Log In Sign Up

Search for any green Service

Find green products from around the world in one place

Window cleaning

Singapore Safety Glass

Month: January 2020

Poor air quality leads to depression and bipolar disorder, study finds

Posted on by dishanth
Poor air quality leads to depression and bipolar disorder, study finds

Air pollution chokes lungs and shortens lives but is also linked to a higher risk of mental illnesses, said researchers on Tuesday in a study based on health data from millions of patients in the United States and Denmark.

People exposed to poor quality air in both countries were more likely to be diagnosed with bipolar disorder or depression, found the study, although critics argued it was flawed and said more research was needed to draw firm conclusions.

“There’s quite a few known triggers (for mental illness) but pollution is a new direction,” study leader Andrey Rzhetsky, of the University of Chicago told the Thomson Reuters Foundation.

“Research on dogs and rodents shows air pollution can get into the brain and cause inflammation which results in symptoms resembling depression. It’s quite possible that the same thing happens in humans.”

The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that air pollution kills 7 million people each year – equivalent to 13 deaths every minute – more than the combined total of war, murder, tuberculosis, HIV, AIDs and malaria.

It could shorten the life expectancy of children born today by an average of 20 months, according to research published by U.S. nonprofit, the Health Effects Institute, earlier this year.

Increasing concern over the issue has seen cities including Paris, Bogota, and Jakarta experiment with car-free days.

But while pollution’s impact on physical health is well known, links with mental illness have been less explored.

Researchers compared health data and local pollution exposure for 151 million U.S. residents and 1.4 million Danish patients for the study published in the PLOS Biology journal.

 

Cartogram maps showing the spatial patterns of apparent neurological and psychiatric disorder prevalence inferred from IBM MarketScan database.
Image: PLOS Biology

 

For the Danish patients they compared mental health to exposure to air pollution up to the age of 10 while in the United States they looked at real-time pollution levels.

Childhood exposure was linked to a more than two-fold increase in schizophrenia among the Danish patients, said the researchers, as well as higher rates of personality disorder, depression and bipolar.

The U.S. data also found poor air quality was associated with higher levels of bipolar and depression, but did not find it was correlated to several other conditions including schizophrenia, epilepsy, and Parkinson’s disease.

However, the study has proved controversial.

A critical commentary by Stanford professor John Ioannidis, which was published alongside the study, said it raised an “intriguing possibility” that air pollution might cause mental illnesses but had failed to make a clear case.

“Despite analyses involving large datasets, the available evidence has substantial shortcomings and a long series of potential biases may invalidate the observed associations,” he wrote.

 

 

Written by

Sonia Elks, Journalist, Reuters

This article is published in collaboration with Thomson Reuters Foundation trust.org.

The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone and not the World Economic Forum.

Biodiversity and our brains: How ecology and mental health go together in our cities

Posted on by dishanth
Biodiversity and our brains: How ecology and mental health go together in our cities

Biodiverse nature is particularly beneficial for mental well-being. There is also growing and compelling evidence that contact with diverse microbiomes in the soil and air has a profound effect on depression and anxiety.

 

 

Mental health in our cities is an increasingly urgent issue. Rates of disorders such as anxiety and depression are high. Urban design and planning can promote mental health by refocusing on spaces we use in our everyday lives in light of what research tells us about the benefits of exposure to nature and biodiversity.

Mental health issues have many causes. However, the changing and unpredictable elements of our physical and sensory environments have a profound impact on risk, experiences and recovery.

Physical activity is still the mainstay of urban planning efforts to enable healthy behaviours. Mental well-being is then a hoped-for byproduct of opportunities for exercise and social interaction.

Neuroscientific research and tools now allow us to examine more deeply some of the ways in which individuals experience spaces and natural elements. This knowledge can greatly add to, and shift, the priorities and direction of urban design and planning.

 

What do we mean by ‘nature’?

A large body of research has compellingly shown that “nature” in its many forms and contexts can have direct benefits on mental health. Unfortunately, the extent and diversity of natural habitats in our cities are decreasing rapidly.

Too often “nature” – by way of green space and “POS” (Public Open Space) – is still seen as something separate from other parts of our urban neighbourhoods. Regeneration efforts often focus on large green corridors. But even small patches of genuinely biodiverse nature can re-invite and sustain multitudes of plant and animal species, as urban ecologists have shown.

It has also been widely demonstrated that nature does not effect us in uniform or universal ways. Sometimes it can be confronting or dangerous. That is particularly true if nature is isolated or uninviting, or has unwritten rules around who should be there or what activities are appropriate.

These factors complicate the desire for a “nature pill” to treat urban ills.

We need to be far more specific about what “nature” we are talking about in design and planning to assist with mental health.

 

 

Why does biodiversity matter?

The exponential accessibility and affordability of lab and mobile technologies, such as fMRI and EEG measuring brain activity, have vastly widened the scope of studies of mental health and nature. Researchers are able, for example, to analyse responses to images of urban streetscapes versus forests. They can also track people’s perceptions “on the move”.

Research shows us biodiverse nature has particular positive benefit for mental well-being. Multi-sensory elements such as bird or frog sounds or wildflower smells have well-documented beneficial effects on mental restoration, calm and creativity.

Other senses – such as our sense of ourselves in space, our balance and equilibrium and temperature – can also contribute to us feeling restored by nature.

Acknowledging the crucial role all these senses play shifts the focus of urban design and planning from visual aesthetics and functional activity to how we experience natural spaces. This is particularly important in ensuring we create places for people of all abilities, mobilities and neurodiversities.

Neuroscientific research also shows an “enriched” environment – one with multiple diverse elements of interest – can prompt movement and engagement. This helps keep our brains cognitively healthy, and us happier.

Beyond brain imaging of experiences in nature, there is growing and compelling evidence that contact with diverse microbiomes in the soil and air has a profound effect on depression and anxiety. Increasing our interaction with natural elements through touch – literally getting dirt under our nails – is both psychologically therapeutic and neurologically nourishing.

We also have increasing evidence that air, noise and soil pollution increase risk of mental health disorders in cities.

 

What does this mean for urban neighbourhoods?

These converging illustrations suggest biodiverse urban nature is a priority for promoting mental health. Our job as designers and planners is therefore to multiply opportunities to interact with these areas in tangible ways.

The concept of “biophilia” isn’t new. But a focus on incidental and authentic biodiversity helps us apply this very broad, at times unwieldy and non-contextual, concept to the local environment. This grounds efforts in real-time, achievable interventions.

 

 

Using novel technologies and interdisciplinary research expands our understanding of the ways our environments affect our mental well-being. This knowledge challenges the standardised planning of nature spaces and monocultured plantings in our cities. Neuroscience can therefore support urban designers and planners in allowing for more flexibility and authenticity of nature in urban areas.

Neuroscientific evidence of our sensory encounters with biodiverse nature points us towards the ultimate win-win (-win) for ecology, mental health and cities.

 

 

Dr Zoe Myers is the author of Wildness and Wellbeing: Nature, Neuroscience, and Urban Design (Palgrave Macmillan, 2020). This article was originally published on The Conversation. 

This London street is the first in Britain to ban all petrol and diesel cars.

Posted on by dishanth
This London street is the first in Britain to ban all petrol and diesel cars.
  • A street in the heart of London’s financial district has banned petrol and diesel vehicles.
  • The aim is to bring nitrogen dioxide levels within guideline limits.
  • The 18-month trial will be used to consider similar plans for other streets.
  • Air pollution is the biggest environmental threat to health in the UK, according to Public Health England.

One London street is taking extreme action against air pollution by banning all petrol and diesel cars.

Beech Street, in the heart of London’s financial district, will be restricted to zero-emission vehicles, cyclists and pedestrians by spring 2020, with exceptions made for emergency vehicles, access to car parks and for refuse collection and deliveries. The road, much of which runs underneath a housing estate, will participate in an initial trial for 18 months, while air quality and traffic are monitored.

 

“Drastically reducing air pollution requires radical actions, and these plans will help us eliminate toxic air on our streets,” said Jeremy Simons, chair of the City of London Corporation’s Environment Committee. “Nobody should have to breathe in dirty air.”

 

 

Road transport is responsible for around a fifth of UK greenhouse gas emissions, according to the country’s Office for National Statistics. While the UK’s total greenhouse gas emissions fell by more than 30% from 1990 to 2017, emissions from road transport increased by 6% over the same period, it says.

 

While emissions overall have gone down in the UK, vehicle emissions have risen.
Image: UK Office for National Statistics

 

Air pollution is the biggest environmental threat to health in the UK, according to Public Health England, with between 28,000 and 36,000 deaths a year attributed to long-term exposure. It has been linked to a range of diseases including coronary heart disease, strokes, respiratory disease and lung cancer.

And it’s a worldwide issue, with the World Health Organization estimating that more than 90% of the global population live in places where air quality levels exceed their recommended limits. London is among more than 30 cities that have signed the Fossil Fuel Free Streets Declaration, pledging to procure only zero-emission buses from 2025 and make a major area zero-emission by 2030.

 

Road traffic is on the up in the UK.
Image: UK Office for National Statistics

 

And capitals around the globe, including Oslo, Madrid and Mexico City, have started to look at banning cars from their streets.

Cutting greenhouse gas emissions will also be key in the fight against global warming. Public Health England says governments and local authorities must take action to limit and mitigate air pollutants.

The City of London Corporation’s plan aims to bring nitrogen dioxide levels on Beech Street within air-quality guidelines set out by the European Union and World Health Organization. After the trial, the corporation will decide whether similar measures are suitable for other streets.

“It will bring substantial health benefits,” says Oliver Sells, Streets and Walkways Committee Chairman. “The experimental scheme will be enforced using the latest in smart-camera technology and I hope it will be the first of many other schemes like this.”

 

 

Written by

Emma Charlton, Senior Writer, Formative Content

The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone and not the World Economic Forum.

This top-10 of business risks misses the biggest of them all: climate change

Posted on by dishanth
This top-10 of business risks misses the biggest of them all: climate change

Climate change is a very real and serious threat to society. Extreme weather events such as heatwaves and flooding are becoming more commonplace and severe, leaving communities to deal with often devastating humanitarian and economic costs.

In the past 12 months, global protests have brought millions of young people to the streets to voice their opinions, with the result that both policy-makers and businesses are beginning to sit up and take notice. And a report by a UK environmental non-profit showed that the world’s largest 500 companies could potentially face $1 trillion of financial risks in the short term due to climate change impacts such as higher operating costs, asset write-offs and falls in demand.

This is why, while reading the results of the World Economic Forum’s 2019 Regional Risks for Doing Business report, which is based on a survey of around 13,000 European business leaders, I was surprised to see that climate change did not appear anywhere in the top-10 risks. For me, it is the biggest existential risk for doing business in Europe – and companies need to act now to be prepared.

Unfortunately, we are not on track to meet the Paris Agreement targets. Businesses urgently need to understand where and how their operations and supply chains are vulnerable to the physical risks of climate change. Equally important is that companies assess their transition risks so that their business models not only remain relevant in a lower-carbon future, but they can seize the opportunities that will be presented.

 

What are the risks identified for Europe by the report?

Cyberattacks are the top threat in Europe, according to the report. The digital world continues to evolve rapidly; more and more devices are connected to the internet and attackers are getting more organized, meaning the threat from external cyberattacks is always increasing.

It’s important that customers trust the companies they do business with not to just provide them with the products and services they need, but to do so in a way that is responsible, ethical and protects their personal information.

 

What’s not on this list is as important as what is
Image: World Economic Forum 2019 Regional Risks for Doing Business report

 

This means businesses must continuously invest in their cybersecurity capabilities and should allocate significant resources to proposition development and artificial intelligence. Doing so allows firms to better serve their customers and protect them against constantly evolving cyber-risks.

Turning towards macroeconomic and geopolitical risks, Europe is experiencing the twin effects of a natural slowdown in the economic cycle and a political move to the right. Unfortunately, one feeds the other: weak growth tends to result in a shift to the political right and more inward-looking economies. Factors like Brexit and the US-China trade war only serve to increase the chances of a market sell-off and to heighten volatility across the region.

 

“(Climate change) is the biggest existential risk for doing business in Europe”

In such a scenario, it is likely that central banks will further loosen interest rates and increase asset purchases, driving prices higher, inflating today’s asset bubble further and causing discontent among those who feel savers are being penalized.

Companies with a strong balance sheet, a global/local business model and well-diversified portfolios will be better-placed to navigate these headwinds and be there for their customers when needed. Moving from a reactive to a preventative role will become increasingly important.

Economic, geopolitical and cyber-risks undoubtedly pose an immediate threat to doing business in Europe. However, we all need to acknowledge that climate change is an existential risk to the world – and that includes how we do business. It needs to be at the forefront of decisions, because – if left ignored – the damage will be extensive and irreversible.

 

 

Written by

Alison Martin, CEO EMEA and Bank Distribution, Zurich Insurance Group

The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone and not the World Economic Forum.

Financing fossil fuels risks a repeat of the 2008 crash. Here’s why

Posted on by dishanth
Financing fossil fuels risks a repeat of the 2008 crash. Here’s why

To continue financing fossil fuel expansion is today’s equivalent of betting the bank – and the global economy – on subprime mortgage-backed securities over a decade ago; it is fuelling a crisis that, even if it generates short-term profit, will inevitably cause economic catastrophe alongside the climate emergency.

Since the Paris Agreement was signed, 33 major global banks have collectively poured $1.9 trillion into fossil fuels. Recent analysis from WRI indicates that from 2016-2018, the average annual level of fossil fuel finance from banks with active sustainable finance commitments is nearly twice the annualised amount of such commitments. Worrying echoes of the 2008 financial crisis can be heard in this focus on short-term profit accompanied by inadequate regulatory oversight and an underestimation of the level of risk being run.

An unduly narrow focus on ‘transition risk’ among the categories of climate-related financial risk, coupled with a lack of meaningful political action, has also led to complacency among financial institutions regarding climate change.

The far more significant – and, on current trajectory, the more likely – risk comes from the systemic consequences of failing to meet the Paris Agreement goals. It comes from failing to achieve a rapid and orderly transition to a low-carbon economy. This is ‘failure to transition risk’, or what Mark Carney, the outgoing governor of the Bank of England and newly appointed UN Special Envoy for Climate Action and Finance, recently termed “the catastrophic business as usual scenario”.

Politicians, companies and financial institutions are not taking action either commensurate with the scale of the climate emergency or at a pace that reflects the limited time available to meet the Paris goals.

In its recent progress report, Climate Action 100+ – the largest investor climate initiative – revealed that after two years of engagement, only 9% of the 161 target companies have emissions targets in line with a 2˚C or lower target. As Carney said in his September 2019 Climate Week speech: “Like virtually everything else in the response to climate change, the development of this new sustainable finance is not moving fast enough for the world to reach net zero.” The world is on track to exhaust the carbon budget associated with a rise of 1.5˚C by 2030.

We need $90 trillion over the next 10 years to achieve the goals of the Paris Agreement and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Yet fossil fuels still attract nearly three times more subsidies than climate solutions.

Against these finance flows, the UN-backed Principles for Responsible Banking – which have 130 signatories – appear incremental in the extreme. Without concrete and ambitious targets, banks risk turning this initiative into yet another greenwashing tool.

 

Although progress is being made, it is happening far too slowly
Image: TPI, Climate Action 100+

 

Yet policy-makers seem determined to pursue a voluntary, carrot-based approach to tackling the greatest systemic risk building up in the global economy. As emissions continue to rise, corporate progress remains incremental, and the window for limiting global temperature increases closes. It’s time to acknowledge this approach is not working. It’s time to rewrite the rules to secure the transformational change required.

Climate action necessitates the restriction of negative activities, not just the incentivization of positive ones. In line with their existing mandate on financial stability, central banks must take more action to address systemic climate risk. Regulations should be introduced to shift lending and investment out of high-carbon sectors. Higher capital requirements – a ‘brown penalty’ – should be applied to fossil fuel and other high-carbon lending. Central banks should exclude fossil fuels and other energy-intensive industries in their asset-purchasing programmes, and should prioritize those sectors advancing the transition to a low-carbon economy. Central banks should follow the lead of the Bank of England and Dutch Central Bank and include a range of climate scenarios in financial institution stress tests.

To avoid any misinterpretation, governments should provide central banks with an explicit mandate to extend their horizon on financial stability to fully encompass climate risk and to be a force for decarbonization. Reporting under the Task Force for Climate Related Financial Disclosure should be mandatory. Governments should end supply-side subsidies and export credit financing for fossil fuels and incentivise investment in renewable energy.

Regulators missed the warning signs in the 2000s. Banks driven by short-term profit did not understand or ignored the risks, and most of those that survived that crisis did so because the taxpayers of the world bailed them out.

Are financial institutions going to make – and be allowed to make – the same disastrous mistake? If they are, this time no bailout will be possible – for them or the planet.

 

 

Written by

Jennifer Morgan, Executive Director, Greenpeace International

The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone and not the World Economic Forum.