By Laura Husband

Four of the 10 worst countries for environmental impact are from the American continent, a new study has found.

The study, carried out at the University of Adelaide, in Australia awarded Brazil and the US first and second place for being the least environmentally friendly.

Ecology expert Corey Bradshaw from Adelaide’s Environment Institute gave countries environmental rankings based on how much they had damaged the environment.

Fisheries were one of seven factors measured that made Brazil the least environmentally friendly country.

The countries were rated using seven factors: Natural forest loss, habitat conversion, fisheries, fertiliser use, water pollution, carbon emissions from land use and threat to species.

These indicators were chosen because there is a lot of evidence to support that they affect ecosystems and quality of life, explained Bradshaw.

From the American continent, Brazil, the US, Mexico and Peru were all listed in the 10 worst countries category along with China, Indonesia, Japan, India, Russia and Australia.

The total wealth of each country was found to be the most important driver of environmental impact.

The top 10 for being most environmentally friendly were, surprisingly, some of the least wealthy countries, mainly from the Caribbean and Africa: Antigua and Barbuda, St Lucia, Grenada, Djibouti, Barbados, Swaziland, St Vincent and the Grenadines, Gambia, St Kitts and Nevis and Tonga.

“There is a theory that as wealth increases, nations have more access to clean technology and become more environmentally aware so that the environmental impact starts to decline. This theory was not supported by our study,” explained Bradshaw.

By Julius Goldthorpe and Jennifer Green

The possible expansion of Heathrow airport has led to worries concerning the environmental, social and political impact it would have in the UK. Arguments put forward for and against the proposed expansion have made this topic one of the most hotly debated in years.

Although a third runway at Heathrow may seem less likely since the Conservatives formed a coalition government with the Liberal Democrats, there is still a strong possibility that, in the not too distant future, the debate will resurface.

We were lucky enough to speak to John Stewart, chair of HACAN ClearSkies, regarding pollution, biofuels and the third runway.

By Charlotte King and Laura Husband

The ‘Food in the City’ project based at City University, Islington, plans to grow food on a derelict site in the centre of London by Summer 2010.

Laura Husband and Charlotte King speak to one of the project’s organisers, Imogen Riley to find out how it’s going to work.

But will it be safe to eat fruit and vegetables grown in a polluted city?

Professor of environmental pollution, Nigel Bell from Imperial College London gives his expert opinion on how pollution will affect the food and whether he’d personally choose to eat it.

By Aine Gormley

The border between Shoreditch and the City of London was showered with ash this morning after a fire took hold of a restaurant and office block at about 0400 GMT.

More than 100 fire-fighters arrived in 20 fire engines to tackle the flames at the four-storey building on Tabernacle Street in London’s financial district. The thick smoke could be seen as far away as Liverpool Street Station and Hackney.

London Fire Commissioner, Ron Dobson said, “This was a complicated fire, spreading rapidly through different premises and onto a bitumen-covered roof, creating huge plumes of smoke across the city and presenting very difficult firefighting conditions for the crews attending.”

Bitumen, used in roofing tar, is mostly composed of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). Some of the PAHs emitted from buring bitumen are carcinogenic to humans. Research has further shown that exposure to bitumen fumes and aerosols may contribute to DNA damage.

“This incident yet again highlights the need for our fire safety work to prevent the fire risk and disruption these incidents have on our capital,” Mr Dobson added.