Apres Le Deluge?

'After the flood' in Valencia, it's clearly apposite for the EU to reconsider responses to extreme weather events. In 2014, Federike Otto founded World Weather Attribution to quickly evaluate whether an extreme weather event could be linked to the climate crisis. This was a reaction to the general hesitancy to connect any particular event to climate change. Cause and effect is a serious issue. Scientists always have to 'hedge their bets' when dealing with such complex phenomena. A quick (and 'dirty') World Weather Attribution analysis of the events in Spain, suggest that the climate emergency made the extreme rainfall about 12% more intense. It also indicates that these once rare events, are becoming markedly more common. Otto, however, says there's an urgent need to improve the preparedness of folk in their responses to such emergencies. As she points out, it's all very well predicting the event, but do people know what to do? There's been several cases, in Germany and Spain, of people being killed in unevacuated care homes (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/nov/04/spain-deaths-europe-realities-extreme-weather-flooding). The EU provides necessary finance to help with 'clean-ups' after extreme weather events. Otto suggests, however, there's also clearly a need to provide money to help communities plan effective responses. Can folk help mitigate the effects by limiting the spread car-friendly water impervious surfaces? Can planning be done, allowing rivers to flow, without first flooding into people's homes. Do locals know where to go in the event of flooding, violent storms etc.?

UK 'Clean Electricity Pledge' is Achievable?

The UK's new National Energy System Operator (NESO) says the plan to create a 'clean' electricity system by 2030 is 'doable'. This would mean replacing all coal, gas and waste burning, by 'renewables'. Wind turbines and solar panels would be the main sources of renewable energy. This transition would, however, require the fixing of the country's 'sluggish' planning system. This would be essential to transmit the electricity from where it's generated, to all areas of the country. This would be costly and difficult. People get upset by pylons (https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/nov/05/britain-green-energy-system-operator-neso-green-electricity). Achieving 'clean energy' status, would make Britain much less dependent on 'fossil fuel' price fluctuations. It would also improve the country's energy security. Nuclear power and extra North Sea oil and gas extractions, are not viable options. NESO notes that Britain's electricity prices could actually decline. The country might even become an exporter of 'green' energy.

The Rich Get Richer?

The Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) is one thing the EU never got right. It currently hands out 3 billion euros a year in farming subsidies. The money received by each farmer depends on their 'acreage'. The bigger your farm, the more money you get. Predictably, billionaires are receiving most of the subsidies. Concomittantly, thousands of small farms in Europe are closing (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/nov/03/revealed-billionaires-ultimate-beneficiaries-linked-to-eu-farming-subsidies). It's likely the billionnaire EU farmers will simply buy up vacated small farms to increase the area of their holdings. They will consequently get an increased subsidy, without even producing any additional crops. The really big farms are also generally dominated by monocultures, with very low biodiversity. Brexit was said to facilitate UK farmers being subsidised for encouraging biodiversity. The results, however, have been somewhat 'patchy'. In the words of the song, "Because the rich get richer. And the poor keep on getting poorer". The EU's current CAP ensures this will always remain the case. Clearly, it won't encourage necessary rewilding.

No Precision Breeding For UK Farm Animals?

Genetic Modification (GM) involves transfering whole genes from one organism to another. The recipient organism then becomes able to produce a new protein. Gene Editing is more subtle, as it only alters a few bases in an organism's existing gene. This still, however, essentially alters proteins. The UK is set to approve The Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act. This will allow UK scientists to use Gene Editing to modify plant crops. The legislation is not, however, approving gene editing in domesticated animals (https://www.theguardian.com/science/2024/nov/02/scientists-dismayed-as-uk-ministers-clear-way-for-gene-editing-of-crops-but-not-animals). The failure to approve gene editing in animals may hold back the creation of healthier herds and flocks. If approved the technology could be used to create domesticated animals resistant to particular diseases. Gene Editing could also make animals more capable of coping with climate change. Cows could even be created, with reduced levels of methane burping. Methane is a very potent 'greenhouse gas'. Although welfare issues have been cited, the failure to allow Gene Editing in domesticated animals is rather odd. This technology has been repeatedly tested in humans in attempts to counter faulty genes. In some countries, Gene Editing has even been trialled to enable animal organs (liver and heart) to be transplanted to humans, without subsequent rejection. It would, in any case, be impossible to prevent Gene Edited stock animals being imported into the UK. You can't easily tell, if an organism has been Gene Edited. UK farmers will be tempted, if cows, pigs and sheep, with clearly beneficial attributes, become available from foreign laboratories. Perhaps the only folk being limited by the proposed legislation, are UK scientists?

BOGOF

BOGOF is the acronym for 'buy one, get one free'. The Food Foundation opines that UK supermarkets are currently 'actively incentivising citizens to buy more of those foods known to be bad for the health of people and the planet'. It points out that almost 20% of supermarket 'multibuy deals', like BOGOF, concern meat and dairy products. Red meat and dairy have known health risks. Their production techniques are also clearly linked to the production of 'greenhouse gases' and climate change. Even worse, 10% of supermarket 'multibuy deals' involve processed meats. Processed meats are even more strongly linked to cancers in humans (https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/nov/01/uk-supermarkets-using-multibuy-deals-to-encourage-sales-of-meat-study-finds). Supermarkets, of course, are in the business of maximising their profits. I suppose it must be down to governments to get them to apply their BOGOFs to healthier food choices. Unhealthy citizens cost money. Folk need more help in their choices of what and how much to eat. Supermarket 'multibuy deals' are also likely to increase food wastage. This is already a substantial problem in the UK and elsewhere.

Vapid?

Between 2012 and 2023, England's vape usage grew by more than 400%. Currently, almost 10% of the English public buy and use these products. Some of this use has been actively encouraged in cigarette smokers, to reduce their risk of lung cancer. A proportion, however, are young individuals, who have never previously smoked cigarettes. The tobacco companies clearly see vapes as a means of maintaining their profits. Single-use vapes, with child-friendly flavours and packaging, have been strongly marketed to encourage the next generation of nicotine addicts. The precise health effects of prolonged vaping are, as yet, uncharted. Single-use vapes also present a considerable environmental problem. They are rarely recycled. Their mixture of plastics, metals, chemicals and electronics, makes this difficult. Single-use vapes are generally simply dropped in the streets. These devices are fire risks. Vaping devices also waste enormous quantities of lithium (and other materials), that could be used to produce Electric Vehicle batteries etc. The UK government plans to introduce a disposable vapes ban 'before Christmas' 2024. Their Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) carried out a survey of vape-users. They claim that almost 30% might return to cigarette smoking, with 'health disbenefits' (https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/nov/01/disposable-vapes-ban-could-push-users-back-smoking-defra). It seems odd that DEFRA are apparently using their position to warn government ministers of a potential health 'danger' of a single-use vape ban. Their role ought have a focus on environmental impacts. Surely, it's the UK Health Security Agency that should be considering potential 'health disbenefits'. There must be ways of encouraging ex-cigarette smokers to stick to vaping. Single-use vapes shouldn't be part of this 'solution'. Only the tobacco companies 'need' a new generation of nicotine addicts.

Smog Log

Air pollution is a major global cause of ill-health and premature deaths. This is especially the case in India and Pakistan. Predictably, the Covid-19 pandemic had few benefits for humans. One, however, was its impact on air pollution (from industrial activities and vehicle exhausts) on the sub-continent. Reductions in polluting activities, resulted in some folk being able to glimpse for the first time, the Himalayas, from their cities. Post-pandemic the smog has returned with a vengence, in what's known as the 'pollution season' (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/nov/01/lahore-delhi-choked-smog-pollution-season-india-pakistan). In Lahore, Delhi and elsewhere, death rates from cancers, as well as respiratory and cardio-vascular diseases will again be on the rise. Climate change isn't the only killing consequence of emissions!