SEARCH

By Stuart Nathan* In one of the more fondly remembered hits of the 1980s, a group called Buggles sang that “Video Killed the Radio Star.” They may have been right. However, it was their less well-remembered follow-up that was truly prescient. We are indeed "Living in the Plastic Age." According to some geologists, the Earth is now in an epoch known as the Anthropocene—a period where humanity’s impact on the planet will be obvious to future generations from examining geological samples. The term is not yet formally recognized, but geological societies around the world are considering it and using it informally in publications and conferences. While some believe that the epoch started with the Industrial Revolution and that its identifying characteristics will stem from the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide, one of the most obvious markers will certainly be the presence of plastics from the 1960s onwards. Every region of the globe, from the deepest oceanic trenches to the tops of the highest mountains, has been found to contain traces of synthetic polymers. Synthetic polymers are now ubiquitous. Every region of the globe, from the deepest oceanic trenches to the tops of the highest mountains, has been found to contain traces of them. One of the most worrying categories of plastics are microplastics. Microplastics are defined by the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration as any particle of plastic less than 5 mm in length, although many are much smaller. They are generally formed through the mechanical breakup of larger pieces of polymer, with notable mechanisms being laundering of clothing made from synthetic fibers and disposal of plastic waste in the oceans. Microplastic waste in the oceans can interfere with marine ecosystems. They accumulate in the stomachs and tissues of fish, other marine life and creatures that feed on them, alter marine behavior, reduce growth, and restrict reproduction. Although microplastics have not been proven to be directly toxic to humans, they are certainly non-nutritious and are bio-accumulative. As levels build up in the food chain, the amount of plastics in the human gut will likely increase. Aside from possible toxic effects of microplastic bioaccumulation, free-floating pollutants (such as polychlorinated biphenyls, heavy metal compounds and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons) tend to stick to the surface of microplastics, allowing these harmful substances to enter the body when the particles are ingested. These circumstances may well lead to negative health effects in the future. For this reason, health authorities are eager to reduce the amount of microplastic within the food chain. One way to remove microplastics from the food chain is to clean up the habitats of animals that occupy the food web. However, implementing and maintaining such a comprehensive removal process may be difficult and laborious. A more feasible means of removing microplastic waste from the environment may be to concentrate on reducing levels found in water supplies. As many of the sources of microplastics are domestic, removing them at water treatment plants serves a double purpose: it eliminates microplastics from drinking water, and also from treated water that is disgorged into rivers and the sea. A review of research into removal of microplastics by wastewater treatment processes was published in January 2021 in the journal, Environment International. Carried out by environmental scientists from three Chinese universities: Beijing University of Chemical Technology, the Beijing Technology and Business University, and Henan Normal University, the review centered around a meta-analysis of twenty-three primary papers covering microplastics in global wastewater treatment plants. Microplastic pollution comes from a variety of sources including nylon, synthetic clothes, polystyrene, and tires. The study looked at incoming waste streams containing from 0.28 particles per liter to 3.14×10,000 particles per liter and considered both the liquid and sludge effluents from the treatment plants. They found that filter-based treatment technologies performed best at removing microplastics. Fibers and particles of size 0.5 to 5 mm were easily separated by primary settling, while polyethylene and small size microplastics particles (less than 0.5 mm) were trapped by bacteria in the activated sludge of bioreactor systems. The papers analyzed in the Chinese study identified twenty-nine types of polymers in microplastic waste; of these, six polymer types were dominant: i) polyamides; ii) polyethylene terephthalate and polyester (that mainly originated from textiles and synthetic clothing); iii) polyethylene; iv) polypropylene, v) polystyrene and solid polyesters (that originated from the mechanical crushing of plastic products, and tire and textile manufacturing); and vi) rubber particles in road dust (that mostly originated from tires). Some other types of microplastic waste were region-specific; for example, wastewater specifically from Glasgow, Scotland, contained alkyds, which are widely used in industrial coatings. The Chinese study looked at the removal efficiency of a variety of treatment processes. These processes ranged from primary-stage procedures, such as grit and grease removal and settling procedures; secondary-stage processes such as A20 (anaerobic/anoxic/oxic tanks to remove nitrogen and phosphorus), biofilters and other bioreactors; and tertiary stage treatments such as ultraviolet, ozone, chlorination, biologically active filters, disc filters and rapid sand filters. Of the three stages, the primary and secondary methods were found to be approximately equally efficient at removing microplastics, but the tertiary methods yielded limited removal efficiencies. Filter-based technologies were found to be the most effective, although not without problems, such as when rapid sand filters broke microparticles into smaller pieces. Specific studies have shown that secondary stage membrane bioreactors can remove 99.9% of microplastic particles from water that had already gone through preliminary processing. A study at Aalto University in Finland found that the commonly used activated sludge process, a secondary stage procedure in which air or oxygen is blown into unsettled sewage to break down solid lumps and develop a biological 'soup' that digests the organic content, removed 99% of particles 20 micrometers to 5 mm in size. This appeared to be effective regardless of the type of polymer or the shape of the particles. Breaking down the treatment process, this study found that primary treatments removed 99% of ‘microlitter’, and 88% of the residue was removed by activated sludge treatment. Additional processes reduced the residue even further: membrane bioreactors removed an additional 99.9%; sand filtration, 97%; dissolved air flotation, 95%; and disc filtration, 40% to 98.5%. Biologically active filtration did not have any impact, the Finnish researchers added. Microplastics successfully removed from wastewater end up contaminating agricultural fields and the food supply when collected waste materials are used as fertilizer. Using this solid waste in brick production instead may be a key solution. However, removing microlitter, as the Aalto team calls it, from sewage waters does not eliminate the problem. The sludge resulting from wastewater treatment is often spread onto agricultural land. Abbas Mohajerani of the School of Engineering at the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology published a paper in the journal, Waste Management, in April 2020 stating that a total of 62,192 tons of microplastics are spread onto farmlands in the US, European Union, China, Canada, and Australia annually. These microplastics decompose in the soil to form nanoplastics. Mohajerani explained that nanoplastics are an even greater risk to health as their huge specific surface area allows them to transport significant quantities of toxic pollutants, such as those listed above, into the food chain. Mohajerani’s preferred solution to this problem is to mandate the addition of seven percent biosolids by weight into brick production worldwide. This would lock the microplastics into construction materials, where they cannot enter the food chain. Interestingly, this technique would have the added advantage of reducing the energy required for brick firing by over 12.5%. Some 1.5 billion bricks are produced every year worldwide. Considering that a recent study found that every thousand bricks contains over 5300 MJ of embodied energy and accounts for almost six tons of emitted carbon dioxide in its manufacture, this energy reduction might be a worthwhile goal in itself. *Stuart Nathan is a London-based freelance writer, specializing in science, engineering and technology.

By Robin Whitlock* 'Diffuse pollution' is pollution in which a variety of agents act collectively to inflict significant damage to freshwater ecosystems. Individually, these substances may not have much effect but, in combination, their impact is more serious. In rural areas for instance, the main sources of water pollution may include run-off from farmland, forests, and open spaces. Such instances of pollution can be caused or exacerbated by rainfall in combination with various land management practices. Agrochemicals, increased nutrients, fecal deposits, chemicals, and sediment can wash off the land into rivers and watercourses, thereby degrading drinking water supplies. A particular problem is eutrophication, the growth of blue-green algae on lakes and rivers, which can deplete oxygen and release toxins into the water. This is usually caused by excessive increases in nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus from farmland runoff. Soil erosion can be a particularly serious issue in areas of torrential rainfall. Wider environmental factors related to climate change, such as higher temperatures, lower river flows, and more frequent or severe flooding, can exacerbate existing water pollution. The State of Water in Europe Today In Europe, water quality standards are regulated by the Water Framework Directive (WFD), which was introduced within the European Union (EU) in 2000. EU member states are obliged by the Directive to publish River Basin Management Plans (RBMPs) that advise on how the requirements of the Directive will be met. Based on data collected in accordance with RBMPs from 2010 to 2015, the report “European Waters Assessment of Status and Pressures 2018,” was published by the European Environment Agency (EEA). This report identified a clear lack of progress by European water protection organizations to restore water resources to healthy conditions. This is a serious problem given that 75% of all water extracted annually comes from surface water resources such as rivers, lakes, and reservoirs. Around forty percent of that is consumed as drinking water. Challenges to Effective Action Point sources of water pollution, where pollution comes directly from a single discrete location, are easier to identify and control. Such incidences are, in general, regulated and under control in Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) member countries. In contrast, diffuse-source pollution remains generally unregulated and is a major problem. Diffuse pollution can come from a variety of sources, both natural and human-caused. Pollutants may follow several different routes (pathways) to their destination. They may also accumulate steadily over years before attaining detectable or noticeable levels. Difficulties in identifying the sources of pollutants hinder implementation of immediate or short-term solutions. Major Viable Investments to Deliver Improved Water Quality According to a 2017 OECD report, utilizing a combination of approaches would be most effective in managing pollution. Strengthening economic measures to make pollution a costly activity is one approach, but the most effective solution to water quality issues could be ‘nature-based solutions’ (NBS) such as planting of cover crops, riparian buffers, forest protection, and reforestation. In their 2020 report, “Resilient European Cities: Nature-Based Solutions for Clean Water,” the Nature Conservancy recommended that European countries prioritize NBS approaches in forthcoming River Basin Management plans for 2022-2027. The planting of cover crops emerged in the report as the NBS with the strongest potential, primarily because they are very effective at preventing sediment and nutrient runoff. Furthermore, cover crops offer the most cost-effective solution and incur the lowest costs. Riparian buffers, vegetated strips of land located along the borders rivers or streams, are less effective but can still be useful at a local level to prevent runoff from reaching waterways. Forest protection could also be an effective NBS measure. Forests, wetlands, and grasslands help to prevent water pollution, thereby functioning as an important regulator in the hydrological cycle. Of the 109 cities examined by the report, thirty-eight showed a high potential for reducing sediment pollution through forest protection. Reforestation has moderate or high potential in reducing phosphorous and sediment pollution in a significant number of the cities surveyed. Promising Case Studies VIENNA Vienna has established a forest protection zone in its catchment area, consisting of 700 square km of land set aside for water resource conservation. The city has also implemented specific agricultural and forestry management regulations aimed at conserving soil and water resources, particularly groundwater and spring water. MANCHESTER Manchester’s drinking water mostly comes from the Lake District and the River Irwell. However, drinking water provision and protection is the responsibility of UK utility company United Utilities. In 2018, this company, alongside the Environment Agency, helped to fund a tree survey carried out by Greater Manchester’s Community Forest, City of Trees. The aim was to develop a strategic model investigating the potential for green investments (GI) to assist water resource protection. It focused particularly on the River Irwell catchment area but has also been extended to cover the Upper and Lower Mersey catchments. United Utilities has also held auctions in which farmers can bid for funding to grow cover crops over winter in order to help prevent excessive leaching of nitrates into the soil which threatens groundwater. PARIS In Paris the city public water service provider, Eau de Paris, serves 3 million consumers. Since 2008, it has: provided farmers with financial assistance programs aimed at reducing fertilizer and pesticide use. helped farmers to adopt organic farming practices. helped farmers to develop market opportunities for their products. purchased land at risk of contamination, which is then leased to the farmers for one euro. In early 2020, Eau de Paris managed to acquire authorization from the European Commission (EC) to make direct payments to farmers in return for ecological services. This was not previously allowed by the EC as it was considered to be a form of subsidy. The rule change was a breakthrough moment as it could potentially pave the way for similar approaches in other cities. LYON Eau du Grand Lyon provides and distributes water in the metropolitan region of Grand Lyon. It does so under contract with the Lyon municipality and is actively protecting 375 hectares of land in the city center. Conserving natural ecosystems is more cost-effective than building a filtration plant and also delivers important biodiversity benefits. When tailored to local needs, nature-based solutions can be a valuable tool for protecting freshwater. By working together with nature’s own processes, human communities can make great strides in ultimately securing the future of our greatest resource. *Robin Whitlock is a freelance journalist based in the South West of England, UK and in particular a correspondent for Renewable Energy Magazine since 2011. He specializes in environmental issues, climate change and renewable energy, with other interests in transport, particularly rail, bus & coach and green motoring.

By Dr. Moses Kathuri Njeru* Known for its majestic scenery, Kenya is home to over 53 million people. As its economy continues to develop, twenty-seven percent of Kenya’s population, more than 14 million people and counting, are living in urban centers. In fact, the five major cities of Nairobi, Mombasa, Kisumu, Eldoret and Nakuru house almost two thirds of all urban dwellers. However, with progress comes new challenges. The increasing human population, industrialization and other human activities have rapidly increased the production of solid wastes. Unfortunately, the increases in Kenya’s wealth and population have not matched the capacity to handle the associated wastes generated. Each major region has attempted to meet this challenge with varied success. Kisumu’s Road to Recovery Kisumu County in western Kenya is home to over 1.1 million people. It is one of the most densely populated parts of the country. The county’s capital city Kisumu, on the shores of Lake Victoria, has a population of more than half a million, but 60% of this population is found in informal settlements. Approximately 500 metric tons (551 tons) of wastes is generated within the county on a daily basis. A fifth of that is collected and transported, while the remaining four-fifths accumulate in the open. There are several solid waste dump sites throughout the county with the Kachok dumpsite in Kisumu City being the largest. About 20% of the solid wastes generated in Kisumu County is burned in the open—in the markets, on the street sides, transfer points, at the dumpsite and in estates. Since there has been no formal system of waste separation, locals have engaged in the informal economy of waste recovery since the 1970s. Currently groups of youth have dominated waste recovery efforts at the Kachok dumpsite. When public waste management services are lacking, local people, including children, try to earn money as waste pickers in local dumpsites. In Kisumu County, the Department of Environment is responsible for provision of solid waste management services. In each of the five sub counties, there is an Environmental Officer reporting directly to the Chief Officer in Charge of the Environment. To guide the effective and efficient solid waste management in the County, the government developed the Kisumu County (Solid Waste Management) Act in 2015. The Kisumu Solid Waste Management Board established under the act, regulates and supervises all solid waste management issues. The act further provides for recycling of wastes and strengthening of public-private partnerships in environmental education and reduction of wastes. There are partnerships between the county government, civil society groups, and non-governmental organizations to enhance solid waste management. The county government has provided financial support to these non-state actors to acquire more efficient technologies and fund other public initiatives. These include setting up waste bins that allow citizens to sort waste easily, and the organization of monthly public clean-ups. Nakuru Organizes Governance Nakuru County is the third most populous county with a population of over 2.1 million. In 2017 estimates, the World Bank reported that Nakuru County generates about 513 metric tons (565 tons) of wastes daily. A great majority (80%) of these wastes are biodegradable while 20% is non-biodegradable. The Department of Environment, Natural Resources and Energy of the Nakuru County has the responsibility of waste management within the county. Broadly, the department is involved in policy and strategy development, setting household waste collection charges, cleaning of public spaces, issuing of permits for waste management activities and supervising waste collection. Due to limited financial and infrastructural resources, the county government concentrates on waste collection within the Central Business Districts of major towns. However, the county government has contracted forty Community Based Organizations (CBOs) to supplement its effort in waste management. The county is divided into forty units managed by one contracted CBO. Additionally, there are licensed (by county government and the National Environment Management Authority) individual actors involved in waste management who do not necessarily report to the county government. Mombasa Makes Headway With over 1.1 million people, Mombasa City is the second largest city after Nairobi. Mombasa County generates about 1000 metric tons (1100 tons) of solid wastes daily. It is estimated that 50% of this waste is collected and disposed of while the other half remains uncollected. The county has three dumpsites: Chanda, Mwakirunge, and Kibarani. In the past, Kibarani was preferred over the others because of its proximity to the source of the wastes. However, Mombasa County has worked to decommission this dumpsite and turn it into a recreational park as part of one of Kenya’s larger regeneration projects. Open burning of waste is an ongoing problem throughout Kenya. Local people rely on this method of waste disposal due to limited public waste collection and a lack of education on the harms it causes. The Department of Environment headed by a Director, is in charge of solid waste management in the county. To ease collection, transportation and disposal of wastes, the county is zoned into four areas with a superintendent in charge of each zone. There are many initiatives geared towards solid waste management including: Guidelines and Capacity Building Framework for Waste Collection in High Density & Unserviced Areas in Mombasa County. Standard Operating Procedures for Recycling and Solid Waste Collection in High Density and Unserviced areas. Service Level Agreement for Recycling and Solid Waste Collection Services in Mombasa County. Of all counties, Mombasa has the most waste collection equipment, including heavy equipment and a fleet of more than eighty trucks for solid waste management. Despite the huge number of waste collection trucks, almost fifty percent of the solid wastes in Mombasa remain uncollected. Delayed collection of wastes attracts informal recovery activities and open burning at those temporary collection points. The human resources to operate the trucks and equipment may not be adequate. There is no formalized waste separation. However, few CBOs and individual actors pick waste either at disposal points or at collection points. Nairobi Develops A Plan Nairobi County is the capital city of Kenya. It has a population of over 4.4 million people and produces about 2,400 metric tons (2600 tons) of wastes daily, out of which 600 metric tons (660 tons) remains uncollected. Two legal documents guide waste management in the county: the Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan (ISWMP) revised in 2010 and Nairobi City County Solid Waste Management (SWM) Act of 2015. The Act recognizes that solid waste management is a shared responsibility among waste generators, owners and occupiers of premises, contracted service providers among others. The Act acknowledges the importance of public participation for effective solid waste management. The Department of Environment of Nairobi County Government has a leading role in solid waste management in the county. The Chief Officer for Environment, Water, Energy and Natural Resources directs the daily operations in the department regarding waste management. In executing this function, the Chief Officer is supported by the seventeen sub-county environmental officers as well as enforcement officers within the department. The county government has disposal sites, heavy equipment, and a fleet of trucks for solid waste management. Although Dandora dumpsite is the only designated disposal site for solid waste in the county, experts have long observed that the site is full and a source of pollution to the neighborhood. A number of CBOs, youth groups and private waste handling companies supplement the work of the county in solid waste management. The county government also works closely with the Kenya Alliance of Residents Association (KARA) in the development of waste regulations, NEMA in enhancing compliance and enforcement, and the United Nations Environment Programme on matters of carbon emissions as it relates to burning waste. These non-state actors are involved in the promotion of the "three Rs" (reduce, reuse, recycle) and environmental education. Eldoret Struggles to Move Forward The town of Eldoret is the fifth largest and fastest growing urban center with a total population of more than 470,000 people. Eldoret generates about 600 metric tons (660 tons) of wastes daily, with 55% being collected, 15% recovered, and 45% percent remaining uncollected. Poor infrastructure, limited education, and a lack of economic incentives make improving the waste management system in Eldoret difficult. Open dumpsites need more sophisticated management to overcome years of environmental neglect. The management of solid waste in Eldoret is the responsibility of the Department of Environment and Enforcement under the county government of Uasin Gishu. The county government uses the open disposal method for solid wastes. The current open dumpsite is an over-thirty-year-old, discarded quarry which was converted into a waste disposal site without much environmental considerations. Because the site is full, the waste transporters are forced to dispose of the wastes in undesignated sites. The road to the site is impassable during rainy seasons. Ongoing Challenges of Solid Waste Management in Urban Centers Eldoret exemplifies the key challenges to sustainable solid waste management in Kenya. Although there are incinerators in the cities and major towns, some were designed and constructed without eco-friendly considerations. The prevalence of uncontrolled burning of waste continues to release toxic emissions including persistent organic pollutants that build up in the environment. Fluctuating prices for different types of wastes also create uncertainty for stakeholders. Often the public does not have adequate environmental education and training on the three Rs. There is little to incentivize private collectors to participate in solid waste management. Local governments lack the financial, technical, and organizational resources necessary to effectively collect and manage all the wastes generated within the county. An inadequate policy framework falls short on improving the involvement of non-state actors in waste management. Particularly, there is a lack of designated sites for all relevant stakeholders and private entities. The relaxed implementation and monitoring of solid waste laws and regulations make the challenges even more difficult to overcome. *Dr. Moses Kathuri Njeru is a Ph.D. holder in Environmental Sciences, Masters of Arts in Environmental Planning and Management and B.Sc. in Environmental Science. Dr. Njeru is a Lecturer of Environmental Sciences with over ten years teaching and research experience at Chuka University, Kenya. His interests are in waste management, gender and environment, and sustainable management of agroecosystems.

By Dhanada K Mishra* The cycle has come full circle. From competing with increasingly efficient ways of exploiting natural capital and converting it into produced capital (goods and services), mankind is now faced with the challenge of rapidly reversing course or facing catastrophe. In 2019 the treasury department of the United Kingdom commissioned Professor Sir Partha Dasgupta of Cambridge University to carry out a comprehensive global review of the economics of biodiversity. Coming on the heels of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s ‘Special Report: Global Warming of 1.5ºC’ and the onset of the global pandemic, the review couldn’t have been better timed. With the delayed United Nations Biodiversity conference scheduled for later this year, the report assumes even greater significance. It was important that the scope of the review was global and the mandate was for an economic review commissioned by the treasury rather than the environment department. What ecologists and environmentalists have been saying since the 1970s finally had a willing ear among those in power worried about the future risks for global finance. Their time had finally come! Today, we ourselves, together with the livestock we rear for food, constitute ninety-six percent of the mass of all mammals on the planet. Only four percent is everything else — from elephants to badgers, from moose to monkeys.” — Sir David Attenborough The reaction to the 610-page report released in early February has been almost universally positive. Luminaries ranging from Sir David Attenborough to Prince Charles and the Prime Minister of the UK, not to speak of eminent academicians from diverse domains, have praised the report for its depth, vision, lucidity, and courage to prescribe some tough yet much-needed action. The great naturalist Sir David Attenborough captured the crisis well in his foreword. “Today, we ourselves, together with the livestock we rear for food, constitute ninety-six percent of the mass of all mammals on the planet. Only four percent is everything else—from elephants to badgers, from moose to monkeys. We are destroying biodiversity, the very characteristic that until recently enabled the natural world to flourish so abundantly. If we continue this damage, whole ecosystems will collapse. That is now a real risk.” The Dasgupta review establishes the enormity of the crisis beyond doubt, with a mountain of evidence drawn from the best of recent research. Does the report have any weaknesses? Judging by the overwhelmingly positive reaction full of hope and optimism that the report will finally lead to effective action, it would not seem it has. However, there are some voices of concern, particularly regarding the idea of treating nature as capital. ‘Natural capital’ is defined as the idea of natural resource production independent of human intervention. It has been the source for extraction as well as the sink for dumping all of our waste to create much of our ‘produced’ and ‘human’ capital. Yet, its depreciation has never been accounted for. This free ride has been hailed and indeed the efficiency with which humans could exploit natural capital was considered the hallmark of progress and civilization. Therefore, there is a fundamental concern that treating nature as ‘capital’ would not help address the crux of the existential crisis faced by humanity. The Dasgupta review is broadly divided into two major parts. The first part of the review is about establishing in rigorous yet accessible terms the journey to the precipice, particularly in the period starting in 1970. The last fifty years have been epoch-making in human history in the way exponential change has taken place in a very short period. Global gross domestic product (GDP) per capita has increased about four times, average life expectancy from forty-nine to seventy-six years, absolute poverty has fallen from 60% to around 10%, and so on. The list of human achievements is endless in the period we have come to know as the ‘Anthropocene’—an age where the homo sapiens have come to dominate nature in a way unprecedented in the history of life on planet Earth. Between 1992 and 2014, the stock of natural capital per person declined by nearly forty percent, while produced capital per person doubled. Unfortunately, this rise in wealth and development has taken a serious toll on the earth’s natural resources. It is estimated that we currently need 1.6 earths to support the prevailing consumerist economy, notwithstanding the abject disparity that exists among regions. This relationship is elegantly captured in a simple formula N y / α > G (S) where N stands for population, y stands for per capita impact, α stands for efficiency of converting natural capital into produced and human capital, G is a regenerative capacity function representing the rate at which ecosystem services are regenerated by nature, and S stands for the total stock of natural capital. Between 1992 and 2014, in a little over two decades, the stock of natural capital per person declined by nearly forty percent, while produced capital per person doubled and human capital per person increased by about thirteen percent. Clearly, the equation is in imbalance to the detriment of our only home, the biosphere. Articulating ecosystem services as natural capital, whose depreciation is accounted for in the calculation of an alternative ‘green GDP’ measurement (or, as some have started terming it, ‘Gross Ecosystem Product’ or ‘GEP’), is certainly an important idea. However, this is by no means an original or first of its kind proposition. Quite recently China’s high tech city Shenzhen, after many months of experimentation, has formally declared moving to the alternative system of measurement of economic progress in line with the national policy of not pursuing GDP growth per se. It is certainly a welcome move on the part of economics as a discipline to embrace wholeheartedly what had been proposed earlier for decades almost coinciding with the start of the Anthropocene, by the likes of Kenneth Boulding in his famous essay - "The Economics of the Coming Spaceship Earth". Walter Stahel and Genevieve Reday in their report for the European Commission in 1976 introduced the idea of a circular economy by proposing the replacement of the ‘take, use and throw’ model with the ‘take, use and recycle’ model. Even more recently Kate Raworth’s proposal of the doughnut economy has tried to integrate the measurement of economic progress with human well-being and to the extent to which the planetary boundaries are breached. The second part of the report consists of wide-ranging recommendations to arrest the rapid slide in the stock of natural capital. From the inequality between the human impact on the demand side and ecosystem services on the supply side, it is clear that all steps must be taken to reduce demand and increase supply. As Sir David Attenborough rightly points out, by putting biodiversity at the core of economics and thereby bringing ecology and economics together, the review has provided the much-needed compass for urgent course correction. Enforcing new standards for reuse, recycling, and disposal, imposing new taxes on unsustainable activity, and mandating global supply chains to adhere to environmental norms would be important to reduce demand. Demand can also be reduced by boosting investment in women’s education and empowerment, which has proven to reduce fertility rates and population growth pressures. Given that it is far less expensive to conserve rather than restore natural ecosystems, substantial financial incentives must be put in place for communities to preserve life-giving forests, watersheds, mangroves, and the like. Given that the poor are more directly dependent on nature, this will go a long way in addressing the economic disparity between the global north and south. The world has a very poor record in meeting self-imposed targets. Unfortunately, the world has a very poor record in meeting self-imposed targets. The twenty Aichi biodiversity targets agreed on in Japan in 2010 to protect coral reefs, remove government subsidies that damage nature, and tackle pollution come to mind. It was the second consecutive decade that governments failed to meet targets. The UN’s upcoming Kunming biodiversity summit may be humanity’s last chance to set ambitious goals. The COVID-19 pandemic has shown that unimaginable action, such as the complete shutdown of economies, is possible in the face of imminent calamity as humanity responded swiftly. Hopefully, the Dasgupta review may be a key driver for such a massive response as warranted to ward off the biodiversity loss disaster. There are success stories from around the world cited in the review that show that it is possible to do many of the things recommended by it. Maybe the same ingenuity and innate capability that first led us to make such large and damaging demands on the biosphere can also be deployed to bring about transformative change. The biggest challenge would be to create a new global system of governance that would ensure foolproof mechanisms so that the goals agreed to are achieved in the designated time frame, so as not to jeopardize the future of our descendants. The need of the hour today is to treat nature not as an asset or capital, but as invaluable and sacred. Our treatment of nature must transcend the asset-centric mindset to realize the true sanctity of nature as the source of all life, nourishment, and our very being. *Dhanada K. Mishra is a PhD in Civil Engineering from University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, USA, academic and technologist with strong interest in sustainability of the built environment. He is currently serving as the Technical Director in RaSpect Intelligence Inspection Limited, a start-up based in Hong Kong.

CONTENTS NEWS SECTION UNESCO “World in 2030” Report Shows Climate Change is Top Global Concern The Earth & I Editorial Team COVID-19 Has Taken Resources and Attention Away from Tuberculosis The Earth & I Editorial Team Nepal's Disaster Plans to Address Climate Change and Inclusion The Earth & I Editorial Team DATA SECTION How Much Tropical Rainforest Did We Lose in 2020? The Earth & I Editorial Team How Much Plastic Is In the Ocean? The Earth & I Editorial Team What Is the Problem With Antimicrobial Resistance (AMR)? The Earth & I Editorial Team How Much Food Gets Tossed When We Don't Eat It? The Earth & I Editorial Team What Do You Know About Tiger Poaching in India? The Earth & I Editorial Team Why Is 1.5°C Important? The Earth & I Editorial Team What Are Some Ways That Disasters Affect Women? The Earth & I Editorial Team How Much Waste Does The US Produce? The Earth & I Editorial Team What Happened to Energy-Related CO2 Emissions in 2020? The Earth & I Editorial Team ECOSYSTEMS Invasive Hippos in Colombia: An Issue Too Big To Ignore Germán Leonardo Jiménez Romero Saving the Bengal Tiger: Indigenous Spirituality Shines Adrian A. Lopes FOOD Our Interview with John Kempf: His Vision for Regenerating Soil Health The Earth & I Editorial Team Seaweed Science Tackles Methane Gas—From Cows! Ermias Kebreab and Breanna M. Roque HUMAN HEALTH Chili Peppers: The Health Benefits of “Heat” Ivette Guzman Early-Life Diet and Exercise Impact Later-Life Microbiome Natasha Spencer-Jolliffe CLIMATE CHANGE Animals Running from Climate Change Can’t Cross Border Walls Richard Kemeny Norway Kick-Starts $2.98B Carbon Capture and Storage Project Nnamdi Anyadike NATURAL DISASTERS Child Survivors Tell Their Story: Why Did So Many Women Die During the Natural Disaster in Aceh? Maila D.H. Rahiem ENERGY Agrivoltaics: Farming Food and Energy at the Same Time Norman Shafto Low Carbon Gases and Electrification Vie to Decarbonize the Home Jeremy Bowden WATER QUALITY Can Purification Technologies End Microplastic Pollution? Stuart Nathan Securing Europe’s Freshwater Future with Nature-Based Solutions Robin Whitlock WASTE MANAGEMENT Kenya’s Growing Pain: Sustainable Solid Waste Management Moses Kathuri Njeru ECONOMICS & POLICY UK Report on the Economics of Biodiversity: Is Nature an Asset or Invaluable? Dhanada K. Mishra EDUCATION One Man’s Mission: Saving Buffalo’s Waters and Inspiring Local Youth Becky Hoag