It has been well established that although the early human beings lived in some harmony with the environment, they, with the help of their natural intelligence, learnt how to control and harness the forces of nature and to mine the reserves of organic carbon deposited in sediments over millions of years. Soon they started changing "the face of the Earth, the nature of its atmosphere and the quality of its water" to meet their own needs, which often were selfish and short-sighted. During the early agricultural revolution, when human beings did not know how to use coal, oil, electricity or nuclear energy, the impact of human activity on the environment was not significant . But today, in this post- industrial age, there is a consensus of opinion that the impact of human activities on the global environment is so great that if appropriate measures are not taken soon, the quality of the environment will deteriorate to such an extent that eventually it will not be able to sustain life on Earth.

Environmentalists have become increasingly concerned about three issues concerning (there are other issues, which are probably not that urgent) this rapidly deteriorating situation -- ozone layer destruction, acid rain and carbon dioxide emissions.

The global ozone layer (a gaseous region), which is located in the atmosphere, 40 kilometres above the sea level, is a shield that protects the Earth from the sun's lethal ultraviolet rays. Without the protection of the ozone layer, life on Earth would be impossible. The chemical product known as chloro-fluorocarbons (CFCs, compounds of fluorine) was developed first in the 1930s and used by the US troops after the Second World War in the Pacific as a component of insecticide spray cans. After the widespread commercial use of this product in refrigeration, air-conditioning, cleaning solvents, aerosol sprays and pesticides (methyl bromides) for the next three decades or so, the scientists realised that the release of CFCs was damaging the ozone layer. Actually, it was in 1975 when it was first realised that continuous release of CFCs to the atmosphere was gradually reducing stratospheric ozone, which carried with it the risk of cancers and acceleration of the greenhouse effect. In 1985, the British Antarctic Survey reported a growing ozone hole above the Antarctica. By late 1998, it was discovered that the hole had grown dangerously . According to Goddard Flight Center (NASA), the hole reached its second largest size ever, 11.1 million square miles in September 2003. The record, according to the same source , is 11.5 million square miles, in September 2000. What is being done to control this deteriorating situation and repair the existing hole in the ozone layer?

Since 1978, the use of CFCs as aerosol propellants has been forbidden or substantially reduced in most countries. Under the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer (1987), drafted by the United Nations Environmental Program, most of the industrialised nations agreed to phase out all uses of CFCs by the year 2000. The scientists also recognised that besides CFCs there were other substances such as methyl bromide, which are widely used in agriculture as pesticide , also deplete the ozone layer. Therefore, it was agreed that from 1999 onwards, the industrialised countries would take the necessary measures to ban the use of methyl bromide by the year 2005. The developing countries would have a ten-year extension to implement this ban.

Now, as on many other international issues (like for example, the Kyoto Protocol), the Bush administration has shown its unwillingness to comply with the requirements . Last week, delegates from 181 countries (most of whom were placed under intense pressure from US government and lobbyists for the American chemical industry) met in Nairobi to consider a proposal made by the US to exempt this pesticide from the phase-out leading to the 2005 ban. According to the Bush administration and American farmers, methyl bromide's soil-sterilising properties are absolutely vital as they try to compete against farmers from poor countries, where low-paid workers tend the fields. Luckily, the European Union is not in agreement with this proposal. According to Margot Wallstrom, the EU environmental commissioner, "Many farmers world wide successfully grow crops without methyl bromide. Exemptions should be agreed only where alternatives are not available and not on any other basis." The environmentalists argue that these exemptions "would reverse steady progress in healing the ozone layer." It should be pointed out here that even if no exemptions are officially granted and if the current policy of 2005 ban is implemented, it will take 50 years to heal the damaged layer. Unfortunately, following the American example, a dozen other industrialised countries, including eight from the European Union have now applied for similar exemptions.

Anyone who lived in London in the fifties had a first-hand experience (very unpleasant) of acid rain in the form of toxic smog, which was caused by sulphur discharged into the atmosphere by the burning of coal. Actually the scientists have established that the use of fossil fuels by motor vehicles, factories, power plants, smelting and refining facilities discharges sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxides. These gases then combine with water vapour in the atmosphere .to form highly toxic sulphuric and nitric acids, which fall to the surface with rain contaminating the earth's surface and subsurface waters. Thus acid rain has a devastating effect on vegetation, fish and molluscs, albeit, on a localised basis.

The emission of huge amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, which is intricately related to industrial activity, poses the biggest problem to a safe environment. Carbon dioxide and methane are emitted as a result of fossil-fuel burning, which in turn accelerates warming of the Earth's surface. This accelerated warming process is also known as global warming. Although it is difficult to assess the exact impact of global warming, there is a consensus of opinion the if the current trends in emission of greenhouse gases continue, natural and agricultural ecosystems will be substantially altered. There will also be significant impacts on human and animal health. Due to rapid melting of polar ice, sea levels will rise (coastal areas of Bangladesh and the nearby islands will probably disappear under water). There will, most certainly, be other consequences which we can not imagine at this point of time.

At a meeting of the FCCC (Framework Convention on Climate Change), held in Kyoto, Japan in 1997, greenhouse gas emission targets were set. The target set by the Kyoto Protocol for the industrialised countries was a 5.2% reduction in overall greenhouse gas emissions by 2010 relative to 1990. No mandatory targets were set for the developing countries. The target for the EU was an 8% reduction, the United States 7% and Japan 6%. In order to make the proposal more attractive to the rich nations, the Kyoto Protocol introduced a curious carbon trading system. Since a tonne of gas causes the same damage to the global environment, no matter where it is emitted, the US could keep its high compliance costs down by paying for the relatively low compliance costs in Russia, and thus obtain paper credit for the amount of emission reductions, which could then be set against the target for the US.

Six years after the acceptance of the Kyoto Protocol for discussion and ratification, which held out the promises of a safer world (from an environmental point of view), the situation today is far worse. According to data , recently published by the UNEP, instead of any global reductions, actual emissions in 2000 went up by 8% in comparison with emissions in 1990. During this period, emissions went up in the US by 16.8%, in India by 62.8%, in Japan by 12.3% , in China by 4.6% and in Australia by 23.8%.

The United States continued to be the world's largest polluter and even increased its share as a percentage of total emissions of the world (from 23.47% to 25.39%). The Bush administration has obstinately refused to ratify the Kyoto Protocol. Now to make things worse, Putin's Russia has also shown its unwillingness to ratify the Protocol, which requires ratification by countries emitting at least 55% of world's greenhouse gases to come into effect. Russia produced 17.4% of global emissions in the base year of 1990. Although the Protocol has already been accepted by 118 countries, without Russia's ratification, the treaty will fail to pass the barrier of 55% of global emissions. Therefore, the Kyoto initiative to control and reduce greenhouse gas emissions on an internationally agreed basis will, at least for the time being, come to an end. It will probably take another ten or fifteen years to restart the initiative.

Meanwhile China is fast becoming a major emitter of greenhouse gases. Although China's per-person energy use and greenhouse gas emissions are far below levels in rich countries, it is already the world's second largest emitter of such gases after the United States. According to International Energy Agency in Paris, "The increase in greenhouse gas emissions from 2000 to 2030 in China alone will nearly equal the increase from the entire industrialised world." Although the Chinese (at least officially) are not showing great concern about this environmental hazard, they have decided to impose fuel-economy standards on new cars and sport utility vehicles, which will definitely lower gas emissions over a period of time. Another developing country, India is also increasing emissions at an alarming rate as its economy expands.

While in Europe there is a greater awareness of the dangers of global warming (the EU is the only region of the industrialised world where greenhouse gas emissions actually went down by 3.5% in comparison with emissions in 1990), in the United States, the Bush administration has taken a radical pro-business stance. Last month it hosted a meeting in Washington of the energy ministers of 15 countries to discuss a project called Freedom Car, which essentially means a car powered by pollution-free hydrogen. In theory, the idea sounds wonderful but many environmentalists have already pointed out that energy required to produce hydrogen (from electricity) for a car will emit more toxic gases per mile than the amount emitted by an ordinary gasoline powered car of the same size. Some even say that this proposal is merely a ploy to delay any investments on the part of the automobile industry to produce more efficient gasoline powered cars. Bush has rewritten the Clean Air Act of 1977 that "spared the companies the expense of making investments in pollution controls whenever they upgraded their plants and increased emissions." Mr. Bush's latest environmental initiatives such as "Healthy Forests" and the $30billion plus Energy bill are anything but "environmentally friendly" as they are claimed to be.

Now that it seems that the Kyoto Protocol will not be implemented (unless Mr. Putin changes his mind), Mr. Bush's environmental policies are becoming more and more regressive and some of the developing countries are belching out an ever-increasing amount of toxic gases into the atmosphere, the inevitable conclusion is that since a collective will to deal with environmental hazards is lacking, the future is bleak.