Steering restoration of coal mining degraded ecosystem to achieve sustainable development goal-13 (climate action): United Nations decade of ecosystem restoration (2021-2030).

For millennium, mining sector is a source not only of mineral extraction for industrialization, economic expansion, and urban sprawling, but also of socio-environmental concern. It, therefore, has been the central attention of the business and public policy sustainable development scheme for several years. Thus, gradually, mining industries are getting involved with the concerns such as carbon emissions mitigation and carbon accounting to govern a rhetorical shift towards "sustainable mining". However, there is scarce knowledge about how the emergence of a "green and self-sustaining" forestry reclamation strategy coupled with potential carbon sequestration capacity in degraded mining areas will be an impeccable option for achieving sustainable development goal-13 (SDG-13: climate action) and ecosystem services during United Nation decade of ecosystem restoration. This paper reviews the extent to which reforestation and sustainable land management practices that employed to enhance ecosystem carbon pool and atmospheric CO2 sequestration capacity to offset CO2 emission and SOC (soil organic carbon) losses, as consequences of coal mining, to partially mitigate global climate crisis. Moreover, future research is required on mining innovation concepts and its challenges for designing an SDG impact framework, so that it not only synergies amongst SDGs, but also trade-offs between each individual "politically legitimized post-2015 development agenda" (i.e. UNSDGs) could be depicted in a systematic way. In a developing country like India, it is also an utmost need to assess the environmental impact and economic performance of such technological innovation and its possible synergistic effect.

Are null segregants new combinations of heritable material and should they be regulated?

Through genome editing and other techniques of gene technology, it is possible to create a class of organism called null segregants. These genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are products of gene technology but are argued to have no lingering vestige of the technology after the segregation of chromosomes or deletion of insertions. From that viewpoint regulations are redundant because any unique potential for the use of gene technology to cause harm has also been removed. We tackle this question of international interest by reviewing the early history of the purpose of gene technology regulation. The active ingredients of techniques used for guided mutagenesis, e.g., site-directed nucleases, such as CRISPR/Cas, are promoted for having a lower potential per reaction to create a hazard. However, others see this as a desirable industrial property of the reagents that will lead to genome editing being used more and nullifying the promised hazard mitigation. The contest between views revolves around whether regulations could alter the risks in the responsible use of gene technology. We conclude that gene technology, even when used to make null segregants, has characteristics that make regulation a reasonable option for mitigating potential harm. Those characteristics are that it allows people to create more harm faster, even if it creates benefits as well; the potential for harm increases with increased use of the technique, but safety does not; and regulations can control harm scaling.