In almost every area of our lives, today’s economy has made a major shift towards the world of ecology, going green and eco-friendly. Consumers are emphasizing an eco-lifestyle and companies are investing in everything from renewable sources of energy to completely ecologically safe products. Cities, counties, and entire states in the U.S. and around the globe are focused on reversing global warming. In this environment it comes as no surprise that there is a walk-of-shame for states in the U.S. that are listed as the ‘least green’.

In 2011, the organization 24/7 Wallstreet analyzed each of the states in the United States to evaluate their levels of pollution. The term pollution covers a lot of territory including air, water, earth, recycling efforts, fossil fuel energy use, etc.. The variables that exist can be state-specific as well. Some states have large tracts of land but no real industrial base, therefore they don’t have a need for high level industry requirements. With that said, those same states may rank high in wind turbine but may have the largest quantity of power plants that are coal-fired. 24/7 Wallstreet used an evaluation scale for 49 metric areas. The metric information was gleaned from just about every organization possible, both Federal and not-for-profit. The data used for the analysis was based on 2009-2010, and included thousands of data input information.

Based on the intense analysis of all of the data, here is the list of the least greenest states:

Illinois: Only 1.6% of the energy used is derived from renewable resources, ranking Illinois as the fourth worst in the nation. Illinois ranks third for consuming the greatest amount of energy. The EPA rated Illinois with the fourth worst score for toxic exposure. The state has a heavy industrial presence which contributed to this poor ranking. Strangely, it is also included as 7th place for their policies on solar energy.

Missouri: In attempting to balance or offset scores based on one category over another, the state of Missouri fell to a flat area in every category that was analyzed. It fell in the 28 categories that were ranked and only appeared five times in the upper 25 categories. Missouri holds a rank of 37 in general policy initiatives and for alternative energy in non-hydroelectric it is number 48.

Kentucky: This state has a poor performance in almost every category. 43 for the release of cancer-causing chemicals, 44 for the release of developmental toxins and 41 for the release of toxins affecting reproduction. Kentucky is ranked 39 for fossil fuel CO2 emissions.

Texas: The state of Texas does excel in some areas, such as their wind energy initiatives and wind farms, however, their performance in many of the polluting categories ranks them on this list. They are at the bottom of the list for fossil fuel CO2 emissions as well as scoring 50 for toxic exposure score from the EPA. Texas is # 47 for waterway release of toxic chemicals, # 39 for the release of reproductive toxic chemicals. Texas produces the largest amount of hazardous waste in the country.

Pennsylvania: The state has a history of industries that rank high in the polluting arena. These have historically included steel, coal and natural gas. Pennsylvania ranks # 48 in fossil fuel CO2 emissions, 49 in adding particulates to the air, 49 for general toxic exposure.

New Jersey: This is a state that used to be called ‘the armpit of the country’. The toxic dumping in the state was historically notorious and New Jersey was never known for their green reputation. The state ranks # 45 in air particle pollution and # 46 for pollution to the ozone. They have increased their policies on alternative energy but the policies have not equated to actions. New Jersey ranks third to the last for alternative energy generation.

Louisiana: The state ranks # 46 in any policies or programs that equate to energy saving and has the sixth lowest budget applied to alternative energy. It ranks incredibly low for their pollution to water and is in the lowest five states for the release of carcinogens in water pollution along with birth defect chemicals. Louisiana is a state that creates the third highest amount of toxic waste annually.

West Virginia: While West Virginia has a good ranking for the lowest level of energy consumption it ranks low in any policies and actions regarding alternative energy, air and water pollution and overall carbon footprint. The only positive point they have is that the state is generating three quarters of a million mw of wind energy on an annual basis and does rank as the # 19 in this category.

Indiana: This is a coal state and houses the biggest coal power plant in the nation. There is a tie with Ohio in have the least percentage use of renewable energy sources. Indiana also has a lot of pollution problems, releasing the largest amount of water toxic chemicals.

Ohio: Ohio is number 5 in overall energy consumption (mostly from coal) with hardly any of their energy being met with alternative energy solutions. While they tie with Indiana on the topic of the least renewable energy sources and highest consumption, they also rank # 47 for fossil fuel CO2 emission, 46 for general exposure in toxins and are next to last for the largest quantity of hazardous waste violations since the year 2000.

In almost every area of our lives, today’s economy has made a major shift towards the world of ecology, going green and eco-friendly. Consumers are emphasizing an eco-lifestyle and companies are investing in everything from renewable sources of energy to completely ecologically safe products. Cities, counties, and entire states in the U.S. and around the globe are focused on reversing global warming. In this environment it comes as no surprise that there is a walk-of-shame for states in the U.S. that are listed as the ‘least green’.

In 2011, the organization 24/7 Wallstreet analyzed each of the states in the United States to evaluate their levels of pollution. The term pollution covers a lot of territory including air, water, earth, recycling efforts, fossil fuel energy use, etc.. The variables that exist can be state-specific as well. Some states have large tracts of land but no real industrial base, therefore they don’t have a need for high level industry requirements. With that said, those same states may rank high in wind turbine but may have the largest quantity of power plants that are coal-fired. 24/7 Wallstreet used an evaluation scale for 49 metric areas. The metric information was gleaned from just about every organization possible, both Federal and not-for-profit. The data used for the analysis was based on 2009-2010, and included thousands of data input information.

Based on the intense analysis of all of the data, here is the list of the greenest states in the U.S.:

Colorado: This state scored above average in just about every one of the pollution scores. It stands as #6 against toxins that cause birth defects including waterway carcinogens. Colorado ranks as # 12 in particle pollution and # 7 in their targets for energy savings. Colorado can proudly claim 6% of their energy use from alternative resources and is # 8 in the best rating in the U.S.

Oregon: The state of Oregon is in the middle one third of the entire metrics for pollution, including a rank of # 29 in toxic waste violations from the EPA and #33 in general toxic exposure. Oregon has high standard ratings for both their policies and alternative energy initiatives, as they are #2 in the most energy-savings programs. This state rates as the second highest level for hydro-electricity energy and is # 8 in non-hydroelectric alternative energy which can mostly be attributed to their wind farms.

Idaho: This state produces 84.5% of all consumed energy via alternative sources. Idaho ranks as #5 for the production of geothermal energy, #6 for hydroelectrical power and has the 4th lowest rank of fossil fuel CO2 emissions.

Montana: The residents of Montana are proudly linked to their nickname of “Big Sky Country” and rightly so. This state ranks lowest in contributing factors of ozone particulants. Montana ranks well in many of the other categories, including # 7 for total use of energy. The rankings are a direct result of the fact that Montana has such a low population (3rd lowest in the U.S.)

South Dakota: This is another state with a low population density (5th lowest), however they also have a low pollution level. South Dakota can claim the fewest EPA violations (14) since 2000 and generates the 2nd lowest amount of hazardous waste annually. It ranks 4th in alternative energy policies, with a goal of accomplishing 10% energy use via alternative sources by the year 2015.

Hawaii: It must first be noted that approximately 25% of this state’s gross state product is a direct result of tourism. Hawaii has great concerns over their natural resources and the environment. They produce the least toxic waste annually and have the best score for 2 air quality measurements. In addition, Hawaii holds a ranking of # 6 in their energy savings programs combined with the policies.

Nevada: There may be a reason Nevada ranks so low on the water pollution scale; mainly because it is an arid/dry state. Nevada does rank well in the production of alternative energy due to their 2nd highest ranking in geothermal and solar photovoltaic energy. While the state may have lower levels of pollution and great scores in alternative energy Nevada ranks just a tad above an average score when it comes to the topic of policy initiatives.

New Hampshire: Low in pollution, New Hampshire ranks as the 4th lowest in harmful pollution via particles in the nation. They rank # 5 in toxic exposure and they have the 4th lowest level of waterways developmental toxins. New Hampshire also ranks as the 5th lowest for the release of toxins affecting reproduction and 5th lowest in the release of any chemicals that are cancer causing.

Maine: This state can claim that their energy use is almost at the fifty percentile from renewable sources. Main has the largest renewable energy source from non-hydroelectric. The state has the biggest percentage of timberland in the U.S. so it may not be a surprising fact that wood and wood waste offer the largest portion of their energy sources.

Vermont: A key factor to note for Vermont is that it has both the lowest GDP and the 2nd smallest population in the U.S. This then creates an understandable situation where they have less pollution than many of the other states. Vermont has the least amount of cardinogenic toxin releases and the smallest of carbon footprints as compared to any other state. Vermont ranks in the top 15 in twenty out of 28 categories for green efforts. They have numerous policies for the promotion of efficiency and pollution reduction

There are a surprising number of companies cropping up all over the world that are taking advantage of reclaimed wood. A reclaimed wood product is finding incredible popularity becauseit is not taken from a living tree and therefore no forests are harmed in the process.
Reclaimed is one of the ecology hot key terms these days. Reclaiming, in its simplest explanation means reusing. There are specific certifications that are required; however it’s not a norm as a requirement in the decorative wood industry. Reclaiming wood can come from a number of sources: existing homes or buildings as well as fallen trees in the forests and even floating logs in lakes and rivers. Artists that specialize in wood working are now seeking out companies that offer reclaimed wood and home builders looking to keep their new house ecologically balanced are using reclaimed wood for both structural supports as well as internal esthetics.Reclaimed wood that has been previously used in construction will often have a used look. Some areas may appear where nails were hammered into the wood; some may have remnants of glue. A more worn or used look has become popular for its esthetics.

There are companies around the world that are reclaiming wood that simply did not continue to grow due to natural and man made situations or disasters. These can include floods, storms, droughts and even acid rain. The wood is completely usable, just not continuing in its growth.There are newer companies that are taking the concept of reclaimed wood to another level. These companies are locating viable wood that is in swamps and tropical areas where an overabundance has fallen.You might be surprised at some of the locations that have reclaimed wood. The distressed look has become popular for wood floors and ceilings as well as wall linings in many restaurants and standard places of business. A number of companies specialize in using reclaimed wood for a variety of furniture styles as well as counter tops. The appeal for a more antique appearance may have become somewhat in vogue, but the use of the wood is a good method of recycling or reuse.
It doesn’t take a stretch of the imagination to assume that the concept of supply-and-demand has also created less than reputable companies. These companies will often take newer wood, create a distressed or antique appearance and make an attempt to sell the product(s) as reclaimed wood. If you are looking for reclaimed wood or products made of reclaimed wood, be sure to research the company that you are buying from.

There is only one main downside when using reclaimed wood that has been taken from previous or older building structures. The drawback is that the wood may have been chemically treated as well as contain embedded nails. The nails make the wood more difficult to plane but the chemical treating can contain toxins. Reliable reclaimed wood companies will have a complete source list of where their wood came from, the approximate year the structure was built and should disclose any chemical treatments in structures of that age.

Reclaimed wood has surpassed what is called a resurgence and is now a part of the global recycling and reusing function of our daily lives; offering the beauty of nature without the destruction of forests.

The topic of sustainability has been bantered around in the last few years, but very few people actually know what it means. Most understand that it is something that is good for the earth and our environment, but can’t quite wrap their arms around how they can adapt to sustainability in their own lives.

In today’s green world, sustainability actually follows the life guidelines of the Native Americans. While the white man invaded, took over, owned and destroyed, Native Americans understood that they were temporary stewards and must care for nature. Sustainability means blending harmony and dignity with nature; living within the environment while not causing damaging effects to the current and future existence; A blend of existing functionality with the economy in a non-intrusive manner; treating the community as an actual living entity with a balance in economic, human and natural; viewing our daily lives in a longer term concept and examining each effect on how it may change or harm the future; respect in all aspects of daily life.

This sounds wonderful, but can a society such as ours, with the intensity of waste, actually accomplish sustainability? There are many things that we can do every day that can help and, if enough people participate it can make a difference.

Sustainability in industry is the first major impact. Companies are beginning to realize that investing in sustainable functions and products are actually good for business. People will support and buy products from corporations that have a sustainable focus but it also has an incredible return-on-investment for their bottom line. In essence, it pays for a company to be sustainable. As consumers, we can support this attitude by buying products that offer a sustainable effort.

Products that are considered sustainable can be everything from shoes to vehicles. There are many websites that list these kinds of products and the manufacturers that make them. What you should be looking for is: organic cotton-based, bamboo and alternative wood-based, organic clothing listed as alternative (non-man made)-based; organic and Fair Trade; wool sourced directly from sheep on sustainable farms; hemp-based products; soy-based products; sweatshop-free based companies; clothing that isn’t treated with the chemicals that include toxins; containers made with recycled materials; vegetable-based products; local farm market produce; soaps made from recycled and natural oils; fragrance-free products; natural botanicals; cruelty-free products ensure no animals were harmed in the production; organic composts and fertilizers for the garden; organic pesticide products; natural bee farm honeys and waxes; recycled building materials for the home; organic plasters and building products; natural paints that are toxin-free; energy saving technologies that were produced by a sustainable manufacturer; household cleaners made from botanicals and non-toxic ingredients; planters, outdoor and indoor furniture that contain recycled or bamboo-based materials. If you are looking for organic and Fair Trade, make sure it says USDA Certified Organic and has the official Fair Trade label.

This is just a partial list as it continues on to just about everything in our lives. More companies are proclaiming their concern for the environment and are proudly touting their sustainable efforts. If you thought you had to go to specialty stores to buy and support these products, you are wrong. They are appearing in mass quantities in just about every major retail and chain store location.

All you have to do is be aware and look at the labels and packaging. Choose the product, service or company that shows they are sustainable. If you are in doubt, there is a plethora of information on the net for you to investigate as to the viability of the company itself.

Sources:
http://www.sustainabilitystore.com/sustainable.html

The word pesticide has become a nasty term, and rightly so. While one or two generations enjoyed attractive fruits and vegetables they were closer to the apple from the story of Sleeping Beauty. Laced with toxins that harm the body, the pesticide chemicals that were at one time freely sprayed are frowned upon today. If you think that we are pesticide free, you are wrong, the chemicals are still there and the caution remains the same.

If you use a lawn company and they put a sign on your lawn to caution animals and children after they spray. You might want to get a list of the chemicals they are dumping on your grass. According to the EPA there are about twenty eight pesticides used for home, food and general pest control. Of these, approximately forty percent are listed in the category of concern for health of humans including probably or possible carcinogens.

350 million pounds per year are sprayed, dabbed, dumped or washed onto surfaces that we touch, walk on and even eat. There have been studies of a selection of nineteen pesticides and eighteen of those chosen showed test results showed health effects on humans including: headaches, skin irritation, eye irritation, fatigue, respiratory tract problems, vomiting and dizziness. All side effects are completely dependent upon the exposure level of a pesticide, but, a sensitive individual can have health effects with smaller quantities of pesticides. These same nineteen were also listed as potential hazards for genetic problems, birth defects and possible increase for the risk of cancer.

Pesticides may be a deterrent for the little roaches, ants and critters but they are also getting on the feet of our children as well as our beloved pets. The pets return home, walk throughout the house and spread the pesticide residue. The children walk on it and now they are contaminated. Our pets lick their paws and now they have ingested the toxins.

Areas that have a lot of rain and good drainage will probably find pesticides have drained into the water systems. If there are layers of natural drainage such as rocks, sand and undergrowth, this will reduce the parts per million pesticides count in a naturally refining method. There are farming communities around the world that have opted for natural or alternative pest deterrents and continue to run the water through a natural filter. This removes any fertilizer residues, even if they are organic.

One of the major problems with pesticides is that they do not remain where they are sprayed. This is called pesticide drift. Many people that have opted for growing their own organic produce in their yard may be shocked to find out that the pesticide the neighbor had sprayed on their lawn has drifted to the tomatoes that are being so carefully (and organically) tended. Pesticide drift is well known by the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) and it has led to restrictions of spraying of some of the chemicals anywhere near schools or any medical institution.

A pretty and green lawn with few bugs as well as perfect fruits and vegetables seems to be so highly valued in our culture that we will risk ourselves, our children and our animals. The smart consumer is becoming fully aware of these risks and opting for natural and green lawn treatments and organic produce raised in controlled environments

There is a cost for perfection, but using toxic pesticides is too high of a price to pay.

I first became aware of the topic of drugs in the water system about six years ago. One of the local students had submitted a school science project for the science fair which examined the amount of estrogen that was contained in the city water. The project was conducted so well that the county used her information to create their own analysis of all pharmaceuticals contained in the water. The final statistics of the study was pretty astounding. Yes, there are drugs in the water system.

Many counties and states have created their own research teams to continue the direction of finding out exactly what pharmaceuticals are in drinking water and why. The Associated Press also started their own individual study and found a surprising amount of drugs in a variety of drinking sources. One might envision people simply dumping their medication down the drain, but a vast majority of the pharmaceuticals are simply from people taking their medication and having it leave their bodies naturally. When the toilet is flushed, it includes left over meds from the body. Since most areas are accomplishing the cleaning of reclaimed water, not all of those drugs are being removed.

So exactly which drugs are found in drinking water? The most popular drugs, of course. It depends on your area and the population age. Prescriptions vary by age as to what is taken as a priority ‘top ten’ drug. Since the Federal Government doesn’t have any regulations established for the amounts of pharmaceuticals in drinking water (yet), each county is left to their own budgets to figure out how to filter out the drugs.

Standard home filters are not usually set up to filter out at the pharmaceutical level in parts per million, so you aren’t even safe using a tap filter. Much of the bottled water is taken directly from springs, lakes and yes – even just from filtered tap-water. Drugs have been found in lakes and reservoirs all over the nation. So now we are not only adding pharmaceuticals that we don’t need to our own bodies, we have managed to infiltrate into nature and are giving the wild animals the drugs as well.

However, the journey of medication doesn’t stop there. As large corporate ranches and farms continue to inject animals with hormones, the waste byproduct from these animals is given off and enters the water system as well.

Reverse osmosis is one of the few water filtration systems that do remove drugs from water. Many counties and states are adding these types of filtration systems as an extra precaution. But retrofitting all of the water filtration in the area is both costly and time consuming.

The pharmaceutical industry does not see any problems associated with the small amounts of added drugs in the water system. However, at a number of conferences, information and research is being released that demonstrate there are definite damaging effects being seen in both embryonic as well as wildlife results. From cancer to slow growth of kidney cells, the added drugs in our water systems over such a long period of time are taking their toll on life in general.

Part of my early years was spent in a small Southern Missouri town, where everything was pretty basic. I lived with my grandparents in a no frills little farm style home. All of the houses were a lot alike in functionality, including the fact that they had rain water collection systems. “Rain water, my Grandmother said is the purest water that you can have”. We don’t live in those simpler times, but there are a lot of people that are returning to some of the common sense roots methods, which includes the harvesting of rain water.

Ever get caught in a rain storm and get soaking wet? Did you notice how soft your hair and clothes became after they dried? That’s because there aren’t any minerals or chemicals in rain water. It is precisely this reason that rain water is coveted for so many uses. Since almost every area of the habited world gets some level of fresh rain, it is a common sense topic to collect and use the rain that normally would just run off.

The internet is filled with companies that will sell you very excellent rain water collection systems. The type of harvesting system is going to be a bit dependent upon what you intend to use the rain water for. Larger systems or multi-location systems tend to be for farms and large square footage gardens. Smaller systems are generally used for around the home smaller garden scenarios. The typical harvesting system is not generally used for drinking, but if this is a direction you want to take, you will have to make sure that you comply with the methods of collection and the materials that are used in all areas that the water touches. Some materials leak toxins into the water which can be detrimental for human consumption. Do the research you need on how to collect and store potable water.

Harvesting water includes some fairly basic topics: where the water is going to be collected (most of the time it is the roof), a method that the water will convey through (pipes, gutters, and spouts), some form of filtering method, a collection container and a way to get the water out of the container (spigot or spout).

If you will be collecting water from a roof, examine the materials that the roof is made of. Some older roofing materials contain asbestos and other chemicals that are completely toxic. If you have asphalt shingles small particles of the shingles will break off and enter into the water. You may want to have an exterior collection area that bypasses the roofing and falls directly into a roof mounted container. There is some rain water harvesting cisterns that are made of completely safe plastics and will last a long time.

You will not want to allow water to remain for long periods of time, even in closed containers. There are microbiological test kits that you can use to test the level of bacteria; however it’s always a good idea to use a standard treatment kit on the water. This will not allow bacteria or algae growth and will be safer for non-potable purposes.

There is growing popularity in rain water harvesting and some counties offer inexpensive kits that a homeowner can purchase and use. As long as you abide by certain common sense safety tips, you should be able to harvest rain water safely.

The primary source of energy in the United States is currently fossil fuels. These include oil, coal, and natural gas, and they account for 85 percent of the total energy sources used in the country. The consequences of burning these fossil fuels are dire to say the least, and in this article we will attempt to answer the questions ‘why are fossil fuels bad for human health’ and ‘why are fossil fuels bad for the environment’.

The first effect of burning fossil fuels is to the health of our population. The fact is that we need clean air for good health. The main reason why fossil fuels are bad for our health is because burning them releases a number of extremely harmful gases, such as carbon dioxide and monoxide, sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, and hydrocarbons. Their combination released into the atmosphere creates a nasty overhang we commonly refer to as smog, the harmful effects of which have been brought up by medical professionals numerous times.

Many of the harmful effects of fossil fuels are difficult to track, but they are there regardless. These include water pollution, acid rain, lung disease in humans, and also the costs of national security, as they are very adamant about protecting oil sources that come from abroad. Of course, because of the difficulty of finding the causes for these costs, it is society that has to pay them, silently, not even knowing where they came from, while it all boils down to one thing – fossil fuels.

More and more people find themselves asking ‘why are fossil fuels bad for the environment?’ with much evidence of the fossil fuels and global warming connection becoming more apparent. The most significant contributing gas to global warming is carbon dioxide, which is notorious for trapping heat in the atmosphere of the earth. This is the gas that is emitted the most when fossil fuels are burned. In fact, the amount of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere is now over 25 percent more than it was 150 years ago. Fossil fuels are also responsible for the increase in nitrous oxide and methane levels in the atmosphere.

The fossil fuels and global warming connection is confirmed by scientists, who claim that if the current levels of carbon dioxide keep on rising, the Earth will become warmer this century. Various impacts are due to happen as a result of this temperature increase. For one, many glaciers around the world are already melting and the more they melt, the more sea levels will rise. If this happens, coastal areas are likely to suffer because of flooding and inundation (delta areas are especially under threat). Other climactic changes are due to bring more natural disasters and extreme weather conditions in some areas. Agricultural zones located inland could suffer severe droughts.

These answers only begin to scratch the surface of answering the question “why are fossil fuels bad?” Fossil fuels are not just bad, they are the main culprit of the world’s problems. A solution needs to be found, and it needs to be found fast!

For more information on fossil fuels, go to:
http://www.energy.gov/energysources/fossilfuels.htm
http://fossil.energy.gov/

The Big Shift

The UN is calling for a green paradigm shift, which includes a complete rethink of how our environment is affected by market forces. According to a report by UNEP – the UN Environment Program – an investment of about US$1.3 trillion (which is equivalent to roughly 2 percent of the global GDP) into key commercial sectors will make a significant contribution to a resource-efficient, low-carbon, green world economy.

This green shift being called for by the UN is due to transform the green investment scheme of things quite radically for the decades to come. Billions of dollars in investment will be pumped into various ‘green’ projects around the world. The majority of the global capital used to be poured into fossil fuels and property, but very little was put into energy efficiency, renewable energy, sustainable agriculture, public transportation, water and land conservation, and ecosystem protection. The new green paradigm proposed by the UN is set to change all this.

New Green Legislation

The UN is urging governments around the globe to pass new legislation, which will ensure investment into environmentally friendly strategies and sustainable development. The UN insists that such legislation will have nothing to do with right-wing or left-wing politics. The UNEP report claims that a green economy has little to do with politics, as the green shift is relevant to all countries, regardless of whether they are market or state led.

The Principal Areas of Focus

One key focus in the new green paradigm is the agriculture sector. The farming practices currently in place contribute to over 13 percent of the greenhouse gas effect and consume over 70 percent of the freshwater resources around the world. According to the UN, these agricultural practices are also responsible for 3 to 5 million cases of poisoning by pesticides, which, in turn, leads to 40,000 deaths annually. UNEP claims that the new investments into green agriculture would increase global crop yields by 2050.

Public transport is another big one for the UN green shift. Investment in this sector often yields economic benefits that can equal almost double the original investment. One example is sub-Saharan Africa, where reducing the content of sulfur in the transport fuels could save significant health care costs and other economic costs of up to $980 million annually.

Another major sector that needs to be more green, according to the UN, is the construction sector. This sector is currently responsible for consuming about 70 percent of all global resources and about 12 percent of freshwater resources. The building sector’s climate footprint is expected to nearly double by 2030. UNEP is urging for sustainable building standards to be enforced, which will be supported by fiscal and economic incentives.

Although it is still unclear how the governments around the world will react to the green paradigm proposed by the UN, the UNEP report is still projected to have a positive impact on green investment around the world.

For more information, go to:
http://www.thejakartaglobe.com/bisworld/un-reveals-paradigm-shift-for-global-green-economy/423992

Everyone already knows about the pending doom of the global water crisis, but where exactly will it take the biggest toll? Here are 5 regions of the world that will be the most affected by the global water stress:

1) The Ogallala Aquifer, US
The biggest Aquifer in the United States is getting depleted rapidly. The Ogallala Aquifer, which stretches from South Dakota down to Texas, is losing 12 billion BCM (cubic meters) every year. The total amount the aquifer has already lost is equivalent 18 Colorado Rivers. Many High Plains farmers have already begun to stop using irrigated agriculture, because they realized that there won’t be an endless supply of water to rely on.

2) Mexico City
There is so much water getting pumped from underneath Mexico’s City’s foundation, that the city is actually sinking. Once there was a lush land of lakes in its place, but now all the lakes are gone because of pumping and the forest around the city has been chopped down. There is an even bigger problem of not having an adequate drainage system, so what happens is that rainwater gets mixed with sewage, and this mixture is then used for irrigation. Another problem is leaking pipes, which lose an average of 40 percent of the water in the city. There is now a big risk for the city to run out of fresh water altogether.

3) Catalonia, Spain
Chronic water shortages are already happening in this Spanish province, with 4.5 million people already affected. Many of Europe’s cities are using the groundwater from Catalonia at rates that are unsustainable, and this is a big part of the global water crisis.

4) The Nile – Egypt, Sudan, and Ethiopia
Another serious consequence of the global water stress could be suffered in the Nile. As predicted by the United Nations, the biggest cause of war and conflict in Africa will be access to water within the next 25 years. These are most likely to happen in countries which share a water source like a lake or a river. There is already considerable national competition and conflict going on in the Nile River basin, which runs through Egypt, Sudan, and Ethiopia. If these countries’ populations keep growing, there could be severe conflict in the future.

5) Southern Australia
Already the driest continent in the world, Australia will undoubtedly suffer from the global water crisis. One big problem is that clean river waters, such as those of the Snowy River, the Darling, and the Murray, are having water tables rise under their surface. This causes salt to be pushed up to the surface in dangerous quantities. Some of Australia’s most productive farmland has already been destroyed by salt, and the situation is only projected to get worse.