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.157166. PMID 35803428. S2CID 250387801.
12. Perkins, Sid (11 July 2017). "The best way to reduce your carbon footprint is one the government isn't telling you about". Science. from the original on 1 December 2017. Retrieved 29 November 2017.
13. Nordström, Jonas; Shogren, Jason F.; Thunström, Linda (15 April 2020). "Do parents counter-balance the carbon emissions of their children?". PLOS One. 15 (4): e0231105. Bibcode:2020PLoSO..1531105N. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0231105. PMC 7159189. PMID 32294098. It is well understood that adding to the population increases CO₂ emissions.
14. Harvey, David (2005). A Brief History of Neoliberalism. Oxford University Press. p. 173. ISBN 978-0199283279.
15. Rees, William E. (2020). "Ecological economics for humanity's plague phase" (PDF). Ecological Economics. 169: 106519. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2019.106519. S2CID 209502532. the neoliberal paradigm contributes significantly to planetary unraveling. Neoliberal thinking treats the economy and the ecosphere as separate independent systems and essentially ignores the latter.
16. Jones, Ellie-Anne; Stafford, Rick (2021). "Neoliberalism and the Environment: Are We Aware of Appropriate Action to Save the Planet and Do We Think We Are Doing Enough?". Earth. 2 (2): 331–339. Bibcode:2021Earth...2..331J. doi:10.3390/earth2020019.
17. Cafaro, Philip (2022). "Reducing Human Numbers and the Size of our Economies is Necessary to Avoid a Mass Extinction and Share Earth Justly with Other Species". Philosophia. 50 (5): 2263–2282. doi:10.1007/s11406-022-00497-w. S2CID 247433264. Conservation biologists agree that humanity is on the verge of causing a mass extinction and that its primary driver is our immense and rapidly expanding global economy.
18. "New Climate Risk Classification Created to Account for Potential "Existential" Threats". Scripps Institution of Oceanography. 14 September 2017. from the original on 15 September 2017. Retrieved 24 November 2017. A new study evaluating models of future climate scenarios has led to the creation of the new risk categories "catastrophic" and "unknown" to characterize the range of threats posed by rapid global warming. Researchers propose that unknown risks imply existential threats to the survival of humanity.
19. Torres, Phil (11 April 2016). "Biodiversity loss: An existential risk comparable to climate change". Thebulletin.org. Taylor & Francis. from the original on 13 April 2016. Retrieved 24 November 2017.
20. Bampton, M. (1999) "Anthropogenic Transformation" 22 September 2020 at the Wayback Machine in Encyclopedia of Environmental Science, D. E. Alexander and R. W. Fairbridge (eds.), Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, ISBN 0412740508.
21. Crutzen, Paul and Eugene F. Stoermer. "The 'Anthropocene'" in International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme Newsletter. 41 (May 2000): 17–18
22. Scott, Michon (2014). . NASA Earth Observatory. Archived from the original on 17 September 2008. Retrieved 3 November 2008.
23. Syvitski, Jaia; Waters, Colin N.; Day, John; et al. (2020). "Extraordinary human energy consumption and resultant geological impacts beginning around 1950 CE initiated the proposed Anthropocene Epoch". Communications Earth & Environment. 1 (32): 32. Bibcode:2020ComEE...1...32S. doi:10.1038/s43247-020-00029-y. hdl:10810/51932. S2CID 222415797.
24. Elhacham, Emily; Ben-Uri, Liad; et al. (2020). "Global human-made mass exceeds all living biomass". Nature. 588 (7838): 442–444. Bibcode:2020Natur.588..442E. doi:10.1038/s41586-020-3010-5. PMID 33299177. S2CID 228077506.
25. Trenberth, Kevin E. (2 October 2018). "Climate change caused by human activities is happening and it already has major consequences". Journal of Energy & Natural Resources Law. 36 (4): 463–481. Bibcode:2018JENRL..36..463T. doi:10.1080/02646811.2018.1450895. ISSN 0264-6811. S2CID 135104338.
26. "Graphic: The relentless rise of carbon dioxide". Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet. from the original on 31 March 2020. Retrieved 5 November 2018.
27. "Open Data Platform". Data.footprintnetwork.org. from the original on 8 August 2017. Retrieved 16 November 2018.
28. Diamond, Jared (2 January 2008). . The New York Times. Archived from the original on 26 December 2016.
29. Carrington, Damian (21 May 2018). "Humans just 0.01% of all life but have destroyed 83% of wild mammals – study". The Guardian. from the original on 11 September 2018. Retrieved 23 May 2018.
30. Borenstein, Seth (21 May 2018). "Humans account for little next to plants, worms, bugs". AP News. from the original on 22 May 2018. Retrieved 22 May 2018.
31. Pennisi, Elizabeth (21 May 2018). "Plants outweigh all other life on Earth". Science. from the original on 23 May 2018. Retrieved 22 May 2018.
32. Best, Steven (2014). The Politics of Total Liberation: Revolution for the 21st Century. Palgrave Macmillan. p. 160. ISBN 978-1137471116. By 2050 the human population will top 9 billion, and world meat consumption will likely double.
33. Devlin, Hannah (19 July 2018). "Rising global meat consumption 'will devastate environment'". The Guardian. from the original on 9 October 2019. Retrieved 13 August 2018.
34. Roser, Max; Ritchie, Hannah; Ortiz-Ospina, Esteban (9 May 2013). "World Population Growth". Our World in Data.
35. "Graphic: The relentless rise of carbon dioxide". Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet.
36. Ripple WJ, Wolf C, Newsome TM, Galetti M, Alamgir M, Crist E, Mahmoud MI, Laurance WF (13 November 2017). "World Scientists' Warning to Humanity: A Second Notice". BioScience. 67 (12): 1026–1028. doi:10.1093/biosci/bix125. hdl:11336/71342.
37. Stokstad, Erik (5 May 2019). "Landmark analysis documents the alarming global decline of nature". Science. AAAS. Retrieved 29 October 2021. Driving these threats are the growing human population, which has doubled since 1970 to 7.6 billion, and consumption. (Per capita of use of materials is up 15% over the past 5 decades.)
38. Weston, Phoebe (13 January 2021). "Top scientists warn of 'ghastly future of mass extinction' and climate disruption". The Guardian. from the original on 13 January 2021. Retrieved 13 January 2021.
39. Bradshaw, Corey J. A.; Ehrlich, Paul R.; Beattie, Andrew; Ceballos, Gerardo; Crist, Eileen; Diamond, Joan; Dirzo, Rodolfo; Ehrlich, Anne H.; Harte, John; Harte, Mary Ellen; Pyke, Graham; Raven, Peter H.; Ripple, William J.; Saltré, Frédérik; Turnbull, Christine; Wackernagel, Mathis; Blumstein, Daniel T. (2021). "Underestimating the Challenges of Avoiding a Ghastly Future". Frontiers in Conservation Science. 1. doi:10.3389/fcosc.2020.615419.
40. Linkola, Pentti (2011). Can Life Prevail? (2nd Revised ed.). Arktos Media. pp. 120–121. ISBN 978-1907166631.
41. Crist, Eileen; Cafaro, Philip, eds. (2012). Life on the Brink: Environmentalists Confront Overpopulation. University of Georgia Press. p. 83. ISBN 978-0820343853 – via Google Books.
42. Gerland, P.; Raftery, A. E.; Ev Ikova, H.; Li, N.; Gu, D.; Spoorenberg, T.; Alkema, L.; Fosdick, B. K.; Chunn, J.; Lalic, N.; Bay, G.; Buettner, T.; Heilig, G. K.; Wilmoth, J. (18 September 2014). "World population stabilization unlikely this century". Science. AAAS. 346 (6206): 234–237. Bibcode:2014Sci...346..234G. doi:10.1126/science.1257469. ISSN 1095-9203. PMC 4230924. PMID 25301627.
43. Bradshaw, Corey J. A.; Ehrlich, Paul R.; Beattie, Andrew; Ceballos, Gerardo; Crist, Eileen; Diamond, Joan; Dirzo, Rodolfo; Ehrlich, Anne H.; Harte, John; Harte, Mary Ellen; Pyke, Graham; Raven, Peter H.; Ripple, William J.; Saltré, Frédérik; Turnbull, Christine; Wackernagel, Mathis; Blumstein, Daniel T. (2021). "Response: Commentary: Underestimating the Challenges of Avoiding a Ghastly Future". Frontiers in Conservation Science. 2. doi:10.3389/fcosc.2021.700869. On the contrary, we devoted an entire section to the interacting and inter-dependent components of overpopulation and overconsumption, which are, for instance, also central tenets of the recent Economics of Biodiversity review (Dasgupta, 2021). Therein, the dynamic socio-ecological model shows that mutual causation drives modern socio-ecological systems. Just as it is incorrect to insist that a large global population is the sole underlying cause of biodiversity loss, so too is it naïve and incorrect to claim that high consumption alone is the cause, and so forth.
44. Dasgupta, Partha (2021). "The Economics of Biodiversity: The Dasgupta Review Headline Messages" (PDF). UK Government. p. 3. Retrieved 15 December 2021. Growing human populations have significant implications for our demands on Nature, including for future patterns of global consumption.
45. Carrington, Damian (2 February 2021). "Economics of biodiversity review: what are the recommendations?". The Guardian. Retrieved 15 December 2021.
46. Piper, Kelsey (20 August 2019). "We've worried about overpopulation for centuries. And we've always been wrong". Vox. Retrieved 23 October 2021.
47. Welle, Deutsche (31 August 2020). "What fewer people on the planet would mean for the environment". Deutsche Welle. Retrieved 23 October 2021.
48. Pearce, Fred (8 March 2010). "The overpopulation myth". Prospect Magazine.
49. Dirzo, Rodolfo; Ceballos, Gerardo; Ehrlich, Paul R. (2022). "Circling the drain: the extinction crisis and the future of humanity". Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B. 377 (1857). doi:10.1098/rstb.2021.0378. PMC 9237743. PMID 35757873. S2CID 250055843. It is clear that only a giant change in human culture can significantly limit the extinction crisis. Humanity must face the need to reduce birth rates further, especially among the overconsuming wealthy and middle classes. In addition, a reduction of wasteful consumption will be necessary, accompanied by a transition away from environmentally malign technological choices such as private automobiles, plastic everything, and treating billionaires to space tourism. Otherwise growthmania will win; the human enterprise will not undergo the needed shrinkage, but will continue to expand, destroying most of biodiversity and further wrecking the life-support systems of humanity until global civilization collapses
50. van der Warf, Hayo; Petit, Jean (December 2002). "Evaluation of the environmental impact of agriculture at the farm level: a comparison and analysis of 12 indicator-based methods". Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment. 93 (1–3): 131–145. Bibcode:2002AgEE...93..131V. doi:10.1016/S0167-8809(01)00354-1.
51. Oppenlander 2013, pp. 120–123.
52. Borenstein, Seth (6 May 2019). "UN report: Humans accelerating extinction of other species". AP News. from the original on 1 March 2021. Retrieved 25 March 2021.
53. Myers, R. A.; Worm, B. (2003). "Rapid worldwide depletion of predatory fish communities". Nature. 423 (6937): 280–283. Bibcode:2003Natur.423..280M. doi:10.1038/nature01610. PMID 12748640. S2CID 2392394.
54. "The World Counts". www.theworldcounts.com. Retrieved 11 February 2022.
55. Worm, Boris; Barbier, E. B.; Beaumont, N.; Duffy, J. E.; Folke, C.; Halpern, B. S.; Jackson, J. B. C.; Lotze, H. K.; et al. (3 November 2006). "Impacts of Biodiversity Loss on Ocean Ecosystem Services". Science. 314 (5800): 787–790. Bibcode:2006Sci...314..787W. doi:10.1126/science.1132294. PMID 17082450. S2CID 37235806.
56. Eilperin, Juliet (2 November 2009). "Seafood Population Depleted by 2048, Study Finds". The Washington Post. from the original on 14 September 2018. Retrieved 12 December 2017.
57. "Document card | FAO | Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations". Food and Agriculture Organization. from the original on 13 July 2018. Retrieved 27 December 2018.
58. "State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2018". Sustainable Fisheries UW. 10 July 2018. from the original on 14 July 2018. Retrieved 27 December 2018.
59. Einhorn, Catrin (27 January 2021). "Shark Populations Are Crashing, With a 'Very Small Window' to Avert Disaster". The New York Times. from the original on 31 January 2021. Retrieved 31 January 2021.
60. Pacoureau, Nathan; Rigby, Cassandra L.; Kyne, Peter M.; Sherley, Richard B.; Winker, Henning; Carlson, John K.; Fordham, Sonja V.; Barreto, Rodrigo; Fernando, Daniel; Francis, Malcolm P.; Jabado, Rima W.; Herman, Katelyn B.; Liu, Kwang-Ming; Marshall, Andrea D.; Pollom, Riley A.; Romanov, Evgeny V.; Simpfendorfer, Colin A.; Yin, Jamie S.; Kindsvater, Holly K.; Dulvy, Nicholas K. (28 January 2021). "Half a century of global decline in oceanic sharks and rays". Nature. 589 (7843): 567–571. Bibcode:2021Natur.589..567P. doi:10.1038/s41586-020-03173-9. hdl:10871/124531. PMID 33505035. S2CID 231723355.
61. (PDF). Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Archived from the original (PDF) on 25 September 2020. Retrieved 30 March 2021.
62. van Hoorn, J. W. and J.G. van Alphen. 2006. Salinity control. In: H.P. Ritzema (ed.), Drainage Principles and Applications. Publication 16, International Institute for Land Reclamation and Improvement (ILRI), Wageningen, The Netherlands. pp. 533–600.
63. Effectiveness and Social/Environmental Impacts of Irrigation Projects: a Review. In: Annual Report 1988, International Institute for Land Reclamation and Improvement (ILRI), Wageningen, The Netherlands, pp. 18–34. Download from [1] 7 November 2009 at the Wayback Machine, under nr. 6, or directly as PDF
64. Thakkar, Himanshu (8 November 1999). (PDF). Dams.org. Archived from the original (PDF) on 10 October 2003.
65. Pearce, R. (2006). When the rivers run dry: Water – the defining crisis of the twenty-first century. Beacon Press. ISBN 0807085731.
66. Lal, R. and B. A. Stewart. 1990... Soil degradation. Springer-Verlag, New York.
67. Scherr, S. J. 1999. Soil degradation: a threat to developing country food security by 2020? International Food Policy Research Institute. Washington, D. C.
68. Oldeman, L. R.; Hakkeling, R. T. A.; Sambroek, W. G. (1990). (PDF). Isric.org. Archived from the original (PDF) on 21 February 2015. Retrieved 3 June 2015.
69. Eswaran, H., R. Lal and P. F. Reich. 2001. Land degradation: an overview. In. Bridges, E.M. et al. (eds.) Responses to Land Degradation. Proc. 2nd. Int. Conf. Land Degradation and Desertification, Khon Kaen, Thailand. Oxford Press, New Delhi, India.
70. "FAOSTAT". Food and Agriculture Organization. from the original on 11 May 2017. Retrieved 22 January 2020.
71. Montgomery, D. R. (2007). "Soil erosion and agricultural sustainability". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 104 (33): 13268–13272. Bibcode:2007PNAS..10413268M. doi:10.1073/pnas.0611508104. PMC 1948917. PMID 17686990.
72. NRCS. 2013. Summary report 2010 national resources inventory. United States Natural Resources Conservation Service. 163 pp.
73. Conacher, Arthur; Conacher, Jeanette (1995). Rural Land Degradation in Australia. South Melbourne, Victoria: Oxford University Press Australia. p. 2. ISBN 978-0-19-553436-8.
74. Johnson, D.L.; Ambrose, S.H.; Bassett, T.J.; Bowen, M.L.; Crummey, D.E.; Isaacson, J.S.; Johnson, D.N.; Lamb, P.; Saul, M.; Winter-Nelson, A.E. (1997). "Meanings of environmental terms". Journal of Environmental Quality. 26 (3): 581–589. Bibcode:1997JEnvQ..26..581J. doi:10.2134/jeq1997.00472425002600030002x.
75. Eswaran, H.; Lal, R.; Reich, P.F. (2001). . Responses to Land Degradation. Proc. 2nd. International Conference on Land Degradation and Desertification. New Delhi, India: Oxford Press. Archived from the original on 20 January 2012. Retrieved 5 February 2012.
76. Sample, Ian (31 August 2007). "Global food crisis looms as climate change and population growth strip fertile land". The Guardian. from the original on 29 April 2016. Retrieved 23 July 2008.
77. Damian Carrington, "Avoiding meat and dairy is 'single biggest way' to reduce your impact on Earth " 6 March 2020 at the Wayback Machine, The Guardian, 31 May 2018 (page visited on 19 August 2018).
78. Damian Carrington, "Humans just 0.01% of all life but have destroyed 83% of wild mammals – study" 11 September 2018 at the Wayback Machine, The Guardian, 21 May 2018 (page visited on 19 August 2018).
79. Steinfeld, H. et al. 2006. Livestock's Long Shadow: Environmental Issues and Options. Livestock, Environment and Development, FAO, Rome. 391 pp.
80. Oppenlander 2013.
81. Oppenlander 2013, pp. 17–25.
82. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2013). Climate change 2013, The physical science basis 24 May 2019 at the Wayback Machine. Fifth Assessment Report.
83. Dlugokencky, E. J.; Nisbet, E. G.; Fisher, R.; Lowry, D. (2011). "Global atmospheric methane: budget, changes and dangers". Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences. 369 (1943): 2058–2072. Bibcode:2011RSPTA.369.2058D. doi:10.1098/rsta.2010.0341. PMID 21502176.
84. Boadi, D. (2004). "Mitigation strategies to reduce enteric methane emissions from dairy cows: Update review". Can. J. Anim. Sci. 84 (3): 319–335. doi:10.4141/a03-109.
85. Martin, C. (2010). et al. "Methane mitigation in ruminants: from microbe to the farm scale". Animal. 4 (3): 351–365. doi:10.1017/S1751731109990620. PMID 22443940. S2CID 13739536.
86. Eckard, R. J.; et al. (2010). "Options for the abatement of methane and nitrous oxide from ruminant production: A review". Livestock Science. 130 (1–3): 47–56. doi:10.1016/j.livsci.2010.02.010.
87. Dalal, R.C.; et al. (2003). "Nitrous oxide emission from Australian agricultural lands and mitigation options: a review". Australian Journal of Soil Research. 41 (2): 165–195. doi:10.1071/sr02064. S2CID 4498983.
88. Klein, C. A. M.; Ledgard, S. F. (2005). "Nitrous oxide emissions from New Zealand agriculture – key sources and mitigation strategies". Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems. 72 (1): 77–85. Bibcode:2005NCyAg..72...77D. doi:10.1007/s10705-004-7357-z. S2CID 42756018.
89. Mekonnen, M. M. and Hoekstra, A. Y. (2010). The green, blue and grey water footprint of farm animals and animal products. Vol. 2: appendices. Value of Water Research Report Series No. 48. UNESCO-IHE Institute for Water Education.
90. US EPA. 2000. Profile of the agricultural livestock production industry. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Compliance. EPA/310-R-00-002. 156 pp.
91. US EPA, OECA (19 March 2015). "Agriculture". US EPA. from the original on 4 August 2015. Retrieved 22 January 2020.
92. Capper, J. L. (2011). "The environmental impact of beef production in the United States: 1977 compared with 2007". J. Anim. Sci. 89 (12): 4249–4261. doi:10.2527/jas.2010-3784. PMID 21803973.
93. . US Department of Agriculture. Archived from the original on 10 May 2015.
94. Launchbaugh, K. (ed.) 2006. Targeted Grazing: a natural approach to vegetation management and landscape enhancement. American Sheep Industry. 199 pp.
95. Holechek, Jerry L.; Valdez, Raul; Schemnitz, Sanford D.; Pieper, Rex D.; Davis, Charles A. (1982). "Manipulation of Grazing to Improve or Maintain Wildlife Habitat". Wildlife Society Bulletin. 10 (3): 204–210. JSTOR 3781006.
96. Manley, J. T.; Schuman, G. E.; Reeder, J. D.; Hart, R. H. (1995). "Rangeland soil carbon and nitrogen responses to grazing". J. Soil Water Cons. 50: 294–298.
97. Franzluebbers, A.J.; Stuedemann, J. A. (2010). "Surface soil changes during twelve years of pasture management in the southern Piedmont USA". Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 74 (6): 2131–2141. Bibcode:2010SSASJ..74.2131F. doi:10.2136/sssaj2010.0034.
98. Hance, Jeremy (20 October 2015). "How humans are driving the sixth mass extinction". The Guardian. from the original on 8 April 2019. Retrieved 24 January 2017.
99. Morell, Virginia (11 August 2015). "Meat-eaters may speed worldwide species extinction, study warns". Science. from the original on 20 December 2016. Retrieved 24 January 2017.
100. Machovina, B.; Feeley, K. J.; Ripple, W. J. (2015). "Biodiversity conservation: The key is reducing meat consumption". Science of the Total Environment. 536: 419–431. Bibcode:2015ScTEn.536..419M. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.07.022. PMID 26231772.
101. Watts, Jonathan (6 May 2019). "Human society under urgent threat from loss of Earth's natural life". The Guardian. from the original on 14 June 2019. Retrieved 18 May 2019.
102. McGrath, Matt (6 May 2019). "Nature crisis: Humans 'threaten 1m species with extinction'". BBC. from the original on 30 June 2019. Retrieved 1 July 2019.
103. Bland, Alastair (1 August 2012). "Is the Livestock Industry Destroying the Planet?". Smithsonian. Archived from the original on 3 March 2018. Retrieved 2 August 2019. The global scope of the livestock issue is huge. A 212-page online report published by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization says 26 percent of the earth's terrestrial surface is used for livestock grazing.
104. Rosner, Hillary (December 2018). . National Geographic. Archived from the original on 14 November 2020. Retrieved 30 March 2021.
105. Butler, Rhett A. (31 March 2021). "Global forest loss increases in 2020". Mongabay. from the original on 1 April 2021. ● Mongabay publishing data from "Forest Loss / How much tree cover is lost globally each year?". research.WRI.org. World Resources Institute — Global Forest Review. 2023. Archived from the original on 2 August 2023.
106. "Palm Oil". WWF. from the original on 11 February 2021. Retrieved 22 January 2021.
107. Meijaard, Erik (7 December 2020). "The environmental impacts of palm oil in context". Nature Plants. 6 (12): 1418–1426. doi:10.1038/s41477-020-00813-w. PMID 33299148.
108. Rival A, Levang P (2014). Palms of controversies: Oil palm and development challenges. CIFOR. pp. 34–37. ISBN 9786021504413.
109. RSPO. "About". RSPO. from the original on 24 December 2020. Retrieved 23 January 2021.
110. Chertow, M.R. (2001). "The IPAT equation and its variants". Journal of Industrial Ecology. 4 (4): 13–29. doi:10.1162/10881980052541927. S2CID 153623657.
111. Huesemann, Michael H.; Huesemann, Joyce A. (2011). "6: Sustainability or Collapse?". . New Society Publishers. ISBN 978-0865717046. Archived from the original on 10 April 2020.
112. Carrington, Damian (15 April 2021). "Just 3% of world's ecosystems remain intact, study suggests". The Guardian. Retrieved 16 April 2021.
113. Plumptre, Andrew J.; Baisero, Daniele; et al. (2021). "Where Might We Find Ecologically Intact Communities?". Frontiers in Forests and Global Change. 4. Bibcode:2021FrFGC...4.6635P. doi:10.3389/ffgc.2021.626635. hdl:10261/242175.
114. Fleischer, Evan (2 November 2019). "Report: Just 23% of Earth's wilderness remains". Big Think. from the original on 6 March 2019. Retrieved 3 March 2019.
115. Wilson, Maxwell C.; Chen, Xiao-Yong; Corlett, Richard T.; Didham, Raphael K.; Ding, Ping; Holt, Robert D.; Holyoak, Marcel; Hu, Guang; Hughes, Alice C.; Jiang, Lin; Laurance, William F.; Liu, Jiajia; Pimm, Stuart L.; Robinson, Scott K.; Russo, Sabrina E.; Si, Xingfeng; Wilcove, David S.; Wu, Jianguo; Yu, Mingjian (February 2016). "Habitat fragmentation and biodiversity conservation: key findings and future challenges". Landscape Ecology. 31 (2): 219–227. Bibcode:2016LaEco..31..219W. doi:10.1007/s10980-015-0312-3. S2CID 15027351.
116. Datta, S. (2018). The Effects of Habitat Destruction of the Environment. Retrieved from https://sciencing.com/effects-habitat-destruction-environment-8403681.html
117. "Anthropocene: Have humans created a new geological age?". BBC News. 10 May 2011. from the original on 23 October 2018. Retrieved 21 July 2018.
118. May, R.M. (1988). "How many species are there on earth?" (PDF). Science. 241 (4872): 1441–9. Bibcode:1988Sci...241.1441M. doi:10.1126/science.241.4872.1441. PMID 17790039. S2CID 34992724. (PDF) from the original on 24 April 2013. Retrieved 13 May 2013.
119. Sahney, Benton & Ferry 2010.
120. Cafaro, Philip; Hansson, Pernilla; Götmark, Frank (August 2022). "Overpopulation is a major cause of biodiversity loss and smaller human populations are necessary to preserve what is left" (PDF). Biological Conservation. 272. 109646. Bibcode:2022BCons.27209646C. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2022.109646. ISSN 0006-3207. S2CID 250185617.
121. Crist, Eileen; Mora, Camilo; Engelman, Robert (21 April 2017). "The interaction of human population, food production, and biodiversity protection". Science. 356 (6335): 260–264. Bibcode:2017Sci...356..260C. doi:10.1126/science.aal2011. PMID 28428391. S2CID 12770178. Retrieved 1 January 2023.
122. Wiedmann, Thomas; Lenzen, Manfred; Keyßer, Lorenz T.; Steinberger, Julia K. (2020). "Scientists' warning on affluence". Nature Communications. 11 (3107): 3107. Bibcode:2020NatCo..11.3107W. doi:10.1038/s41467-020-16941-y. PMC 7305220. PMID 32561753.
123. Pimm, S. L.; Jenkins, C. N.; Abell, R.; Brooks, T. M.; Gittleman, J. L.; Joppa, L. N.; Raven, P. H.; Roberts, C. M.; Sexton, J. O. (30 May 2014). "The biodiversity of species and their rates of extinction, distribution, and protection" (PDF). Science. 344 (6187): 1246752. doi:10.1126/science.1246752. PMID 24876501. S2CID 206552746. (PDF) from the original on 7 January 2020. Retrieved 15 December 2016. The overarching driver of species extinction is human population growth and increasing per capita consumption.
124. Ceballos, Gerardo; Ehrlich, Paul R. (2023). "Mutilation of the tree of life via mass extinction of animal genera". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 120 (39): e2306987120. Bibcode:2023PNAS..12006987C. doi:10.1073/pnas.2306987120. PMC 10523489. PMID 37722053. Current generic extinction rates will likely greatly accelerate in the next few decades due to drivers accompanying the growth and consumption of the human enterprise such as habitat destruction, illegal trade, and climate disruption.
125. Cowie, Robert H.; Bouchet, Philippe; Fontaine, Benoît (2022). "The Sixth Mass Extinction: fact, fiction or speculation?". Biological Reviews. 97 (2): 640–663. doi:10.1111/brv.12816. PMC 9786292. PMID 35014169. S2CID 245889833.
126. Sankaran, Vishwam (17 January 2022). "Study confirms sixth mass extinction is currently underway, caused by humans". The Independent. Retrieved 17 January 2022.
127. Ceballos, Gerardo; Ehrlich, Paul R.; Raven, Peter H. (1 June 2020). "Vertebrates on the brink as indicators of biological annihilation and the sixth mass extinction". PNAS. 117 (24): 13596–13602. Bibcode:2020PNAS..11713596C. doi:10.1073/pnas.1922686117. PMC 7306750. PMID 32482862.
128. Vidal, John (15 March 2019). "The Rapid Decline Of The Natural World Is A Crisis Even Bigger Than Climate Change". The Huffington Post. from the original on 3 October 2019. Retrieved 16 March 2019.
129. Dirzo, Rodolfo; Young, Hillary S.; Galetti, Mauro; Ceballos, Gerardo; Isaac, Nick J. B.; Collen, Ben (2014). "Defaunation in the Anthropocene" (PDF). Science. 345 (6195): 401–406. Bibcode:2014Sci...345..401D. doi:10.1126/science.1251817. PMID 25061202. S2CID 206555761. (PDF) from the original on 11 May 2017. Retrieved 25 November 2017.
130. Greenfield, Patrick (9 September 2020). "Humans exploiting and destroying nature on unprecedented scale – report". The Guardian. from the original on 9 September 2020. Retrieved 10 September 2020.
131. Cockburn, Harry; Boyle, Louise (9 September 2020). "Natural world being destroyed at rate 'never seen before', WWF warns as report reveals catastrophic decline of global wildlife". The Independent. from the original on 10 September 2020. Retrieved 10 September 2020.
132. Ceballos, G.; Ehrlich, A. H.; Ehrlich, P. R. (2015). The Annihilation of Nature: Human Extinction of Birds and Mammals. Baltimore, Maryland: Johns Hopkins University Press. pp. 135 ISBN 1421417189 – via Open Edition.
133. Plumer, Brad (6 May 2019). "Humans Are Speeding Extinction and Altering the Natural World at an 'Unprecedented' Pace". The New York Times. from the original on 14 June 2019. Retrieved 10 May 2019.
134. Staff (6 May 2019). "Media Release: Nature's Dangerous Decline 'Unprecedented'; Species Extinction Rates 'Accelerating'". Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. from the original on 14 June 2019. Retrieved 10 May 2019.
135. "Decreasing biodiversity affects productivity of remaining plants". Science Direct. 20 April 2015. from the original on 2 April 2019. Source: University of Alaska Fairbanks
136. McKim S, Halpin C (5 June 2019). "'Plant blindness' is obscuring the extinction crisis for non-animal species". The Conversation.
137. Simberloff, Daniel (10 October 2013). "How Are Species Introductions Regulated?". Invasive Species. Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/wentk/9780199922017.003.0008. ISBN 978-0-19-992201-7.
138. "Cats kill more than 1.5 billion native animals per year". ANU. 9 July 2019. Retrieved 1 May 2021.
139. . Florida Fish And Wildlife Conservation Commission. Archived from the original on 7 May 2021. Retrieved 10 May 2021.
140. "Animals and Rabies | Rabies | CDC". Centres for Diseases Control. 25 September 2020. Retrieved 10 May 2021.
141. Janos, Adam. "How Burmese Pythons Took Over the Florida Everglades". HISTORY. Retrieved 12 May 2021.
142. "How have invasive pythons impacted Florida ecosystems?". USGS. Retrieved 12 May 2021.
143. "Coral reefs around the world". Guardian.com. 2 September 2009. Retrieved 12 June 2010.
144. Nace, Trevor (24 February 2020). "Nearly All Coral Reefs Will Disappear Over The Next 20 Years, Scientists Say". Forbes. Retrieved 15 July 2021.
145. Wilkinson, Clive (2008) Status of Coral Reefs of the World: Executive Summary. Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network.
146. "Reefs at Risk Revisited" (PDF). World Resources Institute. February 2011. Retrieved 16 March 2012.
147. Kleypas, Joan A.; Feely, Richard A.; Fabry, Victoria J.; Langdon, Chris; Sabine, Christopher L.; Robbins, Lisa L. (June 2006). (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 20 July 2011. Retrieved 1 February 2011.
148. Von Sperling, Marcos (2007). "Wastewater Characteristics, Treatment and Disposal". IWA Publishing. 6. doi:10.2166/9781780402086. ISBN 978-1-78040-208-6.   Text was copied from this source, which is available under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
149. Eckenfelder Jr WW (2000). Kirk‐Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology. John Wiley & Sons. doi:10.1002/0471238961.1615121205031105.a01. ISBN 978-0-471-48494-3.
150. "Water Pollution". Environmental Health Education Program. Cambridge, MA: Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. 23 July 2013. from the original on 18 September 2021. Retrieved 18 September 2021.
151. Moss B (February 2008). "Water pollution by agriculture". Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences. 363 (1491): 659–666. doi:10.1098/rstb.2007.2176. PMC 2610176. PMID 17666391.
152. "The Causes of Climate Change". climate.nasa.gov. NASA. from the original on 21 December 2019.
153. "Climate Science Special Report / Fourth National Climate Assessment (NCA4), Volume I". U.S. Global Change Research Program. from the original on 14 December 2019.
154. IPCC (2019). Pörtner, H.-O.; Roberts, D.C.; Masson-Delmotte, V.; Zhai, P.; et al. (eds.). IPCC Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate (PDF). IPCC.
155. "Extreme Weather and Climate Change". NASA.gov. National Aeronautics and Space Administration. September 2023. from the original on 26 October 2023.
156. "The Study of Earth as an Integrated System". nasa.gov. NASA. 2016. from the original on 2 November 2016.
157. Oppenlander 2013, p. 31.
158. (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 26 February 2014. Retrieved 24 September 2014.
159. . National Geographic. 28 February 2019. Archived from the original on 19 January 2017.
160. Jones N., (2016). How Growing Sea Plants Can Help Slow Ocean Acidification. Retrieved from https://e360.yale.edu/features/kelp_seagrass_slow_ocean_acidification_netarts
161. "Twenty Questions and Answers About the Ozone Layer" (PDF). Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion: 2010. World Meteorological Organization. 2011. (PDF) from the original on 5 March 2013. Retrieved 13 March 2015.
162. Gruijl, Frank de; Leun, Jan (3 October 2000). "Environment and health: 3. Ozone depletion and ultraviolet radiation". CMAJ. 163 (7): 851–855. PMC 80511. PMID 11033716 – via www.cmaj.ca.
163. Andino, Jean M. (21 October 1999). "Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are heavier than air, so how do scientists suppose that these chemicals reach the altitude of the ozone layer to adversely affect it ?". Scientific American. 264: 68.
164. "Part III. The Science of the Ozone Hole". Retrieved 5 March 2007.
165. "Ultraviolet (UV) Radiation". www.cancer.org. Retrieved 6 April 2022.
166. "The Montreal Protocol on Substances That Deplete the Ozone Layer". United States Department of State. Retrieved 6 April 2022.
167. Jesus, Guilherme; Aguiar, Martim L.; Gaspar, Pedro D. (14 November 2022). "Computational Tool to Support the Decision in the Selection of Alternative and/or Sustainable Refrigerants". Energies. 15 (22): 8497. doi:10.3390/en15228497. ISSN 1996-1073.
168. Antara Banerjee; et al. (2020). "A pause in Southern Hemisphere circulation trends due to the Montreal Protocol". Vol. 579. Nature. pp. 544–548. doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2120-4.
169. "The Antarctic Ozone Hole Will Recover". NASA. 4 June 2015. Retrieved 5 August 2017.
170. Bowden, John (21 October 2019). "Ozone hole shrinks to lowest size since 1982, unrelated to climate change: NASA". The Hill. Retrieved 22 October 2019.
171. Ansari, Talal (23 October 2019). "Ozone Hole Above Antarctica Shrinks to Smallest Size on Record". The Wall Street Journal – via www.wsj.com.
172. "The Ozone Hole-The Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer". Theozonehole.com. 16 September 1987. Retrieved 15 May 2019.
173. "Background for International Day for the Preservation of the Ozone Layer - 16 September". www.un.org. Retrieved 15 May 2019.
174. "The Week". No. 1418. Future PLC. 14 January 2023. p. 2.
175. John T. Houghton, Y. Ding, D. J. Griggs, M. Noguer, P. J. van der Linden, X. Dai, K. Maskell, and C. A. Johnson. 2001. IPCC Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Contribution of Working Group I in the Third Assessment Report of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press
176. Schlesinger, W. H. 1997. Biogeochemistry : An analysis of global change, San Diego, CA.
177. Galloway, J. N.; Aber, J. D.; Erisman, J. N. W.; Seitzinger, S. P.; Howarth, R. W.; Cowling, E. B.; Cosby, B. J. (2003). "The Nitrogen Cascade". BioScience. 53 (4): 341. doi:10.1641/0006-3568(2003)053[0341:TNC]2.0.CO;2. S2CID 3356400.
178. Houdijk, A. L. F. M.; Verbeek, P. J. M.; Dijk, H. F. G.; Roelofs, J. G. M. (1993). "Distribution and decline of endangered herbaceous heathland species in relation to the chemical composition of the soil". Plant and Soil. 148 (1): 137–143. Bibcode:1993PlSoi.148..137H. doi:10.1007/BF02185393. S2CID 22600629.
179. Commoner, B. (1971). The closing cycle – Nature, man, and technology, Alfred A. Knopf.
180. Faber, M., Niemes, N. and Stephan, G. (2012). Entropy, environment, and resources, Springer Verlag, Berlin, Germany, ISBN 3642970494.
181. Kümmel, R. (1989). "Energy as a factor of production and entropy as a pollution indicator in macroeconomic modeling". Ecological Economics. 1 (2): 161–180. doi:10.1016/0921-8009(89)90003-7.
182. Ruth, M. (1993). Integrating economics, ecology, and thermodynamics. Kluwer Academic Publishers. ISBN 0792323777.
183. Huesemann, Michael H.; Huesemann, Joyce A. (2011). "1: The inherent unpredictability and unavoidability of unintended consequences". . New Society Publishers. ISBN 978-0865717046. Archived from the original on 10 April 2020.
184. Logging of forests and debris dumping 1 July 2017 at the Wayback Machine. Ngm.nationalgeographic.com (17 October 2002). Retrieved on 11 May 2012.
185. Chibuike, G. U., & Obiora, S. C. (2014). Heavy metal polluted soils: effect on plants and bioremediation methods. Applied and environmental soil science, 2014.
186. Poisoning by mines 26 July 2017 at the Wayback Machine. Ngm.nationalgeographic.com (17 October 2002). Retrieved on 11 May 2012.
187. Jiwan, S., & Ajah, K. S. (2011). Effects of heavy metals on soil, plants, human health and aquatic life. International Journal of Research in Chemistry and Environment, 1(2), 15–21.
188. Kay, J. (2002). , pp. 72–107 in: Kibert C., Sendzimir J., Guy, B. (eds.) Construction Ecology: Nature as the Basis for Green Buildings, London: Spon Press, ISBN 0203166140.
189. Baksh, B.; Fiksel, J. (2003). (PDF). AIChE Journal. 49 (6): 1350–1358. Bibcode:2003AIChE..49.1350B. doi:10.1002/aic.690490602. Archived from the original (PDF) on 20 July 2011. Retrieved 16 March 2011.
190. USDA-USDoE. (1998). Life cycle inventory of biodiesel and petroleum diesel in an urban bus. NREL/SR-580-24089 UC Category 1503.
191. Huo, H.; Wang, M.; Bloyd, C.; Putsche, V. (2009). "Life-cycle assessment of energy use and greenhouse gas emissions of soybean-derived biodiesel and renewable fuels". Environ. Sci. Technol. 43 (3): 750–756. Bibcode:2009EnST...43..750H. doi:10.1021/es8011436. PMID 19245012.
192. Atadashi, I. M; Arou, M. K.; Aziz, A. A. (2010). "High quality biodiesel and its diesel engine application: a review". Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 14 (7): 1999–2008. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2010.03.020.
193. "coal power: air pollution". Ucsusa.org. from the original on 15 January 2008. Retrieved 16 March 2011.
194. Fitzpatrick, Luke (15 March 2018). "Surface Coal Mining and Human Health: Evidence from West Virginia". Southern Economic Journal. 84 (4): 1109–1128. doi:10.1002/soej.12260.
195. Munawer, Muhammad (2018). "Human health and environmental impacts of coal combustion and post-combustion wastes". Journal of Sustainable Mining. 17 (2): 87–96. doi:10.1016/j.jsm.2017.12.007.
196. Moeller, Richard (13 March 2011). "I understand that, among mining's other problems, like providing climate-warming coal and endangering miners' lives, it is also a serious water polluter. Can you enlighten?". EarthTalk: Questions and Answers About Our Environment. A Weekly Column – via Earth Action Network, Inc.
197. Chabukdhara, Mayuri (25 May 2016). "Coal mining in northeast India: an overview of environmental issues and treatment approaches". International Journal of Coal Science & Technology. 3 (2): 87–96. doi:10.1007/s40789-016-0126-1.
198. "environmental impact of energy — European Environment Agency". www.eea.europa.eu. Retrieved 28 October 2021.
199. "What are the safest and cleanest sources of energy?". Our World in Data. Retrieved 17 February 2023.
200. "Coal - Fuels & Technologies". IEA. Retrieved 17 February 2023.
201. "Coal Was Meant to Be History. Instead, Its Use Is Soaring". Bloomberg.com. 4 November 2022. Retrieved 17 February 2023.
202. Smith, G. (2012). Nuclear roulette: The truth about the most dangerous energy source on earth. Chelsea Green Publishing. ISBN 978-1603584340.
203. Bartis, Jim (26 October 2006). (PDF). World Oil Conference. Boston: Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas. Archived from the original (PDF) on 21 July 2011. Retrieved 28 June 2007.
204. Buller, Erin (11 July 2008). . Uinta County Herald. Archived from the original on 31 July 2008. Retrieved 4 December 2008."The animals don't care at all. We find cows and antelope napping in the shade of the turbines." – Mike Cadieux, site manager, Wyoming Wind Farm
205. Dunnett, Sebastian; Holland, Robert A.; Taylor, Gail; Eigenbrod, Felix (8 February 2022). "Predicted wind and solar energy expansion has minimal overlap with multiple conservation priorities across global regions". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 119 (6). Bibcode:2022PNAS..11904764D. doi:10.1073/pnas.2104764119. ISSN 0027-8424. PMC 8832964. PMID 35101973.
206. "How Wind Energy Can Help Us Breathe Easier". Energy.gov. Retrieved 27 September 2022.
207. Begoña Guezuraga; Rudolf Zauner; Werner Pölz (January 2012). "Life cycle assessment of two different 2 MW class wind turbines". Renewable Energy. 37 (1): 37. doi:10.1016/j.renene.2011.05.008.
208. Thomas Kirchhoff (2014): Energiewende und Landschaftsästhetik. Versachlichung ästhetischer Bewertungen von Energieanlagen durch Bezugnahme auf drei intersubjektive Landschaftsideale 18 April 2016 at the Wayback Machine, in: Naturschutz und Landschaftsplanung 46 (1), 10–16.
209. What are the pros and cons of onshore wind energy?. Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment. January 2018.
210. "What are the pros and cons of onshore wind energy?". Grantham Research Institute on climate change and the environment. from the original on 22 June 2019. Retrieved 12 December 2020.
211. Nathan F. Jones, Liba Pejchar, Joseph M. Kiesecker. "The Energy Footprint: How Oil, Natural Gas, and Wind Energy Affect Land for Biodiversity and the Flow of Ecosystem Services". BioScience, Volume 65, Issue 3, March 2015. pp. 290–301
212. "Why Australia needs wind power" (PDF). (PDF) from the original on 3 March 2016. Retrieved 7 January 2012.
213. . British Wind Energy Association. Archived from the original on 19 April 2006. Retrieved 21 April 2006.
214. Loren D. Knopper, Christopher A. Ollson, Lindsay C. McCallum, Melissa L. Whitfield Aslund, Robert G. Berger, Kathleen Souweine, and Mary McDaniel, Wind Turbines and Human Health, [Frontiers of Public Health]. June 19, 2014; 2: 63.
215. . British Wind Energy Association. Archived from the original on 19 April 2006. Retrieved 21 April 2006.
216. Szarka, Joseph. Wind Power in Europe: Politics, Business and Society. Springer, 2007. p.176
217. Dodd, Eimear (27 March 2021). "Permission to build five turbine wind farm at Kilranelagh refused". Irish Independent. Retrieved 18 January 2022.
218. Kula, Adam (9 April 2021). "Department defends 500ft windfarm in protected Area of Outstanding Beauty". The News Letter. Retrieved 18 January 2022.
219. "Building wind farms 'could destroy Welsh landscape'". BBC News. 4 November 2019. Retrieved 18 January 2022.
220. Gordon, David. Wind farms and tourism in Scotland 21 September 2020 at the Wayback Machine. Mountaineering Council of Scotland. November 2017. p.3
221. Dunnett, Sebastian; Holland, Robert A.; Taylor, Gail; Eigenbrod, Felix (8 February 2022). "Predicted wind and solar energy expansion has minimal overlap with multiple conservation priorities across global regions". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 119 (6). Bibcode:2022PNAS..11904764D. doi:10.1073/pnas.2104764119. ISSN 0027-8424. PMC 8832964. PMID 35101973.
222. Parisé, J.; Walker, T. R. (2017). "Industrial wind turbine post-construction bird and bat monitoring: A policy framework for Canada". Journal of Environmental Management. 201: 252–259. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.06.052. PMID 28672197.
223. Hosansky, David (1 April 2011). "Wind Power: Is wind energy good for the environment?". CQ Researcher.
224. Katovich, Erik (9 January 2024). "Quantifying the Effects of Energy Infrastructure on Bird Populations and Biodiversity". Environmental Science & Technology. 58 (1): 323–332. doi:10.1021/acs.est.3c03899. ISSN 0013-936X.
225. "Wind turbines are friendlier to birds than oil-and-gas drilling". The Economist. ISSN 0013-0613. Retrieved 16 January 2024.
226. Parisé, J.; Walker, T. R. (2017). "Industrial wind turbine post-construction bird and bat monitoring: A policy framework for Canada". Journal of Environmental Management. 201: 252–259. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.06.052. PMID 28672197.
227. Joe Sneve (4 September 2019). "Sioux Falls landfill tightens rules after Iowa dumps dozens of wind turbine blades". Argus Leader. from the original on 24 November 2021. Retrieved 5 September 2019.
228. Rick Kelley (18 February 2018). "Retiring worn-out wind turbines could cost billions that nobody has". Valley Morning Star. from the original on 5 September 2019. Retrieved 5 September 2019. The blades are composite, those are not recyclable, those can't be sold," Linowes said. "The landfills are going to be filled with blades in a matter of no time.

January 19, 2024