Water, Water Everywhere, Nor Yet a Drop to Drink

Only 3% of the Earth's water is fresh. Of that, a goodly percentage (circa 75%) is currently frozen, making it difficult to use. This means that potable (fresh) water is quite a scarce resource. Agriculture; industry and private households currently use respectively 69%; 19% and 12% of available freshwater. A report by the Global Commission on the Economics of Water notes that demand will outstrip supply by 40%, by the end of the current decade. As agriculture is the major user of freshwater, the report predicts that more than half the world's food production will be at risk in the next 25 years. Most governments appear to currently grossly under-estimate the amount of water required by their populations. Most operate basically assuming that, for health and hygiene, a single human needs 50-100 litres per day. For adequate nutrition and a dignified life, however, nearer 4000 litres per day is the requirement. Many countries simply can't supply these volumes, meaning that most food and materials (generated using freshwater) have to be imported (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/oct/16/global-water-crisis-food-production-at-risk). The Global Commission on the Economics of Water report maintains that countries have a) to get better at conserving freshwater resources and b) end the destruction of the ecosystems on which freshwater depends. A half of rainfall over land, comes from healthy vegetation. Plant transpiration generates 'atmospheric rivers', carrying freshwater to new locations. China and Russia are the major recipients of these flows. India and Brazil are the major exporters. Destroying the planet's terrestrial ecosystems, will cause these 'atmospheric rivers' to effectively dry up. This could decimate food production in recipient countries. Even cutting food wastage isn't going to be sufficient, as the Earth's human population climbs towards its predicted 10 billion. We really have to value freshwater more!

Worse Than Warfare?

England's Salisbury Plain has long been a military training ground. Tanks churn up the soil and explosions are frequent. Sainsbury Plain has long been known, however, to be a haven for wild, chalkland flowers. Viper's bugloss; Small scabious and Kidney vetch abound in this location. Where there are flowers, insects and other animals prosper (https://www.theguardian.com/science/2024/oct/16/plantwatch-military-training-ground-offers-surprise-haven). It's been evident for decades, that agriculture is generally more damaging to biodiversity than preparations for warfare. Military training areas avoid the planting of monocultures; over-use of fertilizer, as well as applications of herbicides and insecticides. Tank tracks and craters from shells can actually create niches. These facts are a clear illustration of why it's necessary to encourage UK farmers to rewild some of their acres.

Waste Not?

A BBC study has established that, over the last 5 years, nearly 50% of the household waste from UK homes, has been incinerated to generate electricity. A large proportion of that waste was plastics. As a fuel, waste produces 'greenhouse gas' emissions comparable to those from burning coal. Advocates of incineration, maintain that a benefit of incineration is that it reduces the need for expensive landfill. Disposing of such waste in landfill, would boost emissions of methane (a potent 'greenhouse gas'), as well as carbon dioxide (https://www.energylivenews.com/2024/10/15/burning-household-waste-now-uks-most-polluting-power-source/). It's claimed that carbon capture and storage, can be easily incorporated into incineration plants. Strangely, however, this facility is not a feature of most of these establishments. Actual recycling of household waste has also markedly declined, as incineration has increased in popularity. Most UK householders, are unlikely to suspect their carefully collected waste, might well be adding to environmental problems. There needs to be a fuller cost/benefit analysis of generating electricity by burning household waste. There's not much point in closing coal-fired power stations, if you replace them with something as damaging.

Sinks Sunk?

Carbon sinks are the natural mechanisms, removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. The most important of these sinks are the oceans, where zooplankton rise each day, to the surface to eat phytoplankton. This process helps take the results of photosynthesis into the depths. Other natural sinks include forests, soils and peat-forming bogs. In general, around 50% of the anthropogenic (human-mediated) carbon dioxide emissions are absorbed by the sinks. Carbon capture and storage is not an effective replacement. Worryingly, a recent study suggests that the land-based sinks have lost their effectiveness. In 2023, forests, plants and soils effectively absorbed none of the excess carbon (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/oct/14/nature-carbon-sink-collapse-global-heating-models-emissions-targets-evidence-aoe). A failure of any of nature's carbon sinks would be really bad news. Obviously, atmospheric carbon dioxide levels would quickly build up. The 'greenhouse gas' effect would be intensified. There would consequently be a rapid acceleration of global heating, with more extreme weather events. All this seems to be occurring, just as countries and fossil-fuel companies are reneging on their 'pledges'!

BP Backtrack

For a time, so-called Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) standards were all the rage. ESG standards were cited as providing evidence for whether responsible investment in a company was ethical. Pension funds and others cited them. British Petroleum (BP) once 'bigged up' its new environmental focus. This was after being involved in a major pollution event. The company claimed it would reduce its emissions by 40%. Somewhat later, when big profits were to be made as a result of Russia's attack on Ukraine, BP slashed its pledge to 25%. This petrochemical giant now plans to forget any of its promised curbs on fossil fuel production. It has major new investments in the Middle East and the Gulf of Mexico (https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/oct/13/very-concerning-bp-dilutes-net-zero-targets-as-global-retreat-from-green-standards-gathers-pace). The retreat from green standards is gathering pace. Did anyone ever believe that fossil fuel companies, worried about anything other than their profits? The 'greenwash' cycle appears to be over.

Dodging the Dodge Ram 1500?

A Dodge Ram 1500 is an American pick-up that weighs as much as a Panzer tank. in Europe, there's been a 20% increase in the importation of this and other SUVs. They seem to be purchased as status symbols by urban folk, who claim to feel safer, driving their families in such machines. This security, however, is counter-balanced by making endangering people they share the roads with. The bulk of these vehicles is a problem. Collision with an SUV can obliterate a traditional vehicle. They are also high and have really long bonnets. This means that, when they hit a pedestrian, it's likely to result in a fatality. Children are hit in the head (even seeing a smail child is difficult from the elevated driving position) and adults in other vital organs. Rather than being knocked to the side, humans who are hit are likely to be dragged under the wheels. All this and these monster trucks emit massive quantities of 'greenhouse gases' worsening climate change (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/oct/12/monster-pickup-trucks-accelerate-europe-sales-rise-safety-fears). They are, of course, problematic to park on the streets of cities and towns. Little wonder, then, that some cities are banning or advocating the banning of the the Dodge Ram 1500 and all its relatives.

Aurochs Arise?

Aurochs were huge, wild cattle, once found throughout Europe. They disappeared in the wild around 1300 BC and the last female died, in Poland, in 1627. The DNA of Aurochs survived, however, in some modern cattle breeds. This loss of the Auroch, removed an ecological niche in Europe. Breeders, in The Netherlands, have created the long-horned Tauros, with many of the characteristics of Aurochs. There's a plan to introduce a herd of Tauros to the Scottish highlands. The intention is to see if they can fill the niche left by the extinct Aurochs (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/oct/10/herd-of-tauros-to-be-released-into-highlands-to-recreate-aurochs-effect). It's likely that the Tauros will have a beneficial effect on the flora and fauna of the Scottish highlands. It's probable, however, that the herds will have to be culled to prevent over-grazing. It's either that or having to introduce wolves into the same locations.