8 Herbal Teas to Help Reduce Bloating - EcoWatch

https://www.ecowatch.com/herbal-teas-bloating-2633481664.html?utm_source=EcoWatch+List&utm_campaign=fa675e409a-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_49c7d43dc9-fa675e409a-85946369

8 Herbal Teas to Help Reduce Bloating

HealthlineApr. 02, 2019 09:24AM EST

By Marsha McCulloch, MS, RD

If your abdomen sometimes feels swollen and uncomfortable, you're not alone. Bloating affects 20–30% of people (1).

Many factors may trigger bloating, including food intolerances, a buildup of gas in your gut, imbalanced intestinal bacteria, ulcers, constipation and parasitic infections (1, 2, 3, 4).

Traditionally, people have used natural remedies, including herbal teas, to relieve bloating. Preliminary studies suggest that several herbal teas may help soothe this uncomfortable condition (5).

Here are 8 herbal teas to help reduce bloating.

1. Peppermint

In traditional medicine, peppermint (Mentha piperita) is widely recognized for helping soothe digestive issues. It has a cool, refreshing flavor (6, 7).

Test-tube and animal studies suggest that plant compounds called flavonoids found in peppermint may inhibit the activity of mast cells. These are immune system cells that are abundant in your gut and sometimes contribute to bloating (7, 8).

Animal studies also show that peppermint relaxes the gut, which may relieve intestinal spasms — as well as the bloating and pain that can accompany them (7).

Additionally, peppermint oil capsules may alleviate abdominal pain, bloating, and other digestive symptoms (9).

Peppermint tea hasn't been tested for bloating. However, one study found that a single tea bag supplied six times more peppermint oil than a serving of peppermint leaf capsules. Therefore, peppermint tea may be quite potent (10).

You can buy single-ingredient peppermint tea or find it in tea blends formulated for stomach comfort.

To make the tea, add 1 tablespoon (1.5 grams) of dried peppermint leaves, 1 tea bag, or 3 tablespoons (17 grams) of fresh peppermint leaves to 1 cup (240 ml) of boiled water. Let it steep for 10 minutes before straining.

Summary

Test-tube, animal, and human studies suggest that flavonoids and oil in peppermint may relieve bloating. Thus, peppermint tea may have similar effects.

2. Lemon Balm

Lemon balm (Melissa officinalis) tea has a lemony scent and flavor — along with hints of mint, as the plant is in the mint family.

The European Medicines Agency notes that lemon balm tea may relieve mild digestive issues, including bloating and gas, based on its traditional use (11, 12).

Lemon balm is a key ingredient in Iberogast, a liquid supplement for digestion that contains nine different herbal extracts and is available in North America, Europe, and other regions, as well as online.

This product may decrease abdominal pain, constipation, and other digestive symptoms, according to several human studies (13, 14, 15, 16).

However, lemon balm or its tea hasn't been tested alone for its effects on digestive issues in people. More research is needed.

To make the tea, steep 1 tablespoon (3 grams) of dried lemon balm leaves — or 1 tea bag — in 1 cup (240 ml) of boiled water for 10 minutes.

Summary

Traditionally, lemon balm tea has been used for bloating and gas. Lemon balm is also one of nine herbs in a liquid supplement shown effective for digestive issues. Human studies of lemon balm tea are needed to confirm its gut benefits.

3. Wormwood

Wormwood (Artemisia absinthium) is a leafy, green herb that makes a bitter tea. It's an acquired taste, but you can soften the flavor with lemon juice and honey.

Due to its bitterness, wormwood is sometimes used in digestive bitters. These are supplements made of bitter herbs and spices that may help support digestion (17).

Human studies suggest that 1-gram capsules of dried wormwood may prevent or relieve indigestion or discomfort in your upper abdomen. This herb promotes the release of digestive juices, which can help optimize healthy digestion and decrease bloating (17).

Animal and test-tube studies report that wormwood may also kill parasites, which can be a culprit in bloating (18).

However, wormwood tea itself hasn't been tested for anti-bloating effects. More research is necessary.

To make the tea, use 1 teaspoon (1.5 grams) of the dried herb per cup (240 ml) of boiled water, steeping for 5 minutes.

Notably, wormwood shouldn't be used during pregnancy, as it contains thujone, a compound that can cause uterine contractions (17).

Summary

Wormwood tea may stimulate the release of digestive juices, which may help relieve bloating and digestive issues. That said, human studies are needed.

4. Ginger

Ginger tea is made from the thick roots of the Zingiber officinale plant and has been used for stomach-related ailments since ancient times (19).

Human studies suggest that taking 1–1.5 grams of ginger capsules daily in divided doses may relieve nausea (20).

Additionally, ginger supplements may speed up stomach emptying, relieve digestive upset, and reduce intestinal cramping, bloating, and gas (19, 21).

Notably, these studies were done with liquid extracts or capsules rather than tea. While more research is needed, the beneficial compounds in ginger — such as gingerols — are also present in its tea (22).

To make tea, use 1/4–1/2 teaspoon (0.5‒1.0 grams) of coarsely powdered, dried ginger root (or 1 tea bag) per cup (240 ml) of boiled water. Steep for 5 minutes.

Alternately, use 1 tablespoon (6 grams) of fresh, sliced ginger per cup (240 ml) of water and boil for 10 minutes, then strain.

Ginger tea has a spicy flavor, which you can soften with honey and lemon.

Summary

Studies suggest that ginger supplements may relieve nausea, bloating, and gas. Ginger tea may offer similar benefits, but human studies are needed.

5. Fennel

The seeds of fennel (Foeniculum vulgare) are used to make tea and taste similar to licorice.

Fennel has traditionally been used for digestive disorders, including abdominal pain, bloating, gas, and constipation (23).

In rats, treatment with fennel extract helped protect against ulcers. Preventing ulcers may reduce your risk of bloating (3, 24).

Constipation is another contributing factor in some cases of bloating. Therefore, relieving sluggish bowels — one of fennel's potential health effects — may also resolve bloating (1).

When nursing-home residents with chronic constipation drank 1 daily serving of an herbal tea blend made with fennel seeds, they had an average of 4 more bowel movements over 28 days than those drinking a placebo (25).

Still, human studies of fennel tea alone are needed to confirm its digestive benefits.

If you don't want to use tea bags, you can buy fennel seeds and crush them for tea. Measure 1–2 teaspoons (2–5 grams) of seeds per cup (240 ml) of boiled water. Steep for 10–15 minutes.

Summary

Preliminary evidence suggests that fennel tea may protect against factors that increase bloating risk, including constipation and ulcers. Human studies of fennel tea are needed to confirm these effects.

6. Gentian Root

Gentian root comes from the Gentiana lutea plant, which bears yellow flowers and has thick roots.

The tea may initially taste sweet, but a bitter taste follows. Some people prefer it mixed with chamomile tea and honey.

Traditionally, gentian root has been used in medicinal products and herbal teas formulated to aid bloating, gas, and other digestive issues (26).

Additionally, gentian root extract is used in digestive bitters. Gentian contains bitter plant compounds — including iridoids and flavonoids — that stimulate the release of digestive juices and bile to help break down food, which may relieve bloating (17, 27, 28).

Still, the tea hasn't been tested in humans — and it's not advised if you have an ulcer, as it can increase stomach acidity. Thus, more research is needed (28).

To make the tea, use 1/4–1/2 teaspoon (1–2 grams) of dried gentian root per cup (240 ml) of boiled water. Steep for 10 minutes.

Summary

Gentian root contains bitter plant compounds that may support good digestion and relieve bloating and gas. Human studies are needed to confirm these benefits.

7. Chamomile

Chamomile (Chamomillae romanae) is a member of the daisy family. The herb's small, white flowers look like miniature daisies.

In traditional medicine, chamomile is used to treat indigestion, gas, diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, and ulcers (29, 30).

Animal and test-tube studies suggest that chamomile may prevent Helicobacter pylori bacterial infections, which are a cause of stomach ulcers and associated with bloating (30, 31).

Chamomile is also one of the herbs in the liquid supplement Iberogast, which has been shown to help decrease abdominal pain and ulcers (14, 32).

Still, human studies of chamomile tea are needed to confirm its digestive benefits.

The chamomile flowers contain the most beneficial components, including flavonoids. Inspect dried tea to ensure it's made from flower heads rather than leaves and stems (31, 33).

To make this pleasant, slightly sweet tea, pour 1 cup (240 ml) of boiled water over 1 tablespoon (2–3 grams) of dried chamomile (or 1 tea bag) and steep for 10 minutes.

Summary

In traditional medicine, chamomile has been used for indigestion, gas, and nausea. Preliminary studies suggest that the herb may fight ulcers and abdominal pain, but human studies are needed.

8. Angelica Root

This tea is made from roots of the Angelica archangelica plant, a member of the celery family. The herb has a bitter flavor but tastes better when steeped with lemon balm tea.

Angelica root extract is used in Iberogast and other herbal digestive products. The herb's bitter components may stimulate digestive juices to promote healthy digestion (34).

Additionally, animal and test-tube research notes that angelica root may relieve constipation, which is a culprit in bloating (34, 35).

Overall, more human research with this root is needed.

Some sources claim that angelica root shouldn't be used during pregnancy, as there isn't enough information on its safety. You should always consult your doctor before using any herb during pregnancy or while breastfeeding to ensure proper care (35).

A typical serving of angelica tea is 1 teaspoon (2.5 grams) of the dried root per cup (240 ml) of boiled water. Steep for 5 minutes.

Summary

Angelica root contains bitter compounds that may stimulate the release of digestive juices. Human studies are needed to confirm whether its tea has anti-bloating benefits.

The Bottom Line

Traditional medicine suggests that several herbal teas may reduce abdominal bloating and relieve digestive upset.

For example, peppermint, lemon balm, and wormwood are used in digestive products that have shown preliminary benefits against bloating. Still, human studies are needed on individual teas themselves.

That said, herbal tea is a simple, natural remedy you can try for bloating and other digestive issues.

Reposted with permission from our media associate Healthline.

Recalls

https://www.stericycleexpertsolutions.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/ExpertSolutions-RecallIndex-Q42018-web.pdf

‘Soft, Purple Plastic’ Found in Beef Patties Leads to Recall of 20,000+ Pounds - EcoWatch

https://www.ecowatch.com/beef-recall-plastic-contamination-2633771452.html

'Soft, Purple Plastic' Found in Beef Patties Leads to Recall of 20,000+ Pounds

Olivia RosaneApr. 05, 2019 07:31AM EST

Pexels

A Tyson Foods subsidiary is recalling more than 20,000 pounds of beef patties that may have been contaminated with plastics, USA Today reported.

"Two consumers reported they found pieces of soft purple plastic in the product," AdvancePierre said in a statement Wednesday. "Even though these reports involved only two items, out of an abundance of caution, the company is recalling 1,449 cases of product."

The Enid, Oklahoma-based AdvancePierre, which was acquired by Tyson in 2017, said the 20,373 pounds of recalled Tenderbroil Patties CN Fully Cooked Flamebroiled Beef Patties had only been shipped to food service customers and were not available for purchase in retail stores.

In a recall notice published Tuesday, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) said that some of the recalled patties had been sold to schools. However, they were not distributed by the USDA as part of the National School Lunch Program.

The plastic in the patties was first discovered April 1 after two customers complained, FSIS said, but no one has reported falling ill after eating the beef.

"FSIS is concerned that some product may be frozen and in food service freezers," the USDA said. "Food service locations who have purchased these products are urged not to serve or consume them. These products should be thrown away or returned to the place of purchase."

The recalled patties were produced Nov. 30, 2018. They came in 14.06 pound cases containing three bags of 30 patties, for a total of 90 per case. Their case code was 5-525-0 and their package code was 8334. They also have the establishment code "EST. 2260E" inside the USDA mark of inspection.

This is at least the third time this year that a Tyson-affiliated product has been recalled due to foreign matter contamination. In January, Tyson recalled around 36,420 pounds of chicken nuggets after customers found "soft, blue rubber" inside. Then, in March, the company recalled nearly 70,000 pounds of chicken strips when two customers said they had found "fragments of metal."

According to Stericyle's recall index for the fourth quarter of 2018, the most recent date for which data exists, more pounds of beef were recalled by the USDA than pounds of any other food type in three out of four quarters in 2018. It led the pack at 71.8 percent in the fourth quarter. Poultry was the number one recalled overall category at 40.5 percent in the same quarter.

CO2 Levels Are Now at a 3 Million-Year High - EcoWatch

https://www.ecowatch.com/c02-levels-2633711783.html?utm_source=EcoWatch+List&utm_campaign=fa675e409a-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_49c7d43dc9-fa675e409a-85946369

CO2 Levels Are Now at a 3 Million-Year High

Olivia RosaneApr. 05, 2019 07:02AM EST

There is likely more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere now than at any other time in the last three million years.

That is the conclusion reinforced by a study published in Science Advances Wednesday. Researchers at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research and the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg, Germany succeeded for the first time in creating a computer simulation of the climate over the past three million years that matched data taken from sediment from the ocean floor.

The model showed that carbon-dioxide levels played a major role in shaping climate during that period — but in the reverse of their impact today. Lower levels of the greenhouse gas were a major factor in the onset of ice ages.

"We know from the analysis of sediments on the bottom of our seas about past ocean temperatures and ice volumes, but so far the role of CO2 changes in shaping the glacial cycles has not been fully understood," lead study author Matteo Willeit of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research said in a press release. "It is a breakthrough that we can now show in computer simulations that changes in CO2 levels were a main driver of the ice ages."

But while this may be a scientific breakthrough, it has frightening implications. During the period modeled in the simulation, global temperatures never rose above pre-industrial levels by more than two degrees Celsius. However, if humans continue to burn fossil fuels at current rates, they will shoot past that marker within 50 years, with major consequences.

"Our results imply a strong sensitivity of the Earth system to relatively small variations in atmospheric CO2," Willeit said. "As fascinating as this is, it is also worrying."

Willeit told CNN that the models showed that carbon dioxide levels would not be more than 280 parts per million (ppm) today if human activity had not intervened in natural climate cycles. Instead, they are at around 410 ppm. If this trend is not slowed, Willeit told CNN, "our planet will change." The next 200 years could see one to two meters (approximately 3.3 to 6.6 feet) of sea level rise.

On the same day that the Science Advances study was released, scientists met at the Royal Meteorological Society in London to discuss what the earth was like the last time carbon dioxide levels were so high.

That was 5.3 to 2.6 million years ago during the Pliocene epoch, when beech trees grew in Antarctica, temperatures were three to four degrees Celsius warmer and sea levels were 20 meters (approximately 65.6 feet) higher.

Scientists said that studying this past era could help humans understand what the planet would look like if climate change continues apace, The Guardian reported. However, they noted it would take some time for current C02 levels to cause these changes. It could take millennia for the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets to completely melt, for example.

"If you put your oven on at home and set it to 200C the temperature does not get to that immediately, it takes a bit of time, and it is the same with climate," Imperial College London geophysicist Martin Siegert said, according to The Guardian.

British Antarctic Survey Director Jane Francis said the fossils of the Antarctic beech trees had been an important find.

"I call them the last forests of Antarctica. They were growing at 400ppm CO2, so this may be where we are going back to, with ice sheets melting at times, which may allow plants to colonise again," Francis said, according to The Guardian. Francis said that the polar regions were important to understanding climate change, since they are uniquely sensitive to it.

However, Siegert said the changes represented by the Pliocene were not inevitable.

"Can we restrict temperature rise to 1.5 degrees this century? Can we do that? It's possible," he said, according to BBC News. "We've got to bring CO2 levels down to 40% of what they are today by 2030, or so. And then to zero by 2050, and then negative after that. That's a massive undertaking but it's possible."

If we could buy a stable climate, what would it be worth? | Grist

https://grist.org/article/if-we-could-buy-a-stable-climate-what-would-it-be-worth/

If we could buy a stable climate, what would it be worth?

Joseph Aldyon Mar 14, 2017

President Trump is expected to issue an executive order soon to reverse Obama-era rules to cut carbon pollution, including a moratorium on leasing public lands for coal mining and a plan to reduce carbon emissions from power plants.

Trump and his appointees argue that these steps will bring coal miners' jobs back (although coal industry job losses reflect competition from cheap natural gas, not regulations that have yet to take effect). But they ignore the fact that mitigating climate change will produce large economic gains.

While burning fossil fuels produces benefits, such as powering the electric grid and fueling cars, it also generates widespread costs to society — including damages from climate change that affect people around the world now and in the future. Public policies that reduce carbon pollution deliver benefits by avoiding these damages.

Since the Reagan administration, federal agencies have been required to enact only regulations whose potential benefits to society justify or outweigh their potential costs. To quantify benefits from acting to curb climate change, the U.S. government developed a formal measure in 2009 of the value of reducing carbon pollution, which is referred to as the social cost of carbon, or SCC. Currently, federal agencies use an SCC figure of about $40 per ton in today's dollars.

Now the Trump administration and critics in Congress may reduce this figure or even stop using it. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt's recent comment that carbon dioxide is not "a primary contributor" to climate change suggests that Pruitt may challenge the agency's 2009 finding that carbon emissions are pollutants and threaten human health.

As an economist for the White House, I was a member of the working group that developed the first government-wide SCC estimate. We can always improve our processes for estimating and using the SCC, but getting rid of it would be a mistake. A well-functioning democracy needs transparency about the economic benefits of investments driven by public policy — as well as the benefits we give up when we walk away from making these investments.

As a result of human activities since the Industrial Revolution, carbon dioxide levels have increased to 400 parts per million, higher than any time in at least the last one million years. U.S. Global Change Research Program

The value of avoiding hurricanes and wildfires

Scientists widely agree that carbon dioxide emissions, primarily from burning fossil fuels, pose significant risks to Earth's climate. Intuitively, it makes sense that reducing carbon emissions benefits society by reducing risks of flooding, wildfires, storms, and other impacts associated with severe climate change.

We can estimate the benefits of many goods and services, from pop music to recreation, from the prices people pay for them in markets. But valuing environmental benefits is not so simple. Americans can't go to the store and buy a stable climate.

Carbon pollution drives global warming that causes many different impacts on the natural and built environment and human health. Because carbon emissions have such broad and diverse impacts, scholars have developed models to characterize the economic benefits (or costs) of reducing them.

Current U.S. government practice draws from three peer-reviewed integrated assessment models. An integrated assessment model represents a chain of events, starting with economic activities that involve fossil fuel combustion. This generates carbon emissions, which contribute to climate change.

And climate change causes outcomes that can be measured in monetary terms. For example, rising carbon pollution will increase the likelihood of lower agricultural yields, threaten public health through heat stress, and damage infrastructure through floods and intense storms.

Flooding in Hoboken, New Jersey, after Superstorm Sandy in 2012. Climate change is predicted to increase the frequency and severity of coastal storms. accarrino

Thousands of scenarios

The social cost of carbon represents the damages of one ton of carbon dioxide emitted into the air. To estimate it, economists run models that forecast varying levels of carbon dioxide emissions. They can then model and compare two forecasts — one with slightly higher emissions than the other. The difference in total climate change damages represents the social cost of carbon.

Carbon pollution can remain in the atmosphere for up to 200 years, so these models are run over a century or more in order to account for long-term damages that carbon emissions impose on society.

SCC estimates are based on chains of events that include many uncertainties — for example, how many tons of carbon will be emitted in a given year, the amount of warming that will result, and how severely this warming will exacerbate risks like floods and heatwaves. Since we cannot predict any single scenario with certainty, the U.S. government has modeled hundreds of thousands of different scenarios to produce its SCC estimates.

Some model scenarios, based on admittedly extreme assumptions, produce negative SCC estimates — that is, they find that carbon pollution is good for the planet. But the vast majority of scenarios show that carbon pollution is bad for the planet, and that on average, every ton of carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere imposes damages equal to about $40 in today's dollars.

Balancing costs and benefits of regulations

The federal government began calculating a social cost of carbon after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit ruled in 2007 that the Department of Transportation had to account for climate benefits from its regulations to improve automobile fuel economy. Environmental groups and a dozen states challenged the regulations, in part because the Bush administration had valued the benefits of cutting carbon dioxide emissions at zero.

In response, the Obama administration created a working group in 2009 with officials from 12 agencies to develop the federal government's first official SCC estimate. Our initial figure of $25 for 2010 was updated in 2013, 2015, and 2016, reflecting updates in the underlying models.

Agencies have used these estimates in benefit-cost analyses for scores of federal regulations, including the Environmental Protection Agency's Clean Power Plan, the Department of Transportation's medium and heavy-duty vehicle fuel economy standards, and the Department of Energy's minimum efficiency standard for refrigerators and freezers. Some of these studies were required only by executive order, but others were required by law. Unless the authorizing statutes are amended, the Trump administration will have to produce analyses accounting for carbon pollution reduction benefits if it wants to issue new regulations that can withstand legal challenges.

Fuel economy label for gasoline-powered vehicle. Federal agencies have have factored the social cost of carbon into regulations governing vehicle fuel economy and other issues. www.fueleconomy.gov

The Trump administration could continue to use SCC estimates in regulatory evaluations, but water them down. For example, some scholars have called for focusing only on domestic benefits — as opposed to total global benefits — of reducing carbon pollution in the United States. Emitting a ton of carbon imposes damages in the United States and around the world, just as a ton emitted in Beijing imposes damages on the United States and other countries around the world. Considering only the domestic impacts of carbon pollution could lower the SCC by three-quarters.

But if the United States ignores the benefits of reducing carbon pollution that other countries enjoy, then those other countries may follow suit and consider only how cutting emissions will benefit them internally. This approach ignores the strategic value that serves as the primary motivation for countries to work together to combat climate change. The world would achieve much greater emissions reductions and greater net economic benefits if countries implement policies based on the global social cost of carbon instead of a domestic-only SCC.

As climate change science and economics continue to evolve, our tools for estimating benefits from reducing carbon pollution will need to evolve and improve. In January, the National Academies of Sciences published a report that lays out an extensive research agenda for improving the estimation and use of the social cost of carbon.

The federal government has used used benefit-cost analysis to calculate society's bottom line from regulations for decades. So far, the Trump administration appears to be focused solely on costs — an approach that maximizes the corporate bottom line, but leaves the public out of the equation.

Air pollution: know your enemy | UN Environment

https://www.unenvironment.org/news-and-stories/story/air-pollution-know-your-enemy

Air pollution: know your enemy

Sometimes you can't even see it, but air pollution is everywhere.

Perhaps you think that air pollution doesn't affect you because you don't live in a city shrouded in smog. You are most likely wrong. Statistically, nine out of ten people worldwide are exposed to levels of air pollutants that exceed World Health Organization safe levels. This means that with every breath, you are sucking in tiny particles that attack your lungs, heart and brain. For millions of people across the globe, this is causing a host of problems – illness, lower IQs and death chief among them.

We can't stop breathing. But we can do something about the quality of our air, and global action is growing at all levels. To have any chance of truly clearing the air, however, we need to know our enemy better and what we can do to defeat it.

What is air pollution and where does it come from?

Air pollution is broken down into ambient (outdoor) air pollution and indoor air pollution. This pollution comes from many sources, the majority of them a result of human activity:

• the burning of fossil fuels, such as coal to generate electricity for homes and businesses, or petrol and diesel to power our cars, buses, ships and planes
• industrial processes, particularly from the chemical and mining industries
• agriculture, which is a major source of methane and ammonia
• waste treatment and management, particularly landfills
• dirty indoor cooking and heating systems, a major problem in the developing world
• volcanic eruptions, dust storms and other natural processes

These sources spew out a range of substances including carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, nitrogen oxide, ground level ozone, particulate matter, sulphur dioxide, hydrocarbons and lead – all of which are harmful to human health.

Deaths and illnesses from air pollution are largely down to tiny, invisible airborne particles, known as particulate matter, which can be as small as a molecule. These particles are clumps of poison, containing anything from black carbon (soot), to sulphates to lead. The smallest particles are the deadliest: PM_2.5 particles, which are 2.5 microns or less in diameter, and PM₁₀, which are 10 microns or less in diameter. These tiny killers bypass your body's defences and lodge in your lungs, bloodstream and brain.

How much of this pollution we breathe in is dependent on many factors, such as access to clean energy for cooking and heating, the time of day and the weather. Rush hour is an obvious source of local pollution, but air pollution can travel long distances, sometimes across continents on international weather patterns. Nobody is safe.

What is air pollution doing to us?

Air pollution has been called a major global health epidemic, causing one in nine of all deaths. It also has massive negative impacts on climate change and economies.

Health

In 2016, PM2.5 exposure reduced average global life expectancy at birth by approximately one year.

Around seven million people die each year from exposure to polluted air, both indoor and outdoor. The three biggest killers attributable to air pollution are stroke (2.2 million deaths), heart disease (2.0 million) and lung disease and cancer (1.7 million deaths).

Ambient (outdoor) air pollution accounts for:

• 25 per cent of all deaths and disease from lung cancer
• 17 per cent of all deaths and disease from acute lower respiratory infection
• 16 per cent of all deaths from stroke
• 15 per cent of all deaths and disease from ischaemic heart disease
• 8 per cent of all deaths and disease from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

Air pollution doesn't just kill, however. It also contributes to other illnesses, hampers development and causes mental health problems.

One study found that ambient PM2.5 contributed to 3.2 million cases of diabetes in 2016.

Research from the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) shows that breathing in particulate air pollution can damage brain tissue and undermine cognitive development in young children – with lifelong implications. An estimated 17 million babies under one year old live in areas where air pollution is six times higher than safe limits.

Other studies have linked air pollution to lower intelligence levels, with the average impact equivalent to one lost year of education, and to an increased risk of dementia, with those living closest to major traffic arteries up to 12 per cent more likely to be diagnosed with the condition.

A photo of people wearing respiratory masks during smog in Beijing, China. Photo by Reuters

Economy

If you are lucky enough to not suffer the negative health impacts of air pollution, it can still hit you in the pocket. Air pollution creates a burden on healthcare systems, which costs taxpayers money.

Air pollution from energy production in the U.S. caused at least US$131 billion in damage to its economy, including increased healthcare costs, in 2011.

One Oxford University study found that air pollution from cars and vans cost society 6 billion pounds per year.

The European Environment Agency found that emissions from 14,000 industrial facilities in Europe cost society and the economy up to 189 billion euros in 2012.

Without action, the costs will rise. A study by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development showed that the annual global welfare costs of premature deaths from outdoor air pollution are projected to be US$18-25 trillion in 2060. In addition, the costs of pain and suffering from illness are estimated at around US$2.2 trillion by 2060.

Climate

Air pollution doesn't just impact human health and economic growth. Many of the pollutants also cause global warming. Take black carbon, which is produced by diesel engines, burning trash and dirty cookstoves. Black carbon is deadly, but it is also a short-lived climate pollutant. If we were to reduce the emissions of such pollutants, we could slow global warming by up to 0.5°C over the next few decades.

Methane, a large percentage of which comes from agriculture, is another culprit. Methane emissions contribute to ground-level ozone, which causes asthma and other respiratory illnesses. It is also a more potent global warming gas than carbon dioxide – its impact is 34 times greater over a 100-year period, according to the International Panel on Climate Change.

Where is air pollution worst?

Air pollution is a problem across the globe, but it disproportionately affects people living in developing nations. For example, the 3.8 million people who die each year from indoor air pollution are overwhelmingly from countries where people living in poverty are forced to cook, or heat their homes, with dirty fuels in poorly ventilated indoor spaces.

According to the World Health Organization's air quality database, 97 per cent of cities in low- and middle-income countries with more than 100,000 inhabitants do not meet air quality guidelines. In high-income countries, the proportion is 40 per cent.

Delhi, India and Cairo, Egypt have the worst PM₁₀ pollution levels out of the world's megacities (over 14 million people), but Argentina, Brazil, China, Mexico and Turkey all have cities in the top-ten list of most-polluted places.

You can find out how your city is doing here.

What is being done about air pollution?

A global movement to address air pollution is growing. BreatheLife – a global network headed by the Climate and Clean Air Coalition, the World Health Organization and UN Environment – is running cleaner air initiatives that cover 39 cities, regions, and countries, reaching over 80 million citizens.

By instituting policies and programmes to curb transport and energy emissions and to promote the use of clean energy, cities are proving to be focal points where change that improves the lives of the most people possible is happening. From Accra to Mexico City, local governments are implementing plans to improve air quality. And change is happening. The World Health Organization in 2018 found that more than 57 per cent of cities in the Americas and more than 61 per cent of cities in Europe had seen a fall in PM₁₀ and PM_2.5 particulate matter between 2010 and 2016.

The rise of renewable energy is also set to make a big difference, with investment in new renewable sources outstripping fossil fuel investments each year.

What can I do?

We are all part of the problem. Business, public buildings and households account for around half of all PM_2.5 and carbon monoxide emissions. But this means we are all part of the solution. By making small changes to our lives, we can all play our part in clearing the air.

For instance, by reducing consumption of meat and dairy products, individuals can contribute to cutting harmful methane emissions. There is a wide range of other areas where people can make a difference when it comes to reducing air pollution.

Manage waste

Compost food and garden items. Recycle non-organic trash if available. Reuse grocery bags and dispose of remaining trash by local collection. Never burn trash, as this contributes directly to air pollution.

Cook and heat clean

Burning coal and biomass (e.g. wood) contributes to indoor air pollution when used for cooking and outdoor air pollution when used for heating. Check efficiency ratings for home heating systems and cookstoves to use models that save money and protect health.

Move mindfully

Use public transportation, cycle or walk. Consider switching to a hybrid or electric if you must drive. Diesel vehicles, particularly older ones, are large contributors of black carbon, which are carcinogenic for health and damaging to our climate.

Rethink your energy use

Turn off lights and electronics not in use. Use energy-efficient equipment. Rooftop solar panels may be an option to generate hot water and power.

Call for change

Call on local leaders to adopt national air quality standards that meet WHO guidelines. Support policies that strengthen emissions standards and provide incentives for purchase of cleaner vehicles, low-energy appliances and energy-efficient housing.

Watch our short animations for more information.

>I don't drive during rush hour

>I walk to work

>I drive an electric vehicle

>I compost my waste

>I recycle my waste

>I don't burn waste

>I use renewable energy to power my home

>I use clean energy to cook

>I check my air pollution levels

>I turn off lights and electronics not in use