Research has estimated the health impacts from the coal-fired power plants that operate across India.

Six hundred coal power plants generate more than 70% of India’s electricity. Despite regulations passed in 2015, fewer than 5% of these plants operate with modern systems to clean up air pollutants from their chimneys. In China, 95% of coal-fired power plants were fitted with clean-up technologies by 2013.

Dr Asif Qureshi of the Indian Institute of Technology in Hyderabad and his team used a computer simulation of air pollution across India to test what would have happened if new technologies had been fitted to the power plants. They looked at two different technologies and found that controlling sulphur was the most effective single step, but applying both technologies together yielded the greatest gains.

As many as 720,000 early deaths could have been avoided over a 10-year period if the power plants had been cleaned up in 2010. Particle pollution would have reduced by up to 11% across the country. The research team found that people living around power plants would have experienced the greatest benefit, up to a 28% reduction in particle pollution, leading to about a 17% reduction in early deaths.

Installation and running costs are often cited as a reason to delay. Qureshi’s team therefore compared the cost of clean-up systems to the cost of the lives lost.

The capital and operating cost were estimated to be between $19.5bn and $32.8bn (about £16-26bn) a year. The benefits depend on the monetary value assigned to a human life. Using a range of international values the researchers calculated a benefit of between $18bn and as much as $604bn US dollars (about £14-481bn).

Qureshi said: “Even at this screening level there appears to be a strong case to implement clean-up technologies. If the industry or the policymakers could buy into this way of looking at the problem, maybe pollution control can be accelerated.”

Prof Maureen Cropper of the University of Maryland in the US led an earlier study on the impacts of planned coal power stations in India. Rather than focus on power plants that were already built, Cropper’s team looked at future options.

Cropper said: “There are large health co-benefits from switching to renewable energy from coal-fired power plants. Not building the future coal capacity that was planned in India in 2019 would avoid at least 844,000 premature deaths over the lives of these plants.”

Pub gardens often feature barren patios, characterless lawns and – worst of all – fake grass.

Now, the Royal Horticultural Society is asking landlords across the country to plant up their patios, saying they are full of untapped potential for urban green space and wildlife.

The charity, which also hosts the Chelsea flower show, this week announced the winner of its pub garden competition at its urban plant show in Manchester. The community-owned Star Inn in Salford will be the recipient of a “pub garden for bees” designed by Emma Tipping.

Tipping has chosen easy-to-maintain plants, with some evergreen ferns and shrubs as well as bright flowers such as geraniums for the pollinators, to make it attractive year-round.

The gardener said she focused on bee-friendly plants because “Manchester is famous for its bees” and they were an accessible way for people to help pollinators.

The design includes a “bee pub garden” with rocky areas for bees to rest on, nectar-rich plants and small watering holes.

Tipping said more pubs should green up their gardens because “it’s so rare to have a green space like this in an urban area that is being used, enjoyed and loved already, that has so much potential and can be relatively easily planted”.

She said she hoped other pubs would be inspired: “They can use this garden as a blueprint – it’s so hard to know where to start sometimes with planting, for those who haven’t done it before.”

Mick Smith, the licence holder for the pub, said the planting would be an asset to customers, many of whom do not have gardens of their own.

“If you come to our pub,” he said, “you’ll see that it’s a sun spot and in summertime, hardly anyone actually sits in the pub itself, they’re all sitting on the patio area, and it’s become like the lounge room and it really does deserve to have some decent plants. And for the good of the community at large, and for the bees.”

He said they hoped to tempt birds, insects and other nature from the nearby Cliff conservation area with their planting.

Tipping said one of the reasons the Star won was because it had a scheme whereby volunteers tided the patio, and one of the aims of the competition was to get people involved in gardening.

“There might be people in the local area that would love to do gardening but not have the space to do it if it’s an urban area,” she said. “So it gives something back to people who could look after it … they could come and do the gardening and have a little bit of space outside where they can be a bit creative.”

Perfect pub plants: a selection from Emma Tipping’s plant list

• Herbs including lemon balm, fennel, oregano and chives.

• Ferns including Asplenium scolopendrium, Polystichum aculeatum and Polypodium vulgare.

• Shrubs including Fatsia polycarpa “Green fingers”, Mahonia “Soft caress”, Pieris “Flaming silver”.

• Perennials including Euphorbia x martini, Geranium macrorrhizum “Spessart”, Heuchera “Black beauty”.

Ocean waves crashing on the world’s shores emit more PFAS into the air than the world’s industrial polluters, new research has found, raising concerns about environmental contamination and human exposure along coastlines.

The study measured levels of PFAS released from the bubbles that burst when waves crash, spraying aerosols into the air. It found sea spray levels were hundreds of thousands times higher than levels in the water.

The contaminated spray likely affects groundwater, surface water, vegetation, and agricultural products near coastlines that are far from industrial sources of PFAS, said Ian Cousins, a Stockholm University researcher and the study’s lead author.

“There is evidence that the ocean can be an important source [of PFAS air emissions],” Cousins said. “It is definitely impacting the coastline.”

PFAS are a class of 15,000 chemicals used across dozens of industries to make products resistant to water, stains and heat. Though the compounds are highly effective, they are also linked to cancer, kidney disease, birth defects, decreased immunity, liver problems and a range of other serious diseases.

They are dubbed “forever chemicals” because they do not naturally break down and are highly mobile once in the environment, so they continuously move through the ground, water and air. PFAS have been detected in all corners of the globe, from penguin eggs in Antarctica to polar bears in the Arctic.

The Stockholm researchers several years ago found that PFAS released from ocean waves crashing are released into the air around shorelines, then can travel thousands of kilometers through the atmosphere before the chemicals return to land.

The new research looked at levels in the sea spray as waves crash by testing ocean samples between Southampton in the UK and Chile. The chemicals’ levels were higher in the northern hemisphere in general because it is more industrialized and there is not much mixing of water across the equator, Cousins said.

It is unclear what the findings mean for human exposure. Inhalation of PFAS is an issue, but how much of the chemicals are breathed in, and air concentrations further from the waves, is still unknown.

Previous non-peer-reviewed research has found a correlation between higher PFAS levels in vegetation samples and proximity to the ocean, Cousin said, and his team is undertaking a similar study.

He said that the results show how the chemicals are powerful surfactants that concentrate on the surface of water, which helps explain why they move from the ocean to the air and atmosphere.

“We thought PFAS were going to go into the ocean and would disappear, but they cycle around and come back to land, and this could continue for a long time into the future,” he said.

A flagship UN report on livestock emissions is facing calls for retraction from two key experts it cited who say that the paper “seriously distorted” their work.

The UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) misused their research to underestimate the potential of reduced meat intake to cut agricultural emissions, according to a letter sent to the FAO by the two academics, which the Guardian has seen.

Paul Behrens, an associate professor at Leiden University and Matthew Hayek, an assistant professor at New York University, both accuse the FAO study of systematic errors, poor framing, and highly inappropriate use of source data.

Hayek told the Guardian: “The FAO’s errors were multiple, egregious, conceptual and all had the consequence of reducing the emissions mitigation possibilities from dietary change far below what they should be. None of the mistakes had the opposite effect.”

Agriculture accounts for 23% of global greenhouse gas emissions, most of which are attributable to livestock in the form of methane from burps and manure, and deforestation for grazing and feed crops. As global meat production leapt by 39% in the first two decades of this century, agricultural emissions also rose by 14%.

At the Cop28 climate summit in December, the FAO published the third in a series of studies of the livestock emissions problem. As well as reducing the FAO’s estimate of livestock’s contribution to overall global heating for a third consecutive time, it used a paper written by Behrens and others in 2017 to argue that shifts away from meat eating could only reduce global agri-food emissions by between 2 and 5%.

Behrens’s paper from 2017 assessed the environmental impacts of government-backed nationally recommended diets (NRDs) of the time, which have since become outdated. Many countries, such as China and Denmark, have drastically reduced their recommended meat intake since then, while Germany now proposes a 75% plant-based diet in its NRD.

Behrens says “voluminous evidence” from larger environmental reports which recommended reductions in meat content, such as the Eat-Lancet Planetary Health Diet, were ignored, according to the letter.

“The scientific consensus at the moment is that dietary shifts are the biggest leverage we have to reduce emissions and other damage caused by our food system,” Behrens told the Guardian. “But the FAO chose the roughest and most inappropriate approach to their estimates and framed it in a way that was very useful for interest groups seeking to show that plant-based diets have a small mitigation potential compared to alternatives.”

Of more than 200 climate scientists surveyed by Behrens and Hayek for a recent paper, 78% said it was important for livestock herd sizes to peak by 2025 if the world was to stand a chance of preventing dangerous global heating.

As well as using obsolete NRDs, the scientists say the FAO report “systematically underestimates” the emissions-cutting potential of dietary shifts through what the letter calls a “series of methodological errors”.

The authors say these include: double-counting meat emissions until 2050, mixing different baseline years in analyses, and channelling data inputs that inappropriately favour diets allowing increased global meat consumption. The FAO paper also skips over the opportunity cost of carbon sequestration on non-farmed land.

Hayek said the FAO inappropriately cited a report he co-authored that measured all agri-food emissions, and applied it to livestock emissions alone. “It wasn’t just like comparing apples to oranges,” he said. “It was like comparing really small apples to really big oranges.”

Correspondingly, the mitigation potential from farming less livestock was underestimated by a factor of between 6 and 40, he said.

The FAO is the world’s primary source for agricultural data, and its reports are routinely used by authoritative bodies such as the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). But the FAO is also mandated to increase livestock productivity so as to bolster nutrition and food security, arguably creating a conflict of interests.

Former officials have accused the FAO of censoring and sabotaging their work when it challenged livestock industry positions. A recent FAO roadmap to making the sector sustainable also omitted the option of reducing meat intake from a list of 120 policy interventions.

That paper received praise from meat industry lobbyists, one of whom called it “music to our ears” when it was released at Cop28.

An FAO spokesperson said: “As a knowledge-based organisation, FAO is fully committed to ensuring accuracy and integrity in scientific publications, especially given the significant implications for policymaking and public understanding.

“We would like to assure you that the report in question has undergone a rigorous review process with both an internal and external double-blind peer review to ensure that the research meets the highest standards of quality and accuracy, and that potential biases are minimised. FAO will look into the issues raised by the academics and undertake a technical exchange of views with them.”