Water pollution is widespread from pesticides, sewage, arsenic and industrial waste. There are shortages of drinking water. Air pollution degenerates into a suffocating quagmire in densely-populated urban areas of Mexico and Colombia such as Mexico City, Ciudad Juarez and Bogota. In Mexico City, there is an unhealthy level of ozone in the air more frequently than 4 out of every 5 days. The sky is often blanketed by a sickly yellow haze. According to scientific research, the chronic air pollution is, over time, affecting the sense of smell for people who live there as a consequence of pollution-driven deterioration of their olfactory sensory receptors, not to mention their respiratory tracts, capillaries and air sacs.

Industrial corridors in Mexico are responsible for strafing local populations with hideous levels of noxious chemicals such as benzene and carbon disulfide. There exists an epidemic of plastic water bottles, often petroleum-based plastic that has as a constituent polyethylene terephthalate. Also, Mexico still has some heavy oil production and it remains a profligate gas flarer in association with various oil production facilities. There has been a high incidence of manganism in the populations nearest manganese mining operations in Hidalgo state.

Happily, in a historical context, Mexico appears to be more aggressive lately in solving their ecological challenges. Beyond efforts to slow deforestation, they are planning to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions by converting coal and oil-fired power plants to natural gas and forcing old diesel-burning trucks, buses and other jalopies off the streets. Mexico City now has a great new green plan that includes dedicated bus lanes, bicycle ways, solar panel deployments, rooftop gardens and more. Recycling is finally starting to take hold. Plans are being accelerated in Mexico to make biodiesel fuel from widespread cultivation of varieties of the jatropha plant. Mexico now has only about 2% of electric power being contributed from wind turbines but they are aiming to ramp that amount up. Wind power installations are being constructed in the Isthmus of Tehuantepec at the rate of approximately one gigawatt of added capacity per year.

Due to the challenging ecological circumstances in Mexico, aiming for fast reductions in greenhouse gas emissions before 2025 would involve a phenomenal turnaround to a once-sorry situation. Their commitments so far include being 8% below 2009 levels by 2012 which represents an important inflection point, and to be 50% below their 2002 amount of emissions before 2050. They aim to generate one-quarter of their electricity from renewable sources before 2013.

Brazil remains one of the top four emitters of greenhouse gases on Earth largely due to reckless, wholesale destruction of the Amazon Rainforest and cerrado. Brazil may still account for as much as one-half of global greenhouse gas emissions that arise from deforestation which would be 10% of the overall global total. This amount still only accounts for about three-quarters of emissions from Brazil. So its clearly time for action including a concerted crackdown; we already know that having 300 "environmental agents" covering the entire Brazilian Amazon proved to be wholly-inadequate.

The Brazilian government's current plan is to ensure more trees are planted than cut down in the Amazon by 2015. In our view, to merely cut the deforestation rate in half within a decade is totally inadequate, a nonstarter. Any thoughts of afforestation and reforestation? Over the past generation, Brazil's net loss of forest has been approximately 50 million hectares, an astronomical amount. Brazil aims to reduce the prolific teardown rate of its forests during 2009 by 70% before 2017 and 80% before 2020. This is calculated to cut greenhouse gas emissions by nearly 40% versus the "do nothing" scenario which effectively means their base year for measurement is 2020 not 1990, 2000, 2005 or 2009. Authorities in Brazil have said such a target should equate to emissions reductions of about 20% versus that of 2005.

Special federal police and environmental agents have been sent in to try to stop illegal logging, land-clearing, sawmill operations and lighting of forest fires from escalating anew across this frontier. Authorities are apparently going after farmers and cattle ranchers that cut down trees, the industry responsible for about 80% of Amazon deforestation. Now, if you raise livestock on illegally-cleared land, your animals could be impounded. Yet, many Amazon natural resource harvestors are defiant and the rate of deforestation has so far continued to increase, wiping out huge new swathes of rainforest. We still have the Bom Futuro's and Tailandia's of the world with us.

Hydropower in Brazil accounts for about three-quarters of their electricity generation which is fine so long as Andean glaciers remain voluminous, not a given as we have pointed out. Coal use was once widespread then went into decline due to the historical rise of hydropower and, more recently, of sugar-based ethanol and soybean-based biodiesel sources. However, sizeable offshore hydrocarbon reserves are going to light-up their fossil fuel totals for the foreseeable future, adding to their greenhouse gas totals. Brazil also now has in-place feed-in tariff incentives to spur the advent of more renewable sources of energy. 

We also have phenomena like methane bloating livestock and sooty, sulfurous tailpipe ejections from dirty-diesel-fueled vehicles that proliferate especially in metropolitan areas like Sao Paulo and Rio de Janeiro. Beyond petroleum-based diesel and compressed natural gas, sugar-based ethanol provides most transportation fuel. Unfortunately, we still have widespread application of the ancient technique of controlled burning of sugar cane fields to remove underbrush. The cost to life as we know it of this practice is symbolized by curtains of dark gray smoke that waft up into the air from the cane fields. Brazilians should utilize the fibrous parts of sugar cane as a second generation cellulosic bio-fuel. 

Sao Paulo is the conurbation likely to lead Brazil towards the future - this vast metropolitan area of more than 10 million people is aiming to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 30% relative to 2005 levels by 2012. That's an aggressive time-line and we like it a lot. Furthermore, by more-closely monitoring the origin of incoming construction materials, they hope to provide an economic disincentive by blocking those cutting down trees in the Amazon and supplying it to the Sao Paulo market. The state of Sao Paulo is looking to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 20% versus 2009 levels by 2020. We assume that includes emissions arising from land use changes.

Indubitably, Brazil is an agricultural powerhouse. It is another one that is very vulnerable to the effects of climate change. We also hope there is not an agricultural chemical-runoff pollution disaster looming on the horizon. This may be a consequence of prodigious quantities of fertilizers, pesticides, insecticides, herbicides and fungicides applied to once-marginal cerrado land areas in an apparently-successful effort to enhance yields. Clearly, we are not dealing with quaint vegan family farmers here. Rather, we have mega-scale baron-like operators of agricultural complexes.

Malaysia has problems from forest fire haze. Much of it is a suffocating, morbid-yellowy-gray smoke from Indonesia. At times this haze is hard to distinguish from smoke and soot emanating from an overabundance of diesel-powered vehicles that eject plumes of noxious chemicals including aromatic hydrocarbons, formaldehyde, carbon monoxide, sulphur dioxide and nitrous oxide.

Historically in Turkey, household chemicals and waste have been dumped mercilessly into waterways. Stream water is frequently gray, brown or even black not blue or green. Unchecked mining activity near watershed areas has taken its toll to the point where there are also unsafe levels of arsenic in the water supply of countless cities and towns. Specialized water treatment facilities are now being purpose-built to deal with the arsenic problem. Moreover, supply of water is a grim issue so hydroelectricity is no longer a viable option. Lake Tuz, once Turkey's second largest lake, has completely evaporated or been used up. The lakebed area is now so salty trees wilt. Surprisingly, more than one-quarter of Turks still do not have access to toilets and sewage facilities, a shortage of water being one good reason why. Turkey remains far behind any pretence of implementing and enforcing European environmental standards.

Turkey has been a laggard in developing renewable sources of energy. However, lately they have been pursuing wind and geothermal energy projects with determination. Turks have installed lots of solar water heaters but we think they should embark on many more solar power projects with considerably less reliance on hydropower and fossil fuels.

In Mongolia, we have mentioned already about the pressures being faced by their epic nomadic herders. It is apparent that climate change is forcing them to change their livelihoods as water bodies dwindle to levels never known before. Many people flee to the cities. Many more start flailing around trying to adapt. This may be creating a follow-on problem - too many less mobile sheep and goats leading to overgrazing and further drying out in some areas of the countryside.

Romania has had mining effluent contamination of water from seepages of cyanide and traces of heavy metal content that ended up in several rivers. Air quality is poor due especially to the environmental implications that eventually result from coal-production in Jiu Valley. In Bulgaria, the sorry business of old mining and metallurgical operations is still widespread. Bulgaria is said to have the most polluted air in Europe right now. In relation to the environment, industrial cities like Pernik and Burgas are ghastly places. Happily, the EU is propelling Bulgaria along, to encourage them to get off the coal monkey, by mandating they derive about one-sixth of electrical generation capacity from renewable sources by 2020. Nuclear energy provides approximately one-third of their grid-power now. It's still early days but Romania and Bulgaria have modest wind power installed and are looking to the sun, rivers and biomass to provide energy, too.

Hungary is also too reliant on coal and other fossil fuels for energy. Macedonia is overly-dependent on fossil fuels and has bad air pollution. 

Pervasive air, water and soil pollution, including the effects from numerous gas flares, oil dumps, spills and slicks, is compounded by inadequate land management, soil erosion, dust and sand storms, acid rain, deforestation, desertification, drought and loss of biodiversity. We believe ongoing clean-up should be a requirement of operating, not an option to be deferred, mused over and exercised or not. Nigeria also has legions of oily-fuel-driven moped-style motorbikes fouling the air. In Lagos, there are problems with carbon monoxide, particulates, ozone and more. Lagos is apparently taking the lead on vehicle emissions tests which should result in the sidelining of many dirty, inefficient internal combustion engines on wheels. Lead-based household paint is the primary culprit now being fingered for the widespread elevated levels of lead in peoples' blood. This overexposure to lead is prevalent especially in the bloodstream of children.

Deforestation has been out of control, proceeding at the rate of more than 3% per year of what's left standing. Some say there are precious little forested areas left in northern Nigeria. Further, borderline-dry agricultural lands here could be tipped into becoming barren, unproductive areas as a consequence of the average ambient temperature rise associated with global warming. On the desertification front, the hour is late; an estimated one-third of previously arable land has already become desert. Additionally, agricultural productivity decline affects still-arable land in the country. All told, the likelihood of there being a drop in domestic food production clearly has potential to wreak havoc with the populace.

The Nigerian government has already implemented a massive afforestation seedling planting program involving millions of trees each year. So far, however, this effort has not solved the problem. They are going to try reforestation with fruit-bearing vines and trees with hopes the local people will see considerable value in nurturing them to maturity. The Sahara Desert advances south by about half a kilometer or so each year but hopefully a green wall or corridor in the north of the country can eventually slow or stop further desertification there. Nigeria has been moving in baby steps to enhance their capability in solar, wind, solid biomass and liquid bio-fuel endeavors. With their sunshine, Nigeria clearly could be a solar power. Even hillbillies from Saskatchewan are wondering "what are they waiting for"?! There also is an early inkling toward use of sweet sorghum as a base for producing bio-ethanol without unduly disrupting land area devoted to growing food.

Throughout rural Nigeria, only about 15% of people have water suitable for drinking and cholera is still of near-epidemic proportions in most places. As if all this does not sound chaotic enough, Lagos, now home to 15 million people, is on average only several meters above sea level and much of it is below two meters elevation. Storm surges often involve waves up to three meters high, leaving a margin of (gulp!) minus one meter for about half the population of the metro area. Trouble potentially looms 24 hours a day for the parts of Lagos that lie below global mean sea level now. As the useful land area to live on diminishes, one could perhaps pin hopes on people moving and the population declining. However, Nigeria demographically has one of the highest fertility rates of all countries, at about 5.4 children per woman.

Excessive land use changes and deforestation have created conditions where erosion and siltation of rivers have become concerns. Estuarine sediment load, coastal development and withdrawals of ground table water is resulting in the freaky phenomena of coastal subsidence. Better watch that one carefully. The ongoing Taiwanese endeavor to vigorously replant the terrain with copious numbers of deep-rooted, water-retention-tower type trees is a very good one. We believe such remedial actions will pay-off big, especially in the intermediate and long term. More fresh water will be a huge victory.

Taiwan are likely to lead in improvement of energy efficiency and conservation by electronic monitoring and metering of various appliances, application of temperature control systems and other electronic apparatus in homes, buildings, factories and warehouses.

Taiwan has a target that renewable energy sources comprise 15% of all electric power generation capacity by 2025. By this time, they also seek to reduce greenhouse gases by 20% relative to their 2006 levels. They also have a pretty soft appearing goal of getting back to their 2005 magnitude of greenhouse gas emissions before 2020. Being 30% below business-as-usual levels of 2020 by 2020 appears weak to us. Cutting carbon dioxide emissions by 50% versus that of the year 2000 before 2050 is their long term objective.

South Africa has a huge mining industry and to date still relies on coal for almost 90% of its energy needs. They continue to ramp up coal use domestically not to mention expanding exports of coking coal to losers like grimy old cement and steel manufacturers. Projecting a business-as-usual approach to 2015 would result in about a four-fold increase in greenhouse gas emissions from the level we are at now, not to downplay the impact of a variety of other pollutants they discharge. The status quo answer is clearly unacceptable.

Rather, South Africa needs to move fast to reduce use of coal and accelerate development of renewable sources of energy. So far, we hear they are redoubling their effort to go nuclear, apparently planning to rely on a series of smaller nuclear reactors. They now have a feed-in tariff scheme for wind power at least. South Africa is planning for 15% of its electricity to come from renewable sources by 2020. Capping emissions by 2025 is questionable as is their objective to then level emissions for another decade before commencing a decline in absolute amounts. Clearly, reacting to such enormous emissions levels and gushes of other pollutants by 2039 or 2049 is way too late.

We flatly disagree that a proposed carbon cap-and-trade system for South Africa would be a more efficient, cost effective, transparent or efficacious mechanism for curtailing greenhouse gas emissions than the global externality tax or tariff (GET) we describe before this portion of our Eco-Table. South African companies are set to be able to reduce tax owing by reducing their greenhouse gas emissions. Happily, South Africa does now have a system of incentive payments to promote development and utilization of solar power.

Poor to inadequate wastewater treatment infrastructure has been recognized. At one point, South Africa's environmental laws were set to become much tougher including the prospect of jail time for those that wantonly pollute. Recently, they have regressed further into accepting further installments of degenerative pollution as a means to more easily solve other socio-economic problems in the near term.

Even idyllic Cape Town is said to have more threatened species of plants than any other metropolis in the world. South Africa's bluebuck antelope is long gone. Try visiting Durban a mostly-ancient manufacturing hub where ghastly releases of chemicals from refineries including flaring, dumping and spillage of hydrocarbons have led to serious health problems for its citizens. Cancer cases are mounting and are increasingly being attributed to people routinely inhaling known carcinogens such as benzene, dioxins and mining and smelter byproducts such as mercury. The risk of inundation due to rise in sea level is also quite serious here. Metal processing dust and effluents are also affecting human health in places such as Port Elizabeth. Drink the water or breathe the air there and you could well inhale or ingest a laundry list of metallic elements such as manganese, selenium, nickel, copper, zinc, mercury, thallium, chromium, rubber particulates from burnt tires and more.

In South Africa, acid mine drainage (AMD) arises due to oxidation, leaching, dissolution and leaking from extensive metal mining and mineral lease areas. This results in water flowing from there having various metal content and coal residues including too-high concentrations of constituents like iron, sulphates, manganese, uranium and much more. Acidic water also overflows from old mine workings, cavities and drill-holes. Often, the consequences of AMD are contaminated wetlands, waterways and groundwater. For example, the devastating effects of AMD can be seen by the dead fish, reptiles and other life-forms that once thrived in the Olifants, Sabie, Letaba and Wilge Rivers. The rivers are reddish in color from the onslaught of acids and pesticide residues. Clearly, planning more mines within river catchment areas is going to make things worse. The Vaal, Crocodile, Tweelopiespruit and Umgeni Rivers are also seriously polluted including being tainted with metallic particles, acids and other noxious chemicals and residues. There also exists significant contamination from nitrates in the vicinity of platinum mines. Total dissolved solids content of water may be so high that the water is not drinkable or cannot be used for irrigation. 

On the west side of the country with river mouths near Cape Town, we have significant untreated sewage in the waterways spoiling the Soet and Diep Rivers. In general, there is an overprint of water contamination from an inadequately-maintained sewage pipeline and water treatment system. Across South Africa, the practice of releasing even semi-treated sewage wastewater into the waterways has also led to eutrophication of water bodies and the prevalence of dreadful blue-green algae, indicative of the presence of too much phosphorous and nitrogen in the water. Perhaps one-third of water is so degraded its listed as being "seriously impaired" by the government. How can people "stay away" from over half the country's water supply? That's one thing we would like to know.

Iran has water stresses looming. Lack of water bodies means dust storms that sweep across the country are more severe. Iran also suffers from expanding dryness and desertification which, in turn, contributes to their water woes. At times, it's a vicious circle. Furthermore, the drawdown of groundwater is causing surface subsidence of up to one-half meter per year or so in some localities.

Iran may have about 10% of its electricity generation requirements come from hydropower before 2015 with another 1% or so each from wind power and biomass sources. This is a pretty good start. Clearly, the contribution from solar power could be ramped skyward.

Pakistan has relied on gas and hydropower each providing about one-third of its electric power. Pakistan has been increasing reliance on turnkey oil-fuelled power plants and home furnace oil which increases emissions relative to using gas. Merely to get from a to b in Karachi, Rawalpindi, Islamabad, Lahore, Faisalabad, Hyderabad, Peshawar and Gujranwala, a motley collection of vehicles including countless motorcycles and two-stroke, three-wheel, motor rickshaws eject ghastly plumes of poisonous air as if there was no tomorrow. Exhaust ranges from the dark smoke of petrol burning in a poorly-tuned, inefficient engine to blue-tinged charcoal gray combustion products from lubricants or other oily constituents to whitish-gray smoke trails of leaking, burning engine coolant in dilapidated engines. Sadly, there is no tomorrow for an estimated one million Pakistani people who succumb to air pollution every year. In Lahore, they burn tires as fuel, often as a modus operandi in steel mills. How pathetic is that? Is it any wonder air quality there is abysmal? In Islamabad, people burn garbage to get rid of it. Old diesel-burning trucks add to the pall of pollution in many population centers as does the burning of solid waste. In Gujranwala, we have a fast growing gray-iron center for manufacture of metals, ceramics, textiles and more.

Clearly, Pakistan needs to initiate and escalate reliance on renewable sources of energy. The epoch characterized by burning coal and other carbon-intensive fuels has already passed along with its seemingly-interminable laundry list of hidden health, well being and environmental costs. Pakistan does have plenty of vehicles running on compressed natural gas already which has been improving the situation measurably. That's very good news, and we hope use of relatively-clean natural gas continues to ramp up further, to beyond-half of all cars, light trucks, jitneys and heavy vehicles on the roads.

We also have Pakistan becoming something of an electronic junk wasteland. The open smashing and burning of old computers may well result in release of toxic substances like phosphor dust and mercury from the monitors and carbon monoxide and dioxins from burning plastics that were likely treated with flame retardants when manufactured.

Agricultural waste runoff, discharges of untreated sewage and industrial effluents are also big causes of pollution. Croplands, especially those more proximal to large population centers, are often contaminated by the very water used to irrigate. Pesticides and insecticides banned in many countries are still used in Pakistan. Consequently, there has been growth and spreading of aflatoxins into feed stocks sufficient to cause poultry and even large animals like buffalo to die. Environmental hazards are making large numbers of people sick long before their time with communicable diseases at the forefront of maladies. Deforestation, soil erosion and desertification add to their afflictions. Even though most agricultural land in Pakistan depends on the Indus River for water, the volume of water available is likely to diminish in future due to increased net melting of Central Asian mountain glaciers, an insidious long-term trend down of the amount of rain and snow plus a tendency to try to augment hydropower one-too-many times. Siltation of the riverbed and river bank areas arises due to the reduced velocity of flowing water. The Chenab, Jhelum, Beas, Sutluj and Ravi rivers are affected similarly. If the water volume of, and load carried by, principal water bodies is curtailed, irrigation canal and channel offshoots from those rivers jeopardizes the reliable distribution of water to sustain agriculture. 

There already have been shortages of potable water which may be expected to occur chronically across large areas of Pakistan. The majority of Pakistani's, perhaps as many as 90% of the entire population, do not have access to water fit to drink. Over one million Pakistani's die each year from water-borne diseases including as many as one-quarter of a million young children from diarrhea-related complications of drinking or using untreated water. Also, we have had widespread gastroenteritis outbreaks.

The countries here are large geographically, in particular, vast Russia. So they can absorb a certain amount of ecological punishment before too many ill effects and impacts make it apparent a clampdown and some Yeltsin-style "shock therapy" may be required to redress the situation. The most out-of-control polluters likely belong in jail; when they get out on parole, their community service work should include time physically cleaning up ecological disasters and messes.

Raging fires in Russia, notably in southern Siberia, have ratcheted-up markedly the greenhouse gas emissions toll on the atmosphere. Springtime burning of agricultural land and new areas being prepared for crops or livestock grazing is widespread throughout southern Russia, adding to the smoky, sooty haze. Russia is a top-five greenhouse gas emitter, is the largest flarer of gas in the world, and burns forests and other biomass extensively. Up to one quarter of gas associated with oil production is wasted by being flared though plans are in place to cut this to about 5% overall by 2012 or face significant financial penalties. The government wants Russians to reduce energy consumption by 40% by 2020 mostly through conservation and improving energy efficiency. Russia is currently targeting somewhere from a 10% to 25% reduction of greenhouse gas emissions relative to 1990 levels by 2020. However, this means emissions by 2020 can increase by about 10% to 25% relative to their 2007-2008 levels. They have also committed to being 50% below their 1990 amount before 2050.

About two-thirds of Russian cities are afflicted with high levels of air pollution. Radioactive and otherwise toxic chemical sites, persistent organic pollutants, pesticides and other noxious chemicals are often very evident. Especially poignant is the experience in Dzerdjinsk where seemingly-medieval cauldrons still abound and spew gruesome plumes of pollutants into a dying airspace. Norilsk, a northern mining and smelting center, has historically released hideous amounts of sulfur dioxide, nickel oxides and various other heavy metal compounds into the atmosphere sufficient to knock up to 10 years off your life if you reside there. People say no trees grow for tens of kilometers around the most horrific point source polluters.

Throughout Russia, a lot of garbage is still incinerated, even the toxic stuff. Large fines and a clamp down on egregious-polluting offenders have only recently been initiated in some localities. According to the city administrators, 40% of St. Petersburg's raw sewage and untreated industrial waste ends up in River Neva and Gulf of Finland. Kaliningrad's raw sewage has ended up in the Baltic Sea along with a variety of other pollutants. Volge Federal District also has many severe pollution problem areas. The Volga River is nearing ecological collapse from various wastewater injections to its watershed. Several rivers in Siberia are also heavily polluted.

The coldest days of winters in Russia are reported by the British Meteorological Office to be up to four degrees Celsius warmer than during the 1950's, only a half-century ago. In Siberia, the temperature of permafrost soil is estimated to have risen by about one degree Celsius over one generation of time. This is not a pretty situation. Over the past century, average temperatures in Russia have warmed by about one-and-a-third degrees Celsius. The effects of melting permafrost are often all-too-obvious. Unfortunately, more than half the enormous land area of Russia has permafrost. There is considerable anecdotal and other evidence attesting to tree lines moving upslope in some places by many meters every year. And rail track bending and buckling. Flood risk in Russia due to progressive global warming-related rises in sea level or from storm surge events is most dire in St. Petersburg and the Arctic Ocean-facing cities of Murmansk and Arkhangelsk.

 In Ukraine and Belarus, soil pollution arises from overuse of pesticides and/or contamination from radioactive constituents still in the soil from Soviet-era events. Vats of poisonous pesticide were buried in many localities in an attempt to rid the stuff. However, as the containers decomposed over time the contents began leaking into the ground and groundwater. From consequences due to the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear site accident in Ukraine, one-quarter million people have been afflicted with radiation-induced illnesses of various kinds, in particular, cancers. The latter have already led to the demise of about 100,000 people. Several rivers in this region also still contain high levels of radioactive particles in various locations.

Look here, too to see the effects of significant coal mining and old coal-fired power plants. Prior careless, large-scale metal mining has added to the woes here-and-now for these countries. Don't go to Mariupol, Dneprodzerzhynsk or Donetsk on a holiday anytime-soon. The air, water and soil quality is abysmal across this severely-polluted swathe of Ukraine in particular. Similar to Russia, they commit to keeping greenhouse gas emissions at least 5% and perhaps 10% below 1990 levels. However, such levels would actually represent a significant increase over their 2008 amounts.

Historically, United States is the second largest per capita emitter of greenhouse gases after UK. According to the Energy Information Administration, emissions of carbon dioxide in America dropped by 7% in 2009 year over year which accounts for about four-fifths of all greenhouse gas emissions they generated during that year. However, USA remains among the very highest emitters of heat-trapping gases in per capita terms. On an absolute basis, USA has been the biggest greenhouse gas emitting country for many years and has only recently been overtaken by China. For example, in 2007, according to the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, China was responsible for 24% of all carbon dioxide emissions worldwide, the USA for 22%. Other countries each generated less than 10% of the total. USA is better-off than many countries both in terms of natural resources remaining and ecological survivability potential due to their relatively modest population density and greater ability to assimilate, re-integrate and cope with various waste streams generated.

About one-third of garbage is recycled or composted so there is much room for improvement here given the sheer magnitude and scope of consumption that goes on in US. They also have some 100 million cows plus a huge number of other methane out-gassing farm animals, too. Emissions arising from land use changes still have a sizeable impact. Vast tracts of private timberlands are rezoned and subdivided in stages. Often, second homes and acreages are added amid existing forest lands.

In United States, coal-driven plants still provide over 50% of electricity generated and account for about one third of all greenhouse gases each year in USA. The Energy Information Administration has reported that coal is still expected to provide nearly half of America's electric power even in 2030. We hope not. There is also the serious problem of what to do about the innumerable coal ash dumps from legacy production of coal. Over time, some of the contents of these ponds including a variety of toxic compounds are being leached out. In principle, tax-exempt bonds can still be used to finance coal power plants. However, increasingly, many applications for new coal-driven power stations are being blocked or delayed by various legal actions and the court system. Nation wide, coal-fired power generation is still responsible for as much as 40% of mercury emissions and 60% of sulfur dioxide emissions. However, nitrogen oxide from coal-powered plants must be reduced in 2009 and sulfur dioxides must be curtailed further no later than 2010.

Older generation nuclear power provides about one-fifth of America's base-load electric power. We would like to see very broad diversification in the energy industry. The existence of that broad diversification contains the risk and enhances energy security. The starting point in thinking about broad diversification of energy to assure our supply of it should be something like our "10 x 10%" solution. It's one way to attempt to make a smooth circle from a rigid, prickly square of sometimes-diametrically-opposing points of view: There's an initial 10% target allocation to, or goal for, each of: 1) solar thermal and solar photovoltaic;  2) wind; 3) liquid biofuels especially from algae, seaweed and second generation cellulosic feedstocks, plus some extraneous biomass from crop residues, forestry waste, plant and grass clippings; 4) geothermal including ocean temperature and concentration gradients; 5) hydro, including run-of-river microgeneration projects; 6) tidal, wave and currents; 7) fuel cells; 8) nuclear fission and, one day, nuclear fusion; 9) natural gas, and 10) the lighter grades of oil. There, that's ten. Did we miss anything important? Not really? Okay, so in short, renewables should comprise about three-quarters of total energy requirements. Solar thermal, geothermal, biomass, fourth generation nuclear energy and conceivably fuel cells, too should progressively displace fossil fuels for the remainder and contribute to reducing intermittency thereby providing assurance of more than adequate base-load power available 24/7/365. In order of precedence, that displacement should be according to carbon intensity and pollution generated, so first we rid existing coal and heavy oil, then medium API grades of oil, etc., shale gas and lastly, some day, to have eliminated natural gas, too. Mining shale rock for low-grade, greasy oil is a desperate, fleeting, environmentally-destructive undertaking. Money could instead flow into developing solar power in the Mojave Desert, projects that are upgradeable for an eternity and draw on essentially-unlimited reserves of thermonuclear energy transmitted to us from the sun. How's that for security?

Historically, acid rain has been a big problem in USA. That particular phenomenon was remedied to a significant extent in recent years but cleaning up abandoned mines remains a big task. US pipeline and refinery operators currently plan and are undertaking upwards of $50 billion or more of capital investment for new pipelines, refineries, refinery expansions, retrofitting and conversion of conventional crude facilities so they can transport and process heavy crude input from Canada and Venezuela. To the extent that heavy crude is used as feedstock and use of these dirty, sour inputs is not cut-back or halted in some areas, pollution from affected oil refineries including sulfur and metals like mercury, nickel and lead, is likely to increase markedly in US and cross-border into Canada, too.

Given the scale of the US economy and the extent of trade, pollution is also vast from bunker fuel-burning ships entering their waters and diesel trucks rumbling in and out of port areas. Those emissions cocktails includes plenty of soot, particulates, nitrogen and sulfur oxides and nitryl chloride. Stricter diesel-powered emissions rules for the future have recently been announced in USA affecting vessels, boats and trains. Cruise liners, tanker and container ships anywhere near California must operate on low-sulfur diesel fuel.

Due to new federal government standards set, greenhouse gas emissions emanating from and the fuel efficiency of cars and trucks both will have to improve markedly before 2016. Across fleets, an average of 35.5 miles per US gallon of fuel is required. Tailpipe pollutants generally are also in the cross-hairs of government which is great news. We very much look forward to the realization of a nation-wide, smart power grid and to one million plug-in hybrid electric or electric cars being on the roads in America before 2016. We want to see a rigorous low-carbon fuel standard applied throughout USA not only California, Oregon and some states of the northeastern and mid-Atlantic regions.

Further, California has regulations mandating a reduction in carbon content of transportation fuels by 2015, and they do not accept inbound carbon-intensive energy sources anymore. This was the first low-carbon fuel standard we knew of. It recognizes the significant carbon footprint associated with first generation ethanol. This ethanol also utilizes about four times the volume of water as ethanol produced to process it from starch which is a concern. California has also pushed for a hydrogen highway including a network or hydrogen-fuelling stations. We are dismayed that these incredible liquid hydrogen and hydrogen fuel cell powered vehicles are ready-to-go, however, potential owners in virtually every jurisdiction are still waiting for hydrogen service depot infrastructure so drivers can get from point to point before they run out of fuel. Fluorinated gases are also being regulated, use of which is being cut back. We are also fired-up about California's leading-edge green chemistry initiative. It will reveal to consumers to what extent the design, manufacture, transport and use of a product is environmentally friendly. California are also pushing for 33% of its grid-electricity to be derived from renewable sources before 2020. Their objective is to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 25% by 2020. By law, cities in California must cut greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels or less by 2020.

Other states such as New York and Massachusetts are also already far-along the green path. New York is targeting renewable energy to provide 30% of electricity grid power generation by 2015 and for a reduction by 30% of carbon emissions before 2030. We have emerging clean-tech jurisdictions, too such as Maine, Maryland, Rhode Island, Vermont, Delaware, Iowa, Florida, Hawaii, Oregon, New Mexico, Nevada, Arizona, Mississippi, Colorado and Washington where there have been bold moves to try to ramp up use of renewable energy faster. Hawaii has mandated that an astonishing two-thirds of electrical demand be satisfied by renewable or other alternative sources before 2030. Texas is likely to become a prime area for wind-generated power and solar energy too. Presently, however, Texas has a very problematic chemical soup of fossil fuel combustion emissions, petrochemicals and more to contend with. Texas can't go on generating greenhouse gases at rates comparable to all of Africa. The Midwest has historically suffered from refining and widespread use of carbon-intensive fuels. A clean fuel standard will over time face-down that huge problem by eliminating all high-carbon sources so we should have a happy ending in this region, too.

There are many fuel inefficient vehicles still on the roads throughout America and plenty of whimsical driving. Plus we obviously have lots of flights that involve US locations. Jets worldwide add several percentage points to the global tab for greenhouse gases. The American Lung Association has gathered much data on metropolitan statistical areas in United States. Los Angeles and Pittsburgh have the most polluted air overall among major cities according to their analysis. Particulates including dust, soot and aerosols plague those cities plus other ones including Birmingham, Cleveland-Akron, Milwaukee and Detroit. Ground-level ozone has also been problematic in USA particularly on hotter days in congested areas of cities such as Los Angeles, Houston, Dallas, Chicago, Louisville and Jacksonville, due to high levels of volatile organic compounds, smog and nitrous oxides.

San Francisco is the first major city we know of that has implemented a strict but realistic plan towards the noble objective of eliminating the need for more landfills and incinerators. As a corollary, San Franciscans are participating en masse in recycling, composting and developing a keen sense of eco-consciousness. Plus a nutrient-rich organic fertilizer-type product is being made available for delivery to California's agriculture industry.

The newly-recognized phenomenon of cold weather ozone emanating from natural gas fields or gaseous oilfields is unwelcome news. Apparently, anywhere that particular well-bore drilling chemicals mix with gas fumes from the vicinity of those types of wells plus snow-reflected sunlight leads to creation of very high levels of ozone. There also exists the emerging problem of gas reservoir fracturing chemicals that potentially, somehow could end up in groundwater. Knowing exactly what those chemicals are will make it easier to sense and trace what happens subsurface.

In the US, there has (or had) been a practice of allowing heavy industry such as cement kilns to burn rubber tires as a fuel source which clearly adds to pollution woes. Tire-burning releases rubber particulates, soot, dioxins, furans, lead, cadmium, various acids and other noxious gases. We are counting on Americans to stop others from burning this hideous material and to mandate doing something else with it. And to lead the mission to find a substitute for vulcanized rubber. And to try to curtail it from being shipped as it is being now from certain countries to some developing nations to become a cheap and dirty extender in a dreadful blend of diesel fuel which is then combusted. Into our atmosphere. As the Earth rotates, the winds just might bring that air pollution back our way for us to breathe, too. Not a warm and fuzzy bedtime story for our children. Cement-makers have also released too much mercury, particulates and hydrochloric acid.

US continental shelf areas have extensive anaerobic dead zones attributable in large measure to fertilizers, pesticides and other chemical runoff originating inland that ends up in the Gulf of Mexico, Atlantic or Pacific Oceans. Unnervingly, PCB's, DDT, other pesticide residues, dioxins, mercury, arsenic, boron and more still show up in many US rivers with unacceptable concentrations even though PCB's and DDT were banned long ago in the US. Sadly, there is little doubt remaining that disastrous effects from the Gulf oil spill will, at the margin, put pressure towards a significant reduction in aggregate ecological survivability characterizing the region for many years to come. US Environmental Protection Agency now has compiled a most-wanted list of environmental fugitive types which can only help enforcement of existing laws, rules and regulations. It's also on a parallel path to regulate major greenhouse gases if it comes to that but legislation is still the preferred means to prompt pollution reduction and stop climate change.

We like the competitive auctions implemented in the US to boost the geothermal energy segment. USA has been the world's largest geothermal power producer. The amount they produce should increase by half or more before 2020. Various entities have been moving aggressively developing wind power, solar power, geothermal and different bio-fuels. If biomass including ethanol is tallied up along with other renewable sources, the US now has clean energy for about 7% of its overall energy needs.

Growing extra canola, sunflower, rapeseed, soybeans, jatropha, miscanthus, etc. along highway, transmission line, pipeline, geophysical survey cut-lines and other marginal or line-stripped right-of-way lands is gaining momentum. In tropical and sub-tropical countries, similar actions could be undertaken with sesame, peanut, flax, coconut, cassava, jatropha and more. Entrepreneurs of America should gear up to offer what we call biofuel "land-strip strips" or "land-strip squared" participations. To create a suitable investment vehicle, land-strip strips here and there could be combined in a potpourri. Only this time, unlike the bad experience with some mortgage-backed securities, binned strips would be closely tallied, monitored and mapped. Through this green investment-driven process of strip-land upgrading to produce biofuels, as opposed to the all-too-familiar pattern worldwide of degradation of land, greenhouse gas emissions would be reduced significantly due to land use change (carbon sink) improvement and reduced use of fossil fuels in favor of biofuel. We believe such systematic cultivation of heretofore underutilized land, if undertaken on a large scale, represents exactly the kind of change, ingenuity, innovation and technology we must pursue vigorously. One day, the impact of it could seal our victory, thereby preventing us all from tipping, then perhaps plunging, headlong into some heat-sink gray-hole warp weirdness whereupon there exists a near-infinite escape velocity for us to get out of it. In short, we avert disaster by taking control of the pollution-driven climate change play before it all takes control of our destiny in some perhaps-unpredictable way. We cannot get into the realm where we had quite an inkling about it but no clear understanding, focus, will, cooperation or collective action soon enough to first stop, then reverse the unraveling of ecological survivability.

With legislation pending, USA is currently targeting being about 4% below 1990 levels of greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 whereas in 2008 they were about one-sixth beyond their 1990 total. This target equates to being 17% below 2005 levels. They also aim to be about one-fifth below their 1990 amount of greenhouse gases by 2025 and to emit one-third less heat-trapping gases versus 1990 before 2030. At that juncture, fossil fuels is still projected to provide about two-thirds of total energy, nuclear one-sixth, and renewable sources one-sixth. By the mid-century mark, the anticipation currently is to reduce heat-trapping gases by 83% below 2005 emissions which equates to somewhere in the range of two-thirds to three-quarters relative to the situation during 1990. On the algebra front, we hesitate to believe USA can achieve such targets for greenhouse gas emissions reductions at the same time as they continue along the coal pathway and anticipate ramping-up importation of carbon-laden heavy crude from Canada by two hundred percent or more by the 2030's. 

In terms of absolute capacity, US is already the world's largest wind power but that total is still modest compared to its overall energy use. Wind currently accounts for only about 2% of their grid power. However, US now has rules for offshore wind and wave development which will spur development activity. The Department of Energy has said it's conceivable wind-driven turbines could comprise 20% of electric power generation in US by 2030. USA is aiming to double its use of solar and wind energy by 2012 and to have 25% of power grid energy come from renewable sources by 2025. The majority of electrical generating capacity being newly-added these days is powered by either renewable sources or natural gas.

A geophysical paper is raising the specter of much greater coastal submergence risk in the long run in US than previously had ever been articulated. East coast cities including Boston, New York, Jacksonville and Miami are especially vulnerable to ongoing increases in sea level. Higher short term rise components due to storm and tidal surges superimpose on top of the long term rise occurring as a consequence of global warming, thermal expansion of water and polar icecap melting. It makes for rather spooky reading and we hope someone finds a flaw in their data, analysis and/or hypothesis rather than having to think of things like alteration of the Earth's axis of rotation as a result of catastrophic ice sheet melting.

Performance with respect to the Kyoto Protocol has been fairly disastrous: Canada's greenhouse gas emissions have gone up by more than one-quarter since 1990, Australia's by more than three-quarters since 1990. If these countries do not pay-up to cover their own shortfalls with respect to this agreement as Japan willingly did, there would seem to be a problem. They appear to believe commitments made regarding reducing their throw-off of heat-trapping gases is some kind of high-level game. In this cartoon, they realize there is Sylvester™ the Cat and Tweety Bird™, but ostensibly they also believe there is no watchdog with teeth like Brutus™. So fossil fuel mandarins operating in these countries together with their investors, advisors and financiers easily influence politicians and regulators. We have been quietly hoping Canada's tough-minded bankers would smarten-up whoever needs to be smartened-up regarding Canada's disproportionate overinvestment in the tar sands. Much greater emphasis on renewable energy is needed. The country is lagging way back in this great green race of the new millennium.

Furthermore, Canada does not need the oilsands to survive and prosper. It would be a responsible thing to do to work out a way oilsands projects could be held at bay as a sunk cost, strategic reserve type operation to be fired-up only in the event of there being a security issue affecting Canada, NAFTA/NORAD, NATO, etc. such that more energy was needed pronto. In this sense, it should be a standby-reserve. Beyond that, we think opinion worldwide, including among the Canadian and American public, is solidly-against the oilsands of Alberta. We believe a public referendum concerning the future of the tar sands in Canada would establish exactly. Due to the unending controversy around the world and in Canada regarding further development of the oilsands, why don't we let Canadians have their say about it during the next election?

Citizens everywhere expect their powers-that-be to live-up to international commitments, for example the Kyoto Protocol, and to bear their fair share of responsibility for legal agreements, not to shirk same. The players in heavy oil and coal have not paid their pro rata share of Kyoto liability based on the pollution generated historically by their activities. Whose bill is that, who is obligated to pay it, the people of Canada? The Alberta oil sands are widely-considered to be among the highest cost, energy and pollution intensive fossil-fuel projects remaining on Earth. As time goes by and tar sands extraction descends further into the abyss, each increment of production becomes more and more carbon-intensive. Very few people speak of the possibility that carbon capture and underground sequestration can overcome this burden. Alberta, with their vast windfall from triple-digit oil prices, should have been aggressively diversifying into renewable sources of energy a generation ago. They failed to do it and even today are reluctant. This in our new epoch where either multilateral political pressure, carbon markets and/or, in our view, the inevitability of a global externality tax (GET) type mechanism will all-but ensure there is no viable future for Alberta's oil sands. With climate-can't-change looming on the horizon as an imperative in virtually every country, it may not be long before there are no refineries left that can upgrade grimy, sulfurous heavy crude because the jurisdiction where they operate has effectively or actually shut them down. Rather than the dirty oil, we think many people in western United States would want the fresh, clean water that is forgone from the watershed once used in processing of bitumen.

One-sixth or so of the land area of Egypt, including Alexandria and Port Said, is said to be at high risk of being submerged due to a sea level rise of no more than about one meter, a distinct possibility before 2050. This would likely involve transgression of the Mediterranean Sea across an average of about 65 kilometers of land parallel to the current coastline. Very little of Egypt's land is arable and most of that is near the Nile Delta which, according to the aforementioned scenario, would also be partially-submerged to the tune of perhaps 15% of its current extent.

Egypt also has a challenging air pollution problem especially near metropolises. Mass transit in major cities would help immeasurably as would reducing a three-quarters share of fossil fuel use to power their production of electricity. Renewable energy should be a big phenomenon here. Mere conversion of various plant and equipment to natural gas from higher carbon content fuels is not by itself going to resolve issues connected to, or impacts arising from, global warming. We suggest the ancient agricultural practice of burning leftover rice straw following harvesting should instead be to gather up the remains for use as fertilizer or animal feed or as feedstock for production of a new bio-fuel. Civic garbage is routinely burned by residents and businesses. Cairo has an appalling problem with sunlight-dimming atmospheric brown clouds, ugly carcinogenic mixtures of soot, black carbon, lower stratosphere (bad) ozone and other particulate matter that persists. Its air quality is said to be the worst of any city in Africa. We suggest Egypt not listen to "green" entrepreneurs and corporate salesmen types who are known to try to gain a commercial advantage by parading the idea that burning any kind of biomass is a practice good for the environment.

We are for accelerating the migration of millions of people from submerging island economies and very vulnerable, way-overpopulated countries such as Bangladesh to other richer, higher-elevation nations. There already exists migration pressure to places still having relatively abundant natural resources and potential for ecological survivability. People universally tend to want to leave behind unbearable threats and consequences arising from natural hazards, extreme weather, global warming, air, water and soil pollution loads.

In 2007, despite having in place an elaborate safety system including sirens and refuge towers, Bangladesh suffered a major cyclone that resulted in huge loss of life, chaos and the displacement of tens of millions of people. If you live on or near the Sundarbans and the Ganges-Brahmaputra-Meghna, the world's largest delta, that traverses Bangladesh and southeast India, you are already a victim of climate change. The southern islands here are already progressively-dipping beneath encroaching saltwater, shrinking available arable land not to mention a place to live. Each year an estimated 100 square kilometers is lost to the sea. Khulna, Chittagong and Cox's Bazar are highly vulnerable to natural disasters being not far from the front lines of climate change. Warming, thermal expansion of water and rise of sea level is now noticeably affecting the Bay of Bengal. 20% of Bangladeshi's land area could be lost by mid-century due to transgression by the ocean and flooding events also involving unusually-high volumes of melt-water tumbling down from the Himalayas. Scientists at Dhaka University estimate that before 2050, 35 million people in the country risk becoming internally-displaced climate refugees. This implies an average rate of about one million people per year in Bangladesh whose lives will be disrupted perhaps to the point of no return. Bengal tigers in the area do not like this "squeeze play" either and are becoming nastier towards people. Nor would we want to run-up against an Indian python, a species that is also on-the-ropes in this region.

A combination of global rising sea level and deltaic subsidence fuels the rate of submergence. Ongoing subsidence in many inland and coastal areas around the world occurs due to a myriad of factors. Factors include increased sediment load, increased structural load from cities, saltwater ingression and progressive loss of support from fresh water once contained underground. Due to the complications, the dynamics here are most often left out of equations about climate-change-induced global rise of sea level. In Bangladesh, ground water tables are increasingly being depleted to lower and lower levels as more and more people search for and utilize fresh water from aquifers. According to the government of Bangladesh, it plans to plant 100 million trees as a natural way to try to reduce the negative impact of storms, tidal surges, floods, salt incursion and droughts. Hopefully, this action will help to stem the worrisome decline in rice paddy production As the level of salt for crops to choke down increases over time, more and more rice farmers may have to look to other endeavors such as planting date palm trees or harvesting submerged vegetation such as seaweed.

Arsenic contamination of groundwater including well-water is a widespread affliction, so widespread that it affects at least 30 million people. As many as 100 million people are at risk of developing arsenicosis (poisoning from arsenic). Apparently, arsenic contamination of water up to nearly one part per million of arsenic is treatable effectively using the innocuous bacteria Lactobacillus acidophilus. At least, there should be arsenic filtration before people drink this water. Where there exists the power of  knowledge, understanding and progress, it seems, hope is always alive. Bangladeshi's that opt to drink surface water are frequently afflicted with a variety of gastro-intestinal illnesses. Diarrhea and diarrhea-related diseases have reached epidemic proportions in parts of Bangladesh. With virtually any river in Bangladesh, there may be river bank and estuary erosion and switching morphology at certain times of the year thereby displacing nearby residents and spreading the polluted contents of the river onto the adjacent land areas.

Chemicals and waste dumped into rivers in Bangladesh include DDT, other pesticides, animal hide and skin trimmings, grime, grease, oil, chlorine, mercury, chromium, sulphate, ammonia and copious amounts of chemical fertilizers from agricultural run-off. The Buriganga River is said to be close to being devoid of life. However, there is a massive dredging and clean-up of it during 2010 which we hope will result in its rehabilitation. Other rivers such as the Shitalakhya, Turag, Balu, Bhairab and Norai are also ecologically null and void. Chemical contamination and microbial oxidation has become so concentrated, there remains virtually no dissolved oxygen content to sustain life forms. These rivers are black, not blue, and often have the consistency of motor oil. In and around Hazaribagh, a center for the dyeing, tannery and textile industry, the water is really not water at all. Rather, it's an abominable chemical concoction of agricultural chemical residues, poisonous industrial liquid waste and other effluent, residential solid waste, other garbage and raw sewage. Other industrial centers such as Narayanganj, Gazipur, Rajshahi City and Tejgaon are nearly as odious. Living organisms including us are mostly water. We need fresh water every week to survive. What future do the people have here if water quality is this pathetic? Many freshwater fish are on the verge of extinction or have disappeared altogether as a consequence mainly of water pollution. Siltation is creating new terrain in places but is fragmenting and eliminating waterways that were once habitat for fish and transportation corridors for people. We suggest farmers try placing live ducks throughout their paddy fields as a substitute for pesticides, fertilizer and use of more water.

Cities such as Dhaka, Chittagong and Khulna are plugged with old-junk buses and trucks that belch noxious fumes from diesel fuel combustion. The concentration of lead in the air in Dhaka is an order of magnitude greater, that is ten times greater, than the environmental standard set. So we have very high levels of particulate matter mixed in with carbon monoxide, formaldehyde, cyanide, polycyclic organics, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrogen dioxide, lead and sulfur. Other big contributors to air pollution are petroleum-diesel electricity generators and mostly coal-fired brick-producing kilns. Fuel sources, including for cookstoves in Bangladesh, may include any of petroleum-based diesel fuel, wood, coal, charcoal, kerosene, dung, crop residues, polythene, even rubber tires. With combustion like this, is it any wonder particulates have been blamed for various cancers, kidney, lung and vascular diseases?

Bangladeshi's have indeed absorbed haymaker lefts, roundhouse rights and innumerable jabs. But now glimmers of hope come from 150 million kilometers away, from the star of our solar system. By 2013, as many as 10 million people in Bangladesh may have installed and be utilizing modest-cost, rooftop solar power systems. Millions of citizens who did not have reliable electricity, or had none at all, are increasingly turning to the Earth's shining star, the sun, to brighten their futures. Bangladesh is now also aiming for 10% of electricity to be derived from renewable sources of energy especially solar power. Further, breathing is becoming easier for those involved as droves of dreadful kerosene-burning lamps are being junked in the wake of this change. More and more obnoxious, noxious fuel dealers and salesmen are finding themselves looking for something else to do. In fact, it's better to do nothing at all than cause eco-calamity like this.

Bahrain has many of the same issues as Saudi Arabia to deal with. Greenhouse gas emissions per capita have been sky-high. Traffic-congested and industrial areas of Manama reek with tailpipe exhaust and smokestack emissions. Ground level ozone also enters the country from elsewhere. Hazy fossil fuel pollution makes powering air-conditioners more problematical, a conspicuous consumption event. Ma'ameer is known for its petrochemical, steel and cement manufacturing but also for its elevated incidence of cancer and birth defects.

Oman's carbon emissions have been sizeable on a per capita basis. Like Saudi Arabia and other countries where there exists limited land area that is not desert or subject to ongoing desertification, Oman is operating and consuming far beyond the rate which can be sustained by the natural systems of their useful land base. Oman, however, does have peridotite rocks in abundance at the surface which, upon contact, naturally converts carbon dioxide present in the air into various mineral solids.

Czech Republic is about 60% dependent on coal for electric power and is sporting one of the highest emissions growth rates in the European Union (EU). Ostrava, a gritty coal and steelmaking hub, along with the also-heavily-industrialized Karvina, are among the most polluted places in Central Europe. Residents there are protesting what they have to breathe every day - debilitating concentrations of dust, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, you name it. Soil contamination in the country from reckless industrial practices of bygone days is still widespread, threatening drinking water purity even in Prague. Air quality in the Moravia-Silesia region and Prague metro area is also poor most of the time. So bad in the latter case that Prague has authority to halt inflow of traffic to congested areas altogether if the need arises based on escalated concentrations of particulates in the atmosphere. The EU's response has been to allow these wanton polluters to continue without significant monetary or other consequences until as late as 2020. How sickening that the days of free, egregious polluting are so obviously still with us.

Estonia has a very large carbon footprint relative to the size of their population. Emissions increased a whopping 15% in 2007! Estonia's carbon-intensive economy is still nearly-totally reliant on fossil fuels. To generate electricity, many power plants there burn awful oil shale, releasing hideous amounts of sulphur dioxide and many other pollutants directly into the breathing space of citizens. On the bright side of life, Estonia has shown leadership in conserving forests by setting aside huge tracts of land where nature is protected. They have been ramping up contributions from renewable energy modes, and conceivably by 2020 could reach one-quarter of total energy use derived from renewable sources.