Author: getwetprojectblog

By Natasha Gilbert

This article was produced in partnership with US Right to Know.

Among all the contaminants in drinking water, nitrates are one of the most pervasive. They leach from chemical fertilizers and animal manure to pollute groundwater, rivers, and streams. Doctors have long known that in infants, nitrates can lead to blue baby syndrome—a potentially fatal blood condition that starves the body of oxygen. But now scientists and health advocates are worried that nitrates could also cause cancer. They suggest it could be behind hundreds of cases in farming states across the United States.

To address these concerns, the Environmental Protection Agency began a crucial and long-awaited assessment of the health risks of nitrates in 2017. Scientists and public health advocates hope the assessment will spur the EPA to tighten restrictions on nitrates in drinking water. Legal limits were set over 30 years ago, but scientists and advocates warn that the limits are outdated and don’t protect against cancer. They point to spiking cancer rates in farming states like Iowa and Minnesota, where nitrate contamination can reach sky-high levels. They also highlight studies that suggest the risk of dying from cancer is higher when drinking water with nitrates, even when nitrates are at low levels. 

“Nitrate pollution from industrial-scale agricultural practices … poses an imminent and substantial endangerment to communities across the country,” wrote a coalition of environment and community advocates in a letter to the EPA in October 2024.

Other researchers are concerned that the existing standards don’t even protect infants from blue baby syndrome. David Belluck, a retired state toxicologist for Wisconsin and an expert on nitrate pollution in groundwater, writes that the EPA overlooked key information when calculating safe levels of nitrates. The missed data could dramatically lower the levels of nitrates considered safe, he wrote in a public comment submission to the EPA. Belluck called on the EPA to reconsider nitrates’ potential harm to infants.

But representatives from the food and agricultural industry are downplaying the health risks. They hired a consulting firm to produce a study that dismisses the need for tighter nitrate controls. In public comments to the EPA, they argue that stricter controls would be prohibitively expensive without providing any health benefits. They also assert that nitrates can be beneficial to health when present in food such as fruits and vegetables. However, independent scientists say these arguments overemphasize the benefits of nitrates in food and draw attention away from the risks of nitrates in drinking water. The researchers said the industry’s strategy is an attempt to muddy the debate and delay further controls.

Elizabeth Southerland, former director of the EPA’s Office of Science and Technology in the Office of Water, is troubled by industry’s tactics to derail the assessment and fight tighter controls. “The objective is to paralyze so that you cannot move forward until you have many more years of study,” she says. “This is always the industry playbook. There’s never enough data.” 

Flawed standards

In the 1940s and ’50s, researchers began reporting on a spate of infants with a blue discoloration of their skin. Some were also vomiting. Others struggled to breathe. Several didn’t survive. The infants were suffering from blue baby syndrome, also known as methemoglobinemia (MetHb). They likely developed the condition after being fed with infant formula made with nitrate-contaminated well water, concluded researchers and health professionals. But the condition can also occur as a genetic disorder.

MetHb occurs when bacteria in the body convert nitrate—a compound of nitrogen and three oxygen atoms—into nitrite—a compound of nitrogen and two oxygen atoms. The nitrite interacts with hemoglobin molecules in red blood cells to form methemoglobin. In this form, blood is less able to bind oxygen and deliver it around the body. Infants are particularly vulnerable to adverse effects of excess nitrate because their bodies are more sensitive to nitrate and nitrite and are not yet able to correct the problem. The condition can be treated with an intravenous dose of methylene blue, a blue-colored solution.

In 1991, the EPA set legal limits on nitrates in drinking water to protect infants from the condition. Largely based on two key studies, the EPA determined that restricting nitrates in drinking water to 10 milligrams per liter (mg/L) of nitrate–nitrogen (a measure of the amount of nitrogen in a sample of nitrate) would protect infants from harm. 

However, some toxicologists say infants are still at risk of MetHb at this level. 

Belluck, who spent much of his career writing drinking water standards for Wisconsin, asserts that the nitrate limits are based on a false premise. The EPA assumes that infants develop the condition at concentrations of 11 mg/L nitrate-nitrogen or above. He identified several cases where infants developed the condition at much lower levels. These include five cases in the state of Iowa where infants developed MetHb at concentrations as low as 0.4 mg/L. These cases were reported in studies that the EPA considered directly and indirectly when developing its standards.

Lots of uncertainty 

There are also other problems with the EPA’s nitrate standards. The limits don’t take into account differences in the way infants respond to nitrate or their susceptibility to MetHb, writes Belluck in comments to the EPA. Factoring in this variation would lower the limits to ensure that the most vulnerable individuals are protected. 

“There is no scientific justification to assume that all infants are the same in their response to nitrate ingestion,” wrote Belluck.

Anna Fan, a toxicologist and former chief of the pesticide and environmental toxicology branch of the California Environmental Protection Agency, wrote that there is little buffer between the legal limit of 10 mg/L and the level the EPA says can harm infants. 

In addition, the studies that the EPA standard relies on are poor quality and scientifically unreliable, suggested Fan and Belluck. “Every day that goes by, infants are exposed to unacceptable levels of nitrate and nitrite … because of math and science errors,” wrote Belluck. The EPA needs to cut its safe levels by “one or more orders of magnitude,” he suggested.

Catherine Zeman, an environmental health scientist and expert in infant methemoglobinemia at James Madison University in Virginia, agrees that standards don’t protect all infants. “I think it’s right at the edge of where it needs to be. But there are cases where it’s not going to protect [infants],” she says.

The EPA did not respond to questions about the concerns regarding MetHb and the safe levels of nitrates in drinking water. 

In a statement, an EPA spokesperson said the agency is required to review drinking water regulations every six years to determine whether any revisions are needed. In its review published last year, the agency noted that it is conducting a health assessment for nitrates and nitrites. 

Assessing nitrates’ links to cancer 

In June 2023, the EPA announced it would reassess the health risks of nitrates and nitrites in drinking water. However, it will not review the risks of MetHb. The agency said it only plans to look at possible links to cancer and some other health effects, such as thyroid disease, that were not considered when the EPA developed the nitrate standards. 

Fifteen years ago, EPA scientists recommended the agency evaluate growing evidence of cancer and other health effects from nitrates in drinking water. Meanwhile, other EPA scientists have long called for changes to the nitrate regulations. In an email from 2017, Kimberly Harris, who at the time was a health effects specialist at a regional EPA branch that serves states, including Wisconsin and Minnesota, wrote that her office had been “advocating for updates to the nitrate/nitrate drinking water regulations for some time.” But they were told that the risk assessment must precede any reforms, she wrote. The email was obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request.

In 2017, the EPA started the risk assessment, but it was suspended two years later by the previous Trump administration due to changes in EPA leadership priorities. The Biden administration restarted the program, but the nitrate assessment could take several years to complete. The EPA says it will decide whether regulatory reforms are needed once the assessment is finished.

All the while, nitrate pollution continues to grow. In July last year, the EPA released data showing that it found nitrates in over 71 percent of water systems it surveyed nationwide between 2012 and 2019. Of these, 2.8 percent exceeded legal limits, with some nitrate concentrations reaching over 90 times the limit. An earlier EPA survey between 2006 and 2011 found nitrates in 63 percent of water systems surveyed. 

Researchers and health advocates say the assessment and better protection for citizens are past due. Michael Schmidt, staff attorney for the Iowa Environmental Council, says, “We have endured drinking water contamination for decades, and action to ensure our health is overdue.”

Studies sound alarm bells

The National Cancer Institute, part of the National Institutes of Health, says that ingested nitrates and nitrites react with other substances in the body to form N-nitroso compounds, which are known to cause cancer in animals and may cause cancer in humans. 

Studies show that people who ingest nitrate in drinking water can develop colorectal and stomach cancer even at concentrations below the legal limits. A 2022 analysis found that the risk of stomach cancer linked to nitrate in drinking water nearly doubles as the concentration increases from 0 to 2.26 mg/L. With each additional 2.26 mg/L rise, the risk grows at a faster rate.

Roberto Picetti, an epidemiologist at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine and lead author of the study, says, “For stomach cancer and colorectal cancer, the direction is clear. It looks like there might be an association.” 

Other research showed that across the US, people who ingested drinking water with nitrates at mostly low levels were at a 73 percent higher risk of dying from cancer over a 13-year period compared with people whose drinking water had no detectable nitrates. 

“The magnitude of the effect size was shocking,” says Angelico Mendy, an epidemiologist at the University of Cincinnati in Ohio and coauthor of the study. 

But although there is strong evidence of a link between stomach cancer and colorectal cancer, it is not yet conclusive, Picetti says. This is because there aren’t enough high-quality studies confirming the connection. 

There is even less certainty around possible links between nitrates in drinking water and other kinds of cancers, such as those of the brain and pancreas, Picetti says. There are fewer studies of these cancers, and the outcomes sometimes conflict. Also, their quality is not always high. This is also true of studies on other health concerns, such as thyroid disease and birth defects.

There are not yet enough well-designed studies to draw firm conclusions, Mary Ward, scientist emerita at the National Cancer Institute, concluded. Ward, who investigated links between nitrates in drinking water and cancer, added that the increased risk for some cancers from nitrates at levels below the legal limits “raises concerns and points to the need for additional well-designed studies to clarify risks.” 

Nonetheless, environmental and health advocates say regulators don’t need to wait for further scientific certainty. The studies are sounding an alarm that people need better protection, they say. “We know enough now to justify taking action,” Schmidt says.

Schmidt and a coalition of 23 environmental and health advocacy groups say state agencies that oversee local nitrate limits for drinking water have failed to control nitrate pollution. Consequently, people’s health is suffering. In Wisconsin, for example, research estimates that annually up to 298 cancer cases identified between 2010 and 2017 may be due to nitrate-contaminated drinking water. 

According to Schmidt, voluntary and regulatory efforts to cut nitrate pollution have not succeeded in curbing excessive use of chemical fertilizers and animal manure from large animal feeding operations. 

For example, between 2013 and 2023, the Iowa Department of Natural Resources recorded 179 incidents in which animal agriculture operators discharged manure into waterways, violating the law, according to an analysis by Food and Water Watch, a nongovernmental organization pursuing corporate and government accountability.

“No area of the state is safe from manure discharging into waterways,” the report stated. 

Industry fights back

Meanwhile, representatives from the food and agricultural industries are fighting back to deter stricter nitrate controls. They argue that nitrates aren’t all bad because consuming them in food can boost health. In addition, they say people get most of their nitrate from food; only a small amount comes from drinking water. 

The Fertilizer Institute, a trade organization, and 21 other agriculture groups, including the National Pork Producers Council, wrote to the EPA arguing that the current nitrate standard should stay as it is. The agriculture and food groups argue that tighter controls would be expensive and not provide any health benefits. They point to estimates that halving the permissible levels of nitrates in drinking water could burden customers with additional costs of over $400 million a year.   

To clarify the risks of exposure to nitrates, the industry groups urged the EPA to focus its review on the benefits of nitrates in people’s diets. Some fruits and vegetables, such as spinach and beetroot, are high in nitrates. Research shows that these vegetables can reduce the risk of heart disease and prevent some cancers. The public might get confused if the benefits of nitrates are not addressed, they wrote.

Similar arguments are made in separate comments by Daniele Wikoff, chief scientific officer of ToxStrategies, a science consulting firm, which was paid for by PepsiCo. ToxStrategies has offices across the country and performs work that minimizes the risks of products for industrial clients. For example, its scientists have run studies paid for by an energy industry think tank that questioned some of the dangers of hexavalent chromium, a carcinogenic compound used by the steel industry and others and a byproduct of electricity production.

Independent scientists agree that nitrate and nitrite from food and water should be considered when assessing the overall risk. But nitrates in drinking water are more of a health concern, they said. This is partly because of a crucial difference between nitrate and nitrite ingested in drinking water and that from fruits and vegetables. The latter also contains antioxidants and phytochemicals, which can offset some of the negative effects of nitrates and nitrites, studies suggest. Drinking water lacks these health-boosting compounds.

“Drinking water is just a straight shot of nitrate, nothing in opposition,” Zeman says. 

Zeman was an expert witness in a lawsuit brought by more than 800 residents of Millsboro, Delaware, against a local chicken processing plant that polluted their groundwater with nitrate from manure. In 2021, residents won $205 million in a settlement. 

In addition, nitrates and nitrites, which are used to cure meats and as preservatives, are linked to cancer. In 2010, the International Agency for Research on Cancer found that nitrate and nitrite are probably carcinogenic to humans in some circumstances. In 2015, the IARC concluded that processed meats are carcinogenic to humans.

The industry comments “overemphasize the benefits of dietary nitrates and downplay drinking water risks,” Zeman says. 

The Fertilizer Institute did not respond to requests for comment.

Pushing industry funded research

To assess the risks and benefits of nitrates, the industry groups suggest that the EPA use an analysis performed by Wikoff and colleagues at ToxStrategies that was funded by PepsiCo.

The analysis published in 2018 suggests that the acceptable daily intake of nitrates in food, as recommended by an international expert committee, is too low and could be quadrupled for people aged 12 weeks and older. 

Zeman says the proposed higher dietary intake is “based on a blatant untruth” that the expert committee’s recommendations were not supported by robust research. 

Furthermore, the ToxStrategies analysis repeats a “disproven” idea that minimizes nitrate’s role in the development of methemoglobinemia in infants, says Zeman. The analysis suggests that bacteria infections causing diarrhea could be the main cause of MetHb in infants. Zeman says there is some evidence suggesting that diarrhea-causing bacteria can make infants more susceptible to developing methemoglobinemia if they consume or drink nitrates in water or infant formula. But nitrates are the main problem.

The argument that bacteria contamination is the main cause of MetHb is “science denialism” aimed at “manufacturing doubt” to downplay the risks of nitrate in drinking water, says Zeman.

Wikoff and ToxStrategies did not respond to requests for comment.

Fears of further delays

The EPA is considering the comments from industry and others as it develops a draft assessment for nitrate and nitrite. It is not yet clear when it will be published. 

The returning Trump presidency is sparking fears of further delays. Southerland worries that the Trump administration will derail the nitrate and nitrite review. She says the previous Trump administration was “very opposed” to the EPA’s Office of Research and Development, which oversees the health risks assessments. 

In addition, the Project 2025 manifesto from the conservative think tank the Heritage Foundation, proposes scrapping the EPA program that runs the health risk assessments. 

But likely the biggest hurdle will be enforcing changes in farming practices, such as cutting fertilizer use and manure application, that are needed to tackle nitrate and nitrite pollution. 

To ensure progress, the EPA and state agencies will have to overcome the “enormous power of the agribusiness,” says Southerland. 

“Shifting from voluntary practices to some basic standards of care has faced a lot of resistance from industry,” Schmidt says. It “has gone largely unregulated, at least in terms of water, for many years.”

CLICK HERE FOR MORE INFORMATION: https://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/toxic-chemical-might-be-lurking-your-drinking-water

Global temperatures reaching new highs threatening food supply

NASA scientists reported that 2024 was the hottest year on record.  Temperatures in 2024 were 1.28 degrees Celsius above the 20^th-century baseline. In mid-October, The New York Times reported water shortages are threatening the world’s food supply, as one-quarter of the world’s crops are grown in areas where the water supply is highly stressed. Research shows that Mexicans dependent on rain-fed agriculture are more likely to migrate to the United States. Extreme drought areas have increased threefold since the 1980s according to a recent report cited by the BBC.  

Violent conflict predicted

The latest WSP Quarterly Update warns of violent conflict in West and Central Africa, Sudan and Bangladesh. In West and Central Africa over 5 million people require humanitarian assistance as a result of heavy flooding. In Bangladesh flooding has destroyed over 1 million tonnes of rice leading to violent protests. The ongoing conflict in Sudan is affecting the security of the Jebel Aulia Dam. Rebels closed the dam in December, causing further widespread displacement.

“Extreme weather events caused by climate change are resulting in mass displacement which in turn impacts economic stability and security on the ground. At WPS, we endeavour to break the cycle of instability and violence by facilitating dialogue to diffuse potential conflicts before they happen,” said Yasir Mohamed IHE Delft Associate Professor of Water Resources Management and coordinator of the Water, Peace and Security (WPS) partnership.

Drought, heat and floods

Drought in Southern Africa has caused the worst hunger crisis in decades. In China, a 30-year-old record for high temperatures was broken in the Chinese city of Ghanzhou. The extreme heat has meant that even in mid-November the city was still officially experiencing the summer season. In South America, a record drought in the Amazon River system upended the lives and local economies of 30 million people dependent on the system across eight countries. In the west of the US, evaporation is increasingly driving drought.

While Moroccan parts of the Saharan desert have flooded for the first time in decades. In Spain, catastrophic flooding killed 205 people when a year’s worth of rain fell in a matter of hours in Valencia. And in the US, Hurricane Helene caused at least 53 billion dollars of damage in North Carolina.

The Quarterly Update, based on the findings of the WPS Global Early Warning Tool, underscores the increasing intersection of climate change, water scarcity and violent conflict. WPS calls for urgent global and regional actions to address these challenges and reduce water-related tensions.

It highlights several areas of Africa, Asia and the Middle East to watch over the next 12 months for insecurity fuelled by climate and water challenges.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE INFORMATION: https://smartwatermagazine.com/news/ihe-delft/latest-water-peace-and-security-analysis-calls-action-reduce-global-water-related

By Erica McNamee

In a recently published paper, NASA scientists use nearly 20 years of observations to show that the global water cycle is shifting in unprecedented ways. The majority of those shifts are driven by activities such as agriculture and could have impacts on ecosystems and water management, especially in certain regions.

“We established with data assimilation that human intervention in the global water cycle is more significant than we thought,” said Sujay Kumar, a research scientist at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, and a co-author of the paper published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

The shifts have implications for people all over the world. Water management practices, such as designing infrastructure for floods or developing drought indicators for early warning systems, are often based on assumptions that the water cycle fluctuates only within a certain range, said Wanshu Nie, a research scientist at NASA Goddard and lead author of the paper.

“This may no longer hold true for some regions,” Nie said. “We hope that this research will serve as a guide map for improving how we assess water resources variability and plan for sustainable resource management, especially in areas where these changes are most significant.”

One example of the human impacts on the water cycle is in North China, which is experiencing an ongoing drought. But vegetation in many areas continues to thrive, partially because producers continue to irrigate their land by pumping more water from groundwater storage, Kumar said. Such interrelated human interventions often lead to complex effects on other water cycle variables, such as evapotranspiration and runoff.

Nie and her colleagues focused on three different kinds of shifts or changes in the cycle: first, a trend, such as a decrease in water in a groundwater reservoir; second, a shift in seasonality, like the typical growing season starting earlier in the year, or an earlier snowmelt; and third a change in extreme events, like “100-year floods” happening more frequently.

The scientists gathered remote sensing data from 2003 to 2020 from several different NASA satellite sources: the Global Precipitation Measurement mission satellite for precipitation data, a soil moisture dataset from the European Space Agency’s Climate Change Initiative, and the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment satellites for terrestrial water storage data. They also used products from the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer satellite instrument to provide information on vegetation health.

“This paper combines several years of our team’s effort in developing capabilities on satellite data analysis, allowing us to precisely simulate continental water fluxes and storages across the planet,” said Augusto Getirana, a research scientist at NASA Goddard and a co-author of the paper.

The study results suggest that Earth system models used to simulate the future global water cycle should evolve to integrate the ongoing effects of human activities. With more data and improved models, producers and water resource managers could understand and effectively plan for what the “new normal” of their local water situation looks like, Nie said.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE INFORMATION: https://www.nasa.gov/missions/gpm/nasa-scientists-find-new-human-caused-shifts-in-global-water-cycle/#:~:text=In%20a%20recently%20published%20paper,management%2C%20especially%20in%20certain%20regions.

By Rashmila Maiti

Fast fashion has a significant environmental impact. According to the UN Environment Programme, the industry is the second-biggest consumer of water and is responsible for about 10% of global carbon emissions – more than all international flights and maritime shipping combined. Unfortunately, the industry’s problems are often overlooked by consumers.

The term fast fashion has become more prominent in conversations surrounding fashion, sustainability, and environmental consciousness. The term refers to “cheaply produced and priced garments that copy the latest catwalk styles and get pumped quickly through stores in order to maximise on current trends.”

The fast fashion model is so-called because it involves the rapid design, production, distribution, and marketing of clothing. This means that retailers are able to pull large quantities of greater product variety and allow consumers to get more fashion and product differentiation at a low price.

The term was first used at the beginning of the 1990s, when Zara landed in New York. The term “fast fashion” was coined by the New York Times to describe Zara’s mission to allow garments to go from the design stage to being sold in stores in just 15 days. The biggest players in the fast fashion world include Zara, Shein, UNIQLO, Forever 21, and H&M.

The Dark Side of Fast Fashion

According to an analysis by Business Insider, fashion production comprises 10% of total global carbon emissions, as much as the emissions generated by the European Union. The industry dries up water sources and pollutes rivers and streams, while 85% of all textiles go to dumps each year. Even washing clothes releases 500,000 tons of microfibres into the ocean each year, the equivalent of 50 billion plastic bottles.

The Quantis International 2018 report found that the three main drivers of the industry’s global pollution impacts are dyeing and finishing (36%), yarn preparation (28%) and fibre production (15%). The report also established that fibre production has the largest impact on freshwater withdrawal (water diverted or withdrawn from a surface water or groundwater source) and ecosystem quality due to cotton cultivation, while the dyeing and finishing, yarn preparation and fibre production stages have the highest impacts on resource depletion, due to the energy-intensive processes based on fossil fuel energy.

According to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, emissions from textile manufacturing alone are projected to skyrocket by 60% by 2030.

The time it takes for a product to go through the supply chain, from design to purchase, is called lead time. In 2012, Zara was able to design, produce and deliver a new garment in two weeks; Forever 21 in six weeks and H&M in eight weeks. Newer industry player Shein, a major Chinese fast fashion company, has garments ready to be sold in just 10 days.

This results in the fashion industry producing obscene amounts of waste.

You Might Also Like: The Truth About Online Shopping and Its Environmental Impact

Fast Fashion and Its Environmental Impact

1. Water

The environmental impact of fast fashion comprises the depletion of non-renewable sources, emission of greenhouse gases and the use of massive amounts of water and energy. The fashion industry is the second-largest consumer industry of water, requiring about 700 gallons to produce one cotton shirt and 2,000 gallons of water to produce a pair of jeans.

Business Insider also cautions that textile dyeing is the world’s second-largest polluter of water, since the water leftover from the dyeing process is often dumped into ditches, streams or rivers.

2. Microplastics

Furthermore, brands use synthetic fibres like polyester, nylon and acrylic which take hundreds of years to biodegrade. A 2017 report from the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) estimated that 35% of all microplastics – tiny pieces of non-biodegradable plastic – found in the ocean come from the laundering of synthetic textiles like polyester.

According to 2015 documentary The True Cost, the world consumes around 80 billion new pieces of clothing every year, 400% more than the consumption twenty years ago. The average American now generates 82 pounds of textile waste each year. The production of leather requires large amounts of feed, land, water and fossil fuels to raise livestock, while the tanning process is among the most toxic in all of the fashion supply chain because the chemicals used to tan leather- including mineral salts, formaldehyde, coal-tar derivatives and various oils and dyes- is not biodegradable and contaminates water sources.

3. Energy

The production of making plastic fibres into textiles is an energy-intensive process that requires large amounts of petroleum and releases volatile particulate matter and acids like hydrogen chloride. Additionally, cotton, which is in a large amount of fast fashion products, is also not environmentally friendly to manufacture. Pesticides deemed necessary for the growth of cotton presents health risks to farmers.

To counter this waste caused by fast fashion, more sustainable fabrics that can be used in clothing include wild silk, organic cotton, linen, hemp and lyocell.

You might Also Like: How to Recognise Fast Fashion Brands and Which Ones to Avoid

The Social Impacts of Fast Fashion

Fast fashion does not only have a huge environmental impact. In fact, the industry also poses societal problems, especially in developing economies. According to non-profit Remake, 80% of apparel is made by young women between the ages of 18 and 24. A 2018 US Department of Labor report found evidence of forced and child labour in the fashion industry in Argentina, Bangladesh, Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, Philippines, Turkey, Vietnam and others. Rapid production means that sales and profits supersede human welfare.

In 2013, an eight-floor factory building that housed several garment factories collapsed in Dhaka, Bangladesh, killing 1,134 workers and injuring more than 2,500. In her project An Analysis of the Fast Fashion Industry, Annie Radner Linden suggests that ‘the garment industry has always been a low-capital and labour intensive industry’.

In her book No Logo, Naomi Klein argues that developing nations are viable for garment industries due to ‘cheap labour, vast tax breaks, and lenient laws and regulations’. According to The True Cost, one in six people work in some part of the global fashion industry, making it the most labour-dependent industry. These developing nations also rarely follow environmental regulations; China, for example, is a major producer of fast fashion but is notorious for land degradation and air and water pollution.

You might also like: The Dangers of Sweatshops

Is Slow Fashion the Solution?

Slow fashion is the widespread reaction to fast fashion and its environmental impact, the argument for hitting the brakes on excessive production, overcomplicated supply chains, and mindless consumption. It advocates for manufacturing that respects people, the environment and animals.

The World Resources Institute suggests that companies need to design, test and invest in business models that reuse clothes and maximise their useful life. The UN has launched the Alliance for Sustainable Fashion to address the damages caused by fast fashion. It is seeking to ‘halt the environmentally and socially destructive practices of fashion’.

You might also like: What Is Slow Fashion and How Can You Join the Movement?

One way that shoppers are reducing their consumption of fast fashion is by buying from secondhand sellers like ThredUp Inc. and Poshmark, both based in California, USA; shoppers send their unwanted clothes to these websites and people buy those clothes at a lower price than the original. Another solution is renting clothes, like the US-based Rent the Runway and Gwynnie Bee, the UK based Girl Meets Dress, and the Dutch firm Mud Jeans that leases organic jeans which can be kept, swapped or returned.

Other retailers like Adidas are experimenting with personalised gear to cut down on returns, increase customer satisfaction and reduce inventory. Ralph Lauren has announced that it will use 100% sustainably-sourced key materials by 2025.

Governments need to be more actively involved in the fashion industry’s damaging effects. UK ministers rejected a report by members of parliament to address the environmental effects of fast fashion. On the other hand, French president, Emmanuel Macron has made a pact with 150 brands to make the fashion industry more sustainable.

The best advice on reducing the environmental impact of fast fashion comes from Patsy Perry, senior lecturer in fashion marketing at the University of Manchester, who says, “Less is always more.”

CLICK HERE FOR MORE INFORMATION: https://earth.org/fast-fashions-detrimental-effect-on-the-environment/

The COP29 Declaration on Water for Climate Action has been issued by the Azerbaijan Presidency in order to anchor water more firmly within the global climate agenda.

The Baku Dialogue on Water for Climate Action is intended to provide continuity between the annual UN climate negotiations and promote coherence and collaboration. It aims to ensure a consistent focus on water and its interplay with climate change, biodiversity loss, pollution, and desertification, focusing on actions at the international, regional, river and basin levels.

“Water is not just a victim of climate change but it is also a vital solution. Water is at the heart of achieving many Sustainable Development Goals. Without water there is no sustainable development,” said COP29 President Mukhtar Babayev. “Water must be integrated into full aspects of the global climate agenda.”

He said that the Caspian Sea – the world’s largest inland water body and an integral part of Azerbaijan’s national identity and economy – is shrinking, alongside the degradation of biodiversity. “This is an alarming prospect,” he said.

WMO is one of the founding partners of the Baku Dialogue on Water for Climate Action, which will be hosted by the UN Environment Programme.

The Baku Dialogue declaration resolves to: 

• promote dialogue and partnerships among countries at international, regional, river and basin levels,
• strengthen the generation of scientific evidence on the causes and impacts of climate change on water resources, water basins and water-related ecosystems, 
• enhance water-related climate policy actions.

It received a ringing endorsement from speakers at a high-level side event in the closing stages of COP29.

WMO’s State of Global Water Resources reports show that the water cycle is spinning out of control, becoming more erratic, more unpredictable and more extreme.

Freshwater resources are increasingly under pressure from rising societal demands, environmental degradation and climate change.

“2023 was the driest for rivers globally in more than three decades of records. Almost half of the planet experienced lower than normal annual river flows. The world’s glaciers experienced their largest mass loss in almost fifty years of record-keeping. This is a worrying omen for future water security for billions of people,” WMO Deputy Secretary-General Ko Barrett told the high-level event.

“Water is at the heart of the international disaster risk reduction agenda and the Early Warnings for All initiative. This is essential, given that water-related hazards are the leading cause of human and economic losses in many countries,” she said.

Water is vital for climate change mitigation as a key enabler of greenhouse gas emission reductions.  Water supports renewables like biofuels, hydropower, and is needed for cooling of low-emission power plants. Finally, water is essential for hydrogen and for producing minerals vital for battery technology.

“This makes the necessary green energy transition a thirsty business and is why we need integrated water and climate policies,” said Ko Barrett.  

WMO Role

WMO will be a committed partner in implementation of the Baku Dialogue.

As the specialized UN agency for weather, climate and water, WMO will leverage its 
mandate to support informed decision-making. National Meteorological and Hydrological Services need to play a crucial role in integrating water data and information into development policies for informed decision-making. This builds on the expertise of WMO’s national hydrological advisers.  

WMO is co-coordinator of the UN-Water Expert Group on Water and Climate Change, and offers comprehensive support to the UN System-wide Strategy on Water and Sanitation.

Improved water monitoring and data sharing is vital in order to improve integrated management of water resources.

Increased funding is essential to enhance water monitoring systems, implement early warning systems, and build resilience in communities vulnerable to water stress and extreme events.  

The need for water action

The impacts of climate change are felt through water.

• One-fifth of the world’s river basins are experiencing rapid changes in the area covered by surface waters
• Glaciers have suffered the largest mass loss in 50 years. 
• Around 2.2 billion people still do not have access to safe drinking water, 3.5 billion lack access to safely managed sanitation,3 and at least 50% of the world’s population — around 4 billion people — live under highly water-stressed conditions, with the most vulnerable hit the hardest. 
• Over 90 percent of disaster-affected people and nearly 95 percent of infrastructure loss and damage were impacted by water-related disasters, while floods are one of the major sources of water pollution, threatening water quality and human health and safety.

The economic impacts of climate change on water resources are significant. Some regions could experience GDP declines of up to 6% by 2050 due to water-related impacts on agriculture, health, and incomes.

Without mitigating actions, global GDP could decrease by up to 18% by mid-century if temperatures rise by 3.2°C. These findings underscore the substantial economic risk posed by climate-induced disruptions to the hydrological cycle.

Nationally Determined Contributions

Integrating water   management and cooperation into national climate policy, such as Nationally Determined Contributions and National Adaptation Plans, is crucial for effective climate adaptation and mitigation.

Understanding water availability and constraints can assist in deciding on climate change response options and guide the design of projects, reduce project risks and hence costs – a key issue as NDC 3.0 are being prepared.

Such integration ensures also a coordinated approach to managing shared water resources, enhancing resilience to climate impacts, and promoting sustainable development.

It allows countries to address water security, improve public health, and reduce climate-related vulnerabilities comprehensively across water dependent sectors.

By incorporating these elements into national climate policies, countries can leverage international cooperation to achieve their climate goals and ensure the provision of essential services

CLICK HERE FOR MORE INFORMATION: https://wmo.int/media/news/water-integral-part-of-global-climate-agenda

By Dennis Thompson

THURSDAY, Jan. 16, 2025 (HealthDay News) — Nearly a third of Americans have been exposed to unregulated contaminants in their drinking water that might affect their health.

What’s more, Hispanic and Black people are more likely to have unsafe levels of contaminants in their drinking water, and to live near pollution sources like industrial facilities, researchers said in a new study published Jan. 15 in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives.

“Our findings show that the percentage of Hispanic and Black residents in a community is a consistent predictor of poorer water quality,” lead researcher Aaron Maruzzo, a scientist at Silent Spring Institute in Boston, said in a news release from the group.

Public water facilities are currently required to test for nearly 100 contaminants in drinking water, researchers said.

“Yet we know there are thousands of other harmful chemicals that are not regulated that make their way into groundwater and surface waters, and some of these chemicals can ultimately end up in drinking water supplies,” senior researcher Laurel Schaider, a senior scientist at Silent Spring Institute, said in a news release.

For this study, researchers looked at data the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency collected between 2013-2015 under a program tracking unregulated contaminants in drinking water.

The research team analyzed data from more than 4,800 public water systems and found that 27% — serving 97 million people — had detectable levels of at least one of these chemicals:

• 1,4-dioxane, a solvent the EPA classifies as a probable human carcinogen
• PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances), non-stick chemicals widely used in consumer products that have been associated with hormone disruption, cancer, and other health problems
• Chlorodifluoromethane (Freon 22), an ozone-depleting gas used in the production of fluoropolymers like Teflon
• 1,1-dichloroethane, a solvent used in paints, plastics, and pesticides that has been associated with cancer

These chemicals appear more frequently in Hispanic and Black neighborhoods, which are more likely to be situated close to sites that discharge the pollutants, researchers said.

Discharge sites include wastewater treatment plants, airports, industrial sites, and military training facilities.

These findings build on previous research by the Silent Spring Institute which found that Hispanic residents were more likely to be exposed to higher levels of nitrate in drinking water, researchers stated.

Nitrates can cause a fatal condition called “blue baby syndrome,” in which blood is less able to carry oxygen around the body, researchers said. Nitrate exposure also might increase the risk of colon and bladder cancer.

Last year, the EPA announced drinking water standards for six PFAS chemicals, researchers noted.

“Ultimately, we need to do a better job at protecting source waters and reducing discharges of pollutants into water bodies that feed into our drinking water supplies,” Schaider concluded.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE INFORMATION:https://www.healthday.com/health-news/environmental-health/clean-water-isnt-available-in-all-parts-of-us

Agriculture is the most significant pressure impacting both surface and groundwaters, according to the EEA report ‘Europe’s state of water 2024: the need for improved water resilience’. This results from water use and pollution from the intensive use of nutrients and pesticides, according to Member States’ own monitoring. Agriculture is by far the highest net water consumer in Europe and, without changes in practices, demand from irrigated agriculture is likely to increase with climate change. 

The EEA’s report shows that, despite some progress, Europe’s waters and aquatic ecosystems are still severely impacted by chemicals, predominantly by air pollution from coal-powered energy generation and diffuse pollution by nutrients and pesticides from agriculture. Habitat degradation is also widespread. Adding to the challenge to protect aquatic ecosystems is climate change, which is disrupting weather patterns and further increasing pressures on water resources and management. 

Only 37% of Europe’s surface water bodies achieved ‘good’ or ‘high’ ecological status, a measure of aquatic ecosystem health, under EU’s Water Framework Directive and only 29% achieved ‘good’ chemical status over the 2015-2021 period, according to data reported by EU Member States. 

The health of Europe’s waters is not good. Our waters face an unprecedented set of challenges that threatens Europe’s water security. We need to redouble our efforts to restore the health of our valued rivers, lakes, coastal waters, and other water bodies and to make sure this vital resource is resilient and secure for generations to come.

Limited progress to date 

Measures taken by Member States have succeeded in avoiding further deterioration of the state of EU waters by addressing some chemical pollution and improving the prospects of some species, such as mussels and crustaceans, but no overall improvement has been detected since the last monitoring cycle.  

Europe’s groundwaters fare better than surface waters, with 77% being in good chemical status and in terms of supply, 91% of groundwaters are reported to be in good quantitative status. But problems remain in terms of pollution by pesticides and nutrients. Groundwater is a key source of our drinking water, and needed by the environment, agriculture and industry.  

The deadline set by the EU’s Water Framework Directive (WFD) to meet good status for surface and groundwaters was 2015, and at the latest by 2027. At the rate of current progress, this will not be met.  

The way ahead 

Europe’s water resilience can be improved. Reducing water use and improving efficiency are key to tackling water stress in agriculture, industry and at home. Target setting, focused on saving water or reducing demand, could help drive action and facilitate monitoring of progress towards water resilience. Up-to-date and more timely information on water quantity and quality is also needed to improve water management.  

Pressures should be reduced. Pollution must be prevented in line with the objectives of the EU’s zero pollution action plan. In the short term, there is a need to reduce the use and prevent releases of harmful substances and nutrients to water.  

Nature restoration or reconnecting rivers and their floodplains and restoring wetlands and peatlands can lead to healthier, biodiverse freshwater ecosystems, which can supply good quality water while also storing carbon and mitigating the impact of extreme weather events. 

About the report 

The EEA report is the largest assessment on the health of Europe’s water bodies, involving more than 120 000 surface water bodies and 3.8 million km² groundwater body area across the EU and Norway. The report is based on data reported from 19 EU Member States. It represents 85% of surface water bodies and 87% of groundwater body area in the EU-27.  

All key results and reported data on the EU Member States and Norway can be found in the WISE Freshwater information system. 

The EEA report also complements the upcoming European Commission assessment of the 3^rd River Basin Management Plans and of the 2^nd Flood Risk Management Plans which will take stock of the state of implementation of the Water Framework Directive and the Floods Directive in the EU. 

CLICK HERE FOR MORE INFORMATION:  https://www.eea.europa.eu/en/newsroom/news/state-of-water

By Max Chesnes

For Michael Rogal, those first few days back on the water after two hurricanes were memorable.

The professional Tampa Bay fishing charter captain recalls finding a dumpster wedged deep into a mangrove forest. He remembers a portable toilet toppled on its side, submerged in the bay. He noticed the water, still flooded from days of runoff, was a deep brownish hue.

“It was like a super dark sweet tea,” said Rogal, a third generation Floridian and owner of Bay Native Fishing. “You couldn’t see through it.”

Anecdotally, the initial reports from those who spend their careers on the water — anglers, scientists, tour guides — remarked that Tampa Bay’s waters were in rough shape in the first few weeks after hurricanes Helene and Milton. Early notices, warning of spilled pollution, began to paint a clearer picture of the unfolding environmental toll.

Perhaps the most detailed description yet of Tampa Bay’s ecological health was unveiled earlier this week. The stories told by Rogal and others appear backed by the data in the most recent “State of the Bay” report presented Wednesday by the Tampa Bay Estuary Program.

The takeaway: Florida’s largest open-water estuary, which was on a healthy streak, took a major water quality hit from back-to-back hurricanes.

Sewage spills from overloaded wastewater facilities were a big culprit. In 2023, for instance, less than 5 million gallons of dirty wastewater dumped into the Tampa Bay estuary from sewage system overflows.

But last year, because of Milton and Helene, that number ballooned to nearly 90 million gallons — or enough pollution to fill more than 100 Olympic swimming pools.

Most of the reported spills last year affected the Manatee River, the winding waterway south of Pinellas County that empties into the southern edge of the Tampa Bay watershed. In Boca Ciega Bay to the north, which borders the hard-hit Gulfport area, nearly 17 million gallons of wastewater spilled last year, according to the estuary program’s analysis.

It’s not all bad news, though. Tampa Bay’s health had been bolstered by a streak of drier years. That means the amount of pollution it can endure — what scientists call its “adaptive capacity” — was high. Taken together, researchers are still on track with projects to restore the bay.

“That’s kind of the story: the water quality was good, then we had the storms come in, and then it sort of tanked,” said Marcus Beck, a senior scientist with the estuary program.

“We’re in this state now where we’re really hopeful that (2025) will continue to have good water quality, but we can’t say for certain that it will because we just sort of whittled away at the capacity of the bay to assimilate.”

Stormwater an issue, too

It’s hard enough for scientists to pinpoint specific sources of pollution after one hurricane let alone two.

While sewage spills were a big polluter during Helene and Milton, they weren’t the only problem. Another big culprit for declining water quality last year was the rainwater that fell, mixed with pollutants on the ground like fertilizer and gasoline, and ultimately emptied into Tampa Bay through pipes and rivers.

That stormwater runoff turned the water in the Hillsborough and Alafia rivers to a murky brown color, Beck said.

Across the bay, there was a noticeable spike in chlorophyll, a pigment used by plants to photosynthesize. When there’s too much chlorophyll in the water, it’s usually a sign of excess algal blooms. Algae feeds on the nutrient pollution siphoned into the bay during hurricanes — and too much of it usually means the ecosystem is out of balance, Beck said.

In October, chlorophyll levels in Tampa Bay south of Safety Harbor spiked to 71 micrograms per liter of water. That’s nearly five times the annual average for that part of the bay, according to the estuary program’s data.

While there’s still some data to parse, the early take home messages from the most recent “State of the Bay” report underscore the importance of continuing to improve waste and stormwater infrastructure, Beck said.

Each year, the estuary program funds community-led initiatives for education and restoration in the Tampa Bay watershed. Past $5,000 grants have planted oyster gardens, tracked wildlife with cameras and studied seagrass habitats. A new round of applications will be accepted in the spring, according to the program.

For those wanting to help the bay, “there are some real local things you can do,” Beck said. Among them: avoid heavy fertilizing, create a rain garden in your yard and get engaged with local clean-water advocacy.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE INFORMATION: https://www.tampabay.com/news/environment/2025/01/17/tampa-bay-water-pollution-hurricane-milton-helene/

Nearly a third of people in the U.S. have been exposed to unregulated contaminants in their drinking water that could impact their health, according to a new analysis by scientists at Silent Spring Institute. What’s more, Hispanic and Black residents are more likely than other groups to have unsafe levels of contaminants in their drinking water and are more likely to live near pollution sources.

The findings, published in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives, add to growing concern about the quality of drinking water in the United States and the disproportionate impact of contamination on communities of color.

Close to 100 contaminants are currently regulated under the U.S. Safe Drinking Water Act. This means public water utilities must test for these contaminants and take steps to ensure levels don’t exceed certain limits by installing new treatment systems and taking other measures.

Yet, we know there are thousands of other harmful chemicals that are not regulated that make their way into groundwater and surface waters, and some of these chemicals can ultimately end up in drinking water supplies.”

Laurel Schaider, co-author, senior scientist at Silent Spring Institute

Schaider and her team looked at data from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) collected between 2013 and 2015 under its Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule program. The team analyzed data from 4,815 public water systems and found 27 percent-serving 97 million residents-had detectable levels of at least one of the following chemicals:

• 1,4-dioxane, a solvent classified by EPA as a probable human carcinogen, also found in consumer products
• PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances), non-stick chemicals widely used in consumer products, associated with cancer, thyroid disease, high cholesterol and other health problems
• chlorodifluoromethane (Freon 22), an ozone-depleting gas previously used as a refrigerant and used in the production of fluoropolymers (e.g. Teflon)
• 1,1-dichloroethane, a solvent used in paints, plastics, and pesticides associated with cancer.

Communities with a higher proportion of Hispanic and Black residents generally were more likely to be exposed to these unregulated contaminants in their drinking water and were more likely to be situated close to pollution discharge sites including wastewater treatment plants, airports and military training areas, and industrial sites.

“Our findings show that the percentage of Hispanic and Black residents in a community is a consistent predictor of poorer water quality,” says lead author Aaron Maruzzo, a scientist at Silent Spring Institute.

These racial disparities could not be explained by income or other measures of socioeconomic status, he says, suggesting that factors such as racism and the historical practice of redlining that led to the disproportionate siting of industrial facilities in communities of color could be playing a role.

The study builds on previous research by Silent Spring, which found Hispanic residents are more likely to be exposed to higher levels of nitrate in their drinking water. EPA set a legal limit on nitrate decades ago to protect infants from a fatal condition known as “blue baby syndrome.”. Newer evidence suggests exposure to nitrate at levels below the federal standard also can increase the risk of colorectal and bladder cancer.

A 2023 study, co-authored by Schaider, looked at community water systems in 18 states and found those with a higher proportion of Hispanic and Black residents had higher levels of PFAS in their drinking water. The new Silent Spring analysis is the first to look at disparities in exposure to PFAS and other unregulated contaminants in all U.S. states, as well as Tribal lands and U.S. territories.

In addition, recent testing shows PFAS are significantly more widespread in drinking water than previously thought, so the number of residents impacted by contaminants at the time the data were collected is an underestimate, says Schaider.

In April 2024, EPA announced drinking water standards for six PFAS chemicals. The study’s findings underscore the need for federal action to regulate more contaminants and provide communities of color with more resources to address the impacts of pollution.

“Ultimately, we need to do a better job at protecting source waters and reducing discharges of pollutants into water bodies that feed into our drinking water supplies,” says Schaider.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE INFORMATION: https://www.news-medical.net/news/20250116/Environmental-disparities-found-in-drinking-water-contamination-across-the-US.aspx

By Matt McGrath, Mark Poynting and Justin Rowlatt

Fuelled by climate change, the world’s oceans have broken temperature records every single day over the past year, a BBC analysis finds.

Nearly 50 days have smashed existing highs for the time of year by the largest margin in the satellite era.

Planet-warming gases are mostly to blame, but the natural weather event El Niño has also helped warm the seas.

The super-heated oceans have hit marine life hard and driven a new wave of coral bleaching.

The analysis is based on data from the EU’s Copernicus Climate Service.

Copernicus also confirmed that last month was the warmest April on record in terms of global air temperatures, extending that sequence of month-specific records to 11 in a row.

For many decades, the world’s oceans have been the Earth’s ‘get-out-of-jail card’ when it comes to climate change.

Not only do they absorb around a quarter of the carbon dioxide that humans produce, they also soak up around 90% of the excess heat.

But over the past year, the oceans have displayed the most concerning evidence yet that they are struggling to cope, with the sea surface particularly feeling the heat.

From March 2023, the average surface temperature of the global oceans started to shoot further and further above the long-term norm, hitting a new record high in August.

Recent months have brought no respite, with the sea surface reaching a new global average daily high of 21.09C in February and March this year, according to Copernicus data.

As the graph below shows, not only has every single day since 4 May 2023 broken the daily record for the time of year, but on some days the margin has been huge.

Around 47 days smashed the record for that day of the year by at least 0.3C, according to BBC analysis of Copernicus data.

Never before in the satellite era had the margin of record been this big.

The biggest record-breaking days were 23 August 2023, 3 January 2024 and 5 January 2024, when the previous high was beaten by around 0.34C.

“The fact that all this heat is going into the ocean, and in fact, it’s warming in some respects even more rapidly than we thought it would, is a cause for great concern,” says Prof Mike Meredith from the British Antarctic Survey.

“These are real signs of the environment moving into areas where we really don’t want it to be and if it carries on in that direction the consequences will be severe.”

Huge impact on sea life

This human-driven ocean warming is having considerable impacts on global sea life and may even be shifting the seasonal cycle of sea temperatures, according to a recent study.

Perhaps the most significant consequence of the recent warmth has been the mass bleaching of coral globally.

These key ocean nurseries turn white and die because the waters they live in grow too hot. They are a critical element in the ocean ecosystem, home to around a quarter of all marine species.

Unusually warm seas may also have taken a direct toll on one of the most beloved ocean-going creatures in the coldest continent, the emperor penguin.

“There have been examples of the sea-ice collapsing before emperor chicks have properly fledged, and there have been mass drowning events,” says Prof Meredith.

“The emperor penguin is a threatened species because of climate change, and the sea-ice and the ocean temperatures are strongly implicated in that.”

In the UK, rising sea temperatures are having an impact, with a number of creatures having vanished completely from coastal locations – some barnacle species, for example.

“The problem of climate change is that it’s happening too quickly for evolution to catch up with it,” says marine biologist Dr Nova Mieszkowska from the University of Liverpool.

On the Welsh coast, a team from Aberystwyth University use the same technology the police use at a crime scene to track changes in the marine population of Cardigan Bay.

Collecting DNA traces from water samples, they show some invasive species are thriving, including a sea squirt that is believed to have originated in Japan and which grows like a carpet over the sea floor.

“They prevent the growth of native organisms in the areas that they colonise,” says Prof Iain Barber, head of Life Sciences at Aberystwyth University. “Because they do so well in our environment, they can potentially take over huge areas of the seabed.”

Species that are more invasive appear to be responding more strongly to global warming and the increasing water temperatures, Prof Barber says.

The El Niño effect

One important factor that’s made the last year more impactful in seas all over the world has been the El Niño weather phenomenon, adding to human-driven emissions of warming gases.

El Niño sees warmer waters come to the surface of the Pacific. As a result, it tends to push up the global average.

El Niño kicked into gear in June 2023 – after a prolonged period of cooler La Niña conditions – and reached a peak in December, although it has since been fading away.

But other ocean basins that aren’t usually affected by El Niño have also experienced record marine heatwaves – leaving scientists trying to work out exactly what is going on.

“The Atlantic has been warmer than usual, and this is not a pattern you normally associate with El Niño – so it’s something somehow different,” explains Carlo Buontempo, director of Copernicus.

This heat is still persisting in many ocean basins, including the tropical Atlantic.

Warmer seas give tropical storms extra energy, and this could help to fuel a potentially damaging hurricane season.

“There is still a large patch of warmer than usual water in the tropical Atlantic [and] this is the main development region for tropical cyclones,” explains Dr Buontempo.

“We are almost a month ahead in the sea surface temperature in the Atlantic with respect to the annual cycle […] so this is an area that has to be watched.”

As well as these short-term impacts, researchers warn there will be long-term consequences that society will have to adapt to.

For example, ice-sheet melting and deep-ocean warming are likely to continue to fuel sea-level rise in the centuries to come.

“When we talk about climate change, we tend to reduce that to changes on the surface because we live there,” said Angélique Melet, a researcher with Mercator Ocean International.

“However, the deep ocean is one of the aspects [of global warming] that is committing us to centuries and millennia of [climate] change.”

But Dr Melet stresses that is not a reason to give up on cutting emissions.

“Depending on our actions, we can reduce the speed of that warming, and we can decrease the overall amplitude of that warming and sea-level rise.”

CLICK HERE FOR MORE INFORMATION: https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-68921215