The War in Europe is Not Only Awful : It's a Major Distraction at a Time of Predicted Global Peril!

Whilst we are distracted by the dreadful events in Ukraine, the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has just published its most frightening report (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/feb/28/ipcc-issues-bleakest-warning-yet-impacts-climate-breakdown). The IPCC note that climate breakdown is accelerating fast. As always suspected (there was a feeling that initial predictions 'pulled the punches'), the report now admits that many of the negative impacts will worse than was claimed. The IPCC report notes there is now only a very slight chance of preventing the worst ravages of climate change. These events are not going to happen elsewhere. The report says that no region with people can escape the dire impacts of rising temperatures and increasingly extreme weather events. The IPCC also confirms that 50% of the global human population (3.3-3.6 bn people) live in areas that are extremely vulnerable to climate change. If the report is right (and I see nothing to suggest it isn't), we need to stop the distractions and concentrate on something that will impact us all.

Off Their Heads?

The Australian Sports Brain Bank has received 21 donated organs from former players. The Brain Bank found that 12 of these brains showed signs of Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy (CTE), a condition resulting from concussion (https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2022/feb/28/concussion-in-sport-cte-found-in-more-than-half-of-sportspeople-who-donated-brains). There is no doubt that CTE is a post-mortem sign of serious damage to the brain. It is also obvious, that sports characterised by physical contact, are likely to produce concussion. Apparently worryingly, the Bank Bank's report noted CTE in some of their younger subjects. These would have participated in their chosen sports for shorter periods of time. One must remember, however, that these were self-selected, donated brains. People (or their representatives) would be more likely to agree to donate the brains when they a) felt that death was likely and b) feared the subject was already experiencing neurological symptoms. Concussion in sport is a serious issue. Every attempt should be made in all contact sports, to reduce its impact (with head guards, equipment changes and post-concussion protocols). Having said that, playing sports is generally beneficial to health and can/has lifted some people out of poverty. This may be a babies and bathwater issue?

Birder's bonus 215

A lone Red kite (Milvus milvus) hovered above and landed on the banks of the River Loughor at Bynea.

The Only Really Supreme Laws Are Those of Physics!

It seems likely that any professed US intention to 'lead' attempts to limit the release of 'greenhouse gases' could be blocked by that country's 'Supreme Court' (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/feb/24/supreme-court-case-biden-climate-crisis). The US Supreme Court have reportedly agreed to rule on a case from West Virginia, supported by 18 other Republican-led states. The case basically challenges the Environmental Protection Agency's ability to issue strict regulations, curbing pollution from fossil fuel-fired power stations. If it goes their way, this would enable the US to maintain its status as the biggest polluter on the planet. A ruling facilitating pollution would also increase the risk of water shortages and wild fires in other parts of the US. It appears odd to a European like myself for a collection of politically-appointed lawyers to have such power over the potential future of the planet. I accept that the judges are probably expert on issues relating to politics, commerce and case law. I think, however, it unlikely that many of them have much of an understanding of science. Physics will not be swayed by their rulings.

Missing the Bus!

In 2020, the allegedly bus-obsessed UK PM pledged there would be 4000 new zero emissions, British-built buses on the country's roads by 2024 (https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/feb/26/boris-johnson-promise-build-4000-zero-emission-buses-green-transport-revolution). The eco-buses were intended to be an illustration of the PM's 'green credentials'. The Covid19 pandemic will have 'derailed' this pledge but only £32m of the required £4bn cost has been allocated thus far by the Treasury. The bus manufacturers also report that they have received no orders. Although developing emissions-free buses would be a sensible move to counter climate change/ air pollution, government funding is leading to massive reductions in UK bus transport. It looks as if a new organisation, Pledge Watch' should be urgently created. Pledges and actions seem to be somewhat divorced from eachother.

Emissions: Crack Down Now or Make a Graded Response?

I am more than a little loath to write this post. I have no direct financial interests in any petrochemical or emissions-generating company. I am also not a climate scientist. I am an aging Brit. I was an educator and a professional scientist, for around 50 years. But I operated in a very different specialism (Psychobiology) and in very different times. There is a danger that I might just be revealing my biases/lacks of expertise. When the question is posed as above, it sounds as if we have a binary choice. I'm not sure we really do. Let's look in turn at the pros and cons (as I see them) for each of the approaches? The Case For Immediate Action on Emissions. Pros: 1. The climate crisis is already with us; 2. It will (irrespective of what is done) take a really long time for 'greenhouse gases' in the atmosphere to return to pre-industrial levels; 3. The Earth's climate may already be at or approaching 'tipping points', where it becomes difficult/impossible to reverse changes; 4. The 'guestimations' of 'safe' levels of global heating and time we have left to correct things may be wildly out; 5. We seem, however, to have developed some of the technologies for making a transition to low carbon energy production and 6. There appears to being a growing consensus (however vague?) that 'something needs to be done'. Cons: 1. The transition will cause real hardships to some people; 2. It could, at least initially, have major disruptive effects on economies/industries/living standards; 3. Less developed countries may be precluded from enacting the changes that have occurred in their developed counterparts and 4. It could be viewed as undemocratic to have changes largely imposed on people. The Case For a Graded Response on Emissions Reductions Pros: 1. The transition could be 'balanced' with changes made without too much impact on people; 2. Now is not the time for change, as people and economies are just emerging from the Covid19 pandemic; 3. People now 'deserve' opportunities to travel to see friends and families, as well as to take holidays; 4. Making transition slower, gives companies (e.g. petrochemicals, air travel and agriculture) time to invest in 'alternatives' and change the focus of their operations; 5. Novel technologies like nuclear fusion and carbon capture have time to be developed/improved; 6. There would be more time to educate people on climate change and to encourage behavioural alterations and 7. There are more votes in this approach for politicians. Cons: 1. Nobody has any clear idea of how much time is available to make an 'orderly' transition to carbon zero; 2. Pledging sounds fine but the pledgers will be out of office, by the time the pledged date arrives; 3. Companies may simply carry on drilling for oil and gas, increasing air traffic etc because they can; 4. Human behaviour, especially in the more priveledged areas of the planet (where the major polluters live), may not radically change and 5. We may simply encourage a 'race to the bottom', where countries largely do their own thing. I don't think there is much of a real choice. I'm not even convinced there will ever be a concensus for anything. I hope I am wrong.

Suffering Without Contributing

Africa makes a relatively miniscule contribution to global heating. In spite of this, experts believe that this continent will be really badly hit by climate change. In deed, the think tank Shift Africa, notes that African countries are already being forced to annually spend billions of dollars in attempts to cope with the effects of the climate crisis (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/feb/26/african-countries-spending-billions-to-cope-with-climate-crisis). Spending money to counter climate change (e.g. dealing with droughts, wild fires etc), limits the cash poor African countries can spend improving their schools and hospitals. This drives these countries ever further into poverty. For example, for every $20 of national income generated in Ethiopia, $1 is spent on dealing with the climate crisis. This economic effect is, of course, compounded by the failure to get adequate numbers of Covid19 vaccine doses to these very same countries. This not only makes the generating of new viral variants more likely (endangering us all), it further impoverishes these countries.

A Bonus For Halting Climate Change?

Long-time Environmentalist, Bill McKibben (Middlebury College) has reiterated the urgent need for the world to switch to renewables. Petrochemical emissions of 'greenhouse gases' are major drivers of damaging climate change. These emissions also produce 9 million deaths each year as a consequence of their detrimental effects on air quality/human health. With the invasion of the Ukraine, McKibben has now added the further imperative of stopping 'autocrats, dictators and thugs' (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/feb/25/this-is-how-we-defeat-putin-and-other-petrostate-autocrats). McKibben points out that solar and windpower are currently the cheapest means of producing energy. Renewables are also available world-wide rather than being under the control of petrochemical companies and their state masters. Technology can move fast. McKibben notes that, in 1941, Ypsilanti, the world's largest industrial plant, was completed in only 6 months. Soon after, it was producing a B-24 bomber an hour. As McKibben says, a B-24 bomber is a much more complex product than a wind turbine. He admits that a transition to renewables is dependent on materials (like Nickel) for that process. He reminds people, however, that alternatives for 'essentials' were rapidly found by scientists in the Second World War. In deed, McKibben seems quite optimistic that the latest developments will be a further impetus for European and US energy generation to 'go green'. One has to say, however, that much of the political talk has been about the need to keep oil and gas flowing, as well as living costs down. Major change is clearly going to be resisted, tooth and nail, by petrochemical companies; an array of politicians; politically-appointed judges and sections of the media. It's certainly not certain that the necessary change will happen!

Asparagus Gets in on the Act

British asparagus spears are appearing on supermarket shelves 8 weeks before they normally arrive (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/feb/25/mild-winter-brings-british-asparagus-to-shops-eight-weeks-early). The early asparagus appears to be a consequence of an exceptionally mild winter. It is, of course, premature to claim that this premature vegetable is a result of climate change. Eight weeks early is, however, represents a really big speeding up of the spears. If nothing else, this British asparagus might reduce the amount of the upmarket vegetable that is flown into the UK, from remote locations in North Africa and South America. A modest reduction in 'greenhouse gas' emissions could result?

Seeing the Changes 1569

A nice display of Spring Coltsfoot (Tussilago farfara) at Swansea University's Bay Campus.

An Economic Project Not a Political One?

The above is the mantra, used by generations of German politicians, to explain their country's reliance on Russian gas (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/feb/25/can-germany-function-without-vladimir-putins-gas). Germany hopes to be carbon neutral by 2045. This looks internationally ambitious but appears barely adequate to climate scientists. In 2011, Germany decided not to use nuclear power. In 2019, the decision was made to dispense with coal-fired generating stations. 'Natural' gas was seen as the means of bridging the move to renewable energy sources in 2045. The now unapproved Nord Stream 2 pipeline, under the Baltic, was intended to provide 70% of Germany's gas requirement. It is evident in the current rocketing prices of oil and gas, that these 'greenhouse gas'- emitting fuels can be used as economic weapons. Clearly, Germany should have moved much faster to basing its economy on renewables. So, should we all. In actuality, economic, political and environmental decisions are intertwined.

Publishers Publish

The large Dutch company, Elsevier, is both the largest publisher of climate research as well as the top publisher of books aimed at expanding oil and gas exploration (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/feb/24/elsevier-publishing-climate-science-fossil-fuels ). Some scientists apparently find it surprising that the publisher of Global Environmental Change and Lancet consults with the fossil fuel industry. Publishers publish books and journals. Publishers tend to go for ready markets. Climate research currently attracts a lot of interest. This wasn't always the case. The fossil fuel companies are loaded with finance and are probably only too willing to fund conferences on issues dear to their hearts. Conferences often generate volumes of the proceedings which are published. It's unrealistic to expect publishers to ignore major sectors and become pure disseminators of truth. The climate scientists should try to ensure that their views are as widely disseminated as possible and prevail.

Farming Sentient Invertebrates

The octopus is a large-brained mollusc (a relative of snails and slugs) with impressive abilities to perform learned responses. Many scientists are now convinced that these animals are sentient (capable of self-awareness). In the UK, some octopus species now receive animal welfare protections, along with all vertebrate animals. There is, however, concern that a Spanish company Nueva Pescanova is pumping 65 million euros into 'industrial scale' breeding of octopuses for human consumption (https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/worlds-first-octopus-farm-stirs-ethical-debate-2022-02-23/). Some experts are predicting that Neuva Pescanova's planned octopus 'farms' will be an 'ethical and environmental disaster'. They point out that captive octopus have a high mortality. Octopus have also been recorded to show 'aggression' towards conspecifics (members of the same species), cannibalism and self-mutilation. Perhaps self-aware octopus don't like the idea of being served up on a dinner plate or appearing in paella?

War, War With Jaw, Jaw?

It seems somewhat trivialising to be worrying about environmental and medical issues, when we are having a major outbreak of war in Europe (https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2022/feb/24/russia-invades-ukraine-declares-war-latest-news-live-updates-russian-invasion-vladimir-putin-explosions-bombing-kyiv-kharkiv). The conflict between Russia and the Ukraine is, of course, yet another illustration of the slipperiness of words. Clearly, 'alternative truths' are alive and well, and powerful people are in a position to use them. One just has to hope that a nuclear winter is not the de facto 'cure' for climate heating.

The Plane Truth

In 2018, before the Covid19 pandemic, air passenger and freight (but not military activity) were estimated to generate 1.04 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide. Emissions would have decreased over the pandemic (the decline would have been more marked without 'ghost flights'). Flights are now markedly increasing and will exceed the 2018 frequencies. Globally, for example, it is likely that 38,000 large jets will be flying regularily (say one long-haul flight per week for 50 weeks of the year?). This is going to inject enormous amounts of 'greenhouse gases' high into the atmosphere. In contrast to cars, there is no duty payable on non-renewable aviation fuel. There are also no additional taxes on frequent fliers (they are often actually rewarded for their behaviour). Countries with large fleets of jets (notably the USA, China and the UK) don't even count the emissions of their aircraft, towards their national carbon footprints. Things really have to change if we are to get anywhere near carbon zero in the foreseeable future. There is, however, absolutely no sign of that happening. Out of flight, out of mind?

Spreading Like Wildfires

The wildfires in Australia, California, Canada, Siberia and Turkey all tended to dominate the news in 2021. People will, however, be unsurprised to learn that experts are predicting that wildfires are likely to increase by a third by 2050 (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/feb/23/climate-crisis-driving-increase-in-wildfires-across-globe-says-report-aoe). This increase in wildfires would presumably be with or without any major lowering of 'greenhouse gas' emissions between now and 2050. It has taken decades of human activities to boost atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide to their present levels. The concentrations of this climate-changing gas are unlikely to come down quickly (even with carbon capture). Wildfires, of course, by their very nature, make other wildfires more likely. We might, by 2050, get wildfires in some currently very unexpected locations.

Air Tickets to Disaster?

John Vidal (ex-Environmental editor of the Guardian) collects some highly pertinent information about UK aviation and climate change (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/feb/22/airlines-ghost-flights-net-zero-uk-aviation-climate-crisis). Vidal notes that, before the Covid19 pandemic, the UK had the world's third largest aviation sector (after the USA and China). In 2019, aviation accounted for 8% of UK 'greenhouse gas' emissions. The UK's emissions from flying, are the third highest per capita. This is not evenly spread. 1 and 10 percent of people take, 20% and 50% respectively, of all UK flights. The UK government expects an increase of more than 230 million passengers a year will use a UK airport by 2050. This is when the UK government has pledged to achieve carbon zero emissions. Their own Climate Change Committee, warns that passenger numbers must grow by no more than 25% to stand any chance of net zero. In spite of optimistic noises, there is clearly no quick 'techno fix' for aviation emissions. In spite of this, the aviation industry (and related travel/airport companies), are heavily subsidised with tax breaks and handouts from the UK government. Most UK airports appear hell-bent on expansion. The more the aviation industry grows, the greater emissions cuts that will be needed from other sectors (e.g. housing; car transport, agriculture etc). This situation is clearly unsustainable. Air travel should be taxed appropriately, using the principle of the polluter pays. The cash generated could then be used to develop a) alternative modes of transport (e.g. trains) and b) more efficient heating systems and insulation for homes.

An Everyday Story of UK Farming?

A leader in the UK's National Farmers Union (NFU) maintains that central government has a "total lack of understanding of how food production works" (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/feb/22/completely-contradictory-nfu-leader-attacks-uks-farming-policy). That NFU official says there was clearly no plan for farming in a post-Brexit world. All sectors of UK farming now appear to be showing a consistent pattern, of plunging exports; increased bureaucracy and shortages of seasonal workers. Their woes are accompanied, she says, by 'floods' of cheap, low quality food imports. These were mandated after 'needy' government post-Brexit trade deals. The official clearly finds it extraordinary that central government is raising the bar for environmental standards in UK farming, whilst simultaneously encouraging low standards overseas. One has to note, however, that many farmers (and fishermen) were enthusiastic supporters of Brexit. Perhaps they didn't read the small print or simply believed the 'hype'?

Food Wasting Supermarkets

UK supermarkets are wasting 200,000 tonnes of edible foods, that could be going to hungry families (https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/feb/22/supermarkets-wasting-200000-tonnes-of-food-that-could-go-to-needy-say-charities). The own brands of supermarkets make up about 72% of this edible food waste. Even when the supermarkets allow their waste food to be used for human consumption, they often restrict who their suppliers can give it to. Supermarkets often appear happier to give the materials to large charities and to bask in the positive publicity. Smaller, local charities find it much harder to get any donated food waste from the big chains. Many of these smaller bodies are, of course, on the front line in terms of having to deal with hunger and deprivation. Currently, much of the supermarket food waste is actually reprocessed for selling as animal food. The UK's level of food waste seems almost criminal? It would be interesting to learn what happens to food waste from large supermarkets, in other countries.

'Ghost Flights' Ex Machina

Flying is one of the most carbon intensive activities that people can undertake. It's currently second only to space tourism. One might have expected, however, that air travel emissions would have been near zero, over the duration of the Covid19 pandemic. Not so! In the time of the pandemic, there were almost 15,000 'ghost flights' from UK airports (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/feb/22/almost-15000-ghost-flights-left-uk-since-pandemic-began). 'Ghost flights' are almost empty. Less than 10% of the aircraft's capacity is occupied. London's Heathrow airport was the top UK offender, with almost 5000 'ghost flights'. These flights were consequently continuing to pump out massive emissions of 'greenhouse gases' high into the atmosphere. This was even the case when their were few passengers and air travel was greatly restricted. The airlines will, no doubt, maintain that 'ghost flights' were essential to keep their airport slots. The flights may well have also transported viral varients to new areas of the globe. Aircrew also breathe. It is clear, however, that reducing their emissions comes extremely low down on airline lists of priorities. This is in spite of claimed 'green' aspirations. Judge them by their actions, rather than by what they say!

Melting For a Snowdrop?

War, pestilence, climate change! Today's news includes, however, a report that a single bulb of a new Snowdrop variety ('Golden tears'), has been auctioned on eBay, for £1850! The variety is exceptionally vigorous. So, it's well worth it?

Global Leadership in the 'Green Economy'?

The UK government claims to aiming for 'global leadership' of the 'green economy'. For example, it maintains their plans, will create 2 million skilled jobs in the area by 2030 (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/feb/17/hard-data-blows-apart-uk-rhetoric-on-leading-the-way-to-a-green-economy). Actuality, however, currently seems very different. The number of people employed in low carbon and renewable energy, actually declined by 28,000 in the UK between 2014 and 2020. This fall was not a consequence of the Covid19 pandemic. The decline was evident, before the onset of the public health problem. Ten thousand people are working in the booming offshore wind sector but this is not as labour-intensive as working on North sea oil and gas rigs, where people live on the platforms. The building of wind turbines has also largely been outsourced to other countries, rather than increasing engineering in the UK. Employment in the solar panel sector also dropped by more than 40% over the same time period. The UK government have failed to consistently encourage the green economy. It's, consequently, hardly surprising that the estimate of 2 million skilled jobs by 2030, seems increasingly unlikely.

Sue the Council For Access to Green?

There is good evidence that access to nature-rich spaces boosts physical and mental wellbeing of humans, whilst reducing their mortality. One in three people in England cannot, however, access nature near their home. Predictably, the poorest communities fare worse, being twice as likely to live in a neighbourhood without nature-rich spaces. More than 60 nature, planning, health and equality organisations are now petitioning government to allow communities and NGOs to take local authorities to court, if they fail to provide healthy green space. This would especially apply when new housing developments are contemplated (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/feb/21/uk-wildlife-campaigners-call-for-legal-right-to-access-nature-for-all). The campaigning organisations regard access to green space (supported by 80% of the UK public) as part of the 'levelling up' process. Improving access to nature-rich green spaces is certainly a good idea. This could be done by sensitively rewilding some areas and/or by improving transport links to nearby existing localities. Local councils, however, may not be the obvious target. Some can be obstructive but many have seen their budgets slashed by central government. Councils already have many services that they have to supply (e.g. child protection). Central government also appears to be about to cut back the funding for local transport, including buses (https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/feb/21/uk-government-pushed-to-come-clean-as-decision-on-bus-funding-looms). Although Councils nominally have the control over new housing developments, central government often exerts pressure in its drive to create more properties. Perhaps central government is the more obvious target? It might also legally be rather difficult to determine what is an appropriate level of provision of 'green space'. How large should it be? How diverse? Who should maintain it? Should the likely footfall by human visitors be an issue? Should people be free to bring their pets into it? The scope for 'greenwash' appears to be quite extensive.

Antivirals Also Follow the Money

The rapid development of the vaccines for Covid19 was a science triumph. The most disappointing aspect, however, was that these medications (certainly initially) mostly finished up in rich nations, with the poor missing out. Fairly obviously, pharmaceutical industries have to more than recoup their research investments. The companies were, however, heavily subsidised in vaccine development, by government funds, university expertise and the regulators who facilitated the required tests. Profits for 'Big pharma' appear to have been a major consideration. The companies (and their 'home' nations) have not been very receptive (in most cases) to allowing cheaper versions of 'their' vaccines to be manufactured. The same now appears to be happening with anti-virals (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/feb/20/covid-treatment-pill-big-pharma-antiviral-drugs). Othoman Mellouk (International Treatment Preparedness Coalition) notes that Pfizer and Merck are both releasing antivirals (respectively, Paxlovid and Molnupiravir) on to the markets. Anti-virals can be used to treat especially vulnerable people (e.g. those with impaired immune systems). These drugs will also initially go to richer countries. The Pfizer drug costs $530 for a 5 day course and the Merck alternative, $700. Pfizer and Merck will later decide who gets to make cheaper, generic versions of the drugs for sales to poorer regions. The availability of life-saving medicines shouldn't simply depend on 'market forces'. Both vaccines and anti-virals are needed everywhere, in drives to reduce the incidence of Covid19, with the generation of new viral variants. There must be a better way?

Humanity Financing Its Own Extinction?

Finance experts estimate that the world's governments are annually spending circa $1.8tn on subsidies, that drive the destruction of wildlife and intensify global heating. Both, if they continue, could make this planet uninhabitable for humans (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/feb/17/world-spends-18tn-a-year-on-subsidies-that-harm-environment-study-finds-aoe). The subsidies are equivalent to 2% of global GDP. The experts based their figure on damaging subsidies for fossil fuel industries ($620bn); agriculture ($520bn); water ($320bn) and forestry ($155bn). They were unable to make an estimate for mining. This activity, however, is believed to cause billions of dollars of damage to ecosystems. Governmemts are currently rarely open to their populations about their subsidy targets. Explicit subsidies are,however, currently effectively countering both the Paris climate accord agreement, as well as draft targets, intended to reverse biodiversity loss. The subsidy specialists believe that most of the $1.8tn could easily be repurposed to limit both global heating and biodiversity loss.

More Evidence of Arboricidal Behaviour by Storm Eunice

More evidence on Loughor foreshore of a tree massacre

Seeing the Changes 1568

Goat willow (Salix caprea) in catkin around Loughor.

A Glean in the Eye?

Gleaning is the ancient tradition of harvesting surplus crops for redistribution to those in need. This tradition appears to be making a comeback in England (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/feb/19/harvest-for-all-why-ancient-art-of-gleaning-is-making-a-comeback-food-banks-food-waste). UK farmers often have a lot of food waste in their fields of crops. Items are left in their fields because they are not the right size and/or shape to sell to supermarkets. Such 'waste' was formerly simply ploughed in, before planting the next crop. Food poverty is rampant in many parts of the UK. Some low income folk get help from food banks. A proportion of English farmers are consequently allowing volunteers to collect the 'left over' food from their fields. The perfectly edible produce is then taken to food banks and other charitable organisations. Gleaning has the advantage of reducing food waste. It also reminds the gleaners (often city-based folk), about where their food come from. Gleaning seems to be a sensible development, with wide benefits. Perhaps it's only the supermarkets that miss out?

Flash Splash!

On several days, in July 2021, more than one month's rainfall fell in a single hour in parts of London. This volume of rain produced flash flooding, creating perilous conditions in the Underground transport system, hospitals, homes etc. Major flash flood events will obviously become more common as climate change intensifies. A London Council taskforce report concludes there is a significant risk of people drowning in London in such events (https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/feb/20/london-flooding-poses-significant-risk-unless-immediate-action-taken). London's Victorian sewage system was never designed to deal with dramatic volumes of rainwater. The taskforce report notes, with concern, the lack of an overall plan or authority to tackle the increased flood threat to the city. The report says that immediate action is needed, to rule out the possibility of substantial loss of life in basement flats and other low lying places. Other major UK cities also need plans for dealing with major flash floods.

Seeing the Changes 1567

In spite of howling winds, Horse Chestnut (Aesculus hippocastanum) buds are unfurling in Loughor.

Quick to Pledge and Quicker to Drop?

The UK government pledged to become a paragon of animal welfare, by banning the import of furs and pate de foie gras (a fatty liver concoction made by force-fed geese). It seems likely, now, that both pledges will be dropped after objections from several cabinet ministers (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/feb/19/pledge-to-ban-fur-and-foie-gras-imports-could-be-dropped-after-cabinet-opposition). It seems, at the moment, that 'pledges' are simply devices (worrying for net zero cabon emissions?). The UK 'government' apparently can't afford to annoy anyone in its own party?

Local Arboricidal Behaviour by Storm Eunice

Storm Eunice trashes many trees in Loughor. Mature pines on the foreshore were especially singled out.

Cash 'Cows'?

It has been reported that some women are earning as much as £10,000 by selling their breast milk online to body builders (https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/feb/19/growing-sales-of-breast-milk-online-amid-warnings-about-risks). It is not exactly clear, why body builders rate human milk so highly. Experts have, however, warned that human milk can contain drugs, as well as harmful bacteria and viruses (including HIV, the agent causing AIDS). Online breast milk will not have been tested for any of these contaminants. It may not even be human breast milk. E-Bay are now removing advertisements for this material from their app.

There's No Free Lunch With Electric Vehicles?

Electric vehicles are largely sold in developed countries on the basis of reducing 'greenhouse gas' emissions. Such vehicles also do not add to the potentially health-damaging properties of poor air quality in towns and cities. Electric vehicles naturally depend on battery technology, requiring Nickel. Health problems for locals are now appearing linked to Nickel mining in Indonesia (https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2022/feb/19/we-are-afraid-erin-brockovich-pollutant-linked-to-global-electric-car-boom ). The largest Nickel reserves are in Indonesia. This makes the mines for this metal, highly attractive to the manufacturers of electric vehicles/ batteries. There are, however, downsides for Indonesians living near the Nickel mines. Near the mines, ground water is heavily contaminated with the mutagen (cancer-causing chemical) hexavalent Chromium. There also appears to be a high incidence of lung infections, in people in living in close proximity to the Indonesian Nickel mines. Rather obviously, improving the health of people in one part of the world, should not be done by damaging folk in other locations. No industrial process is, however, completely benign. Perhaps it's not a great idea to simply attempt to replace all diesel and petrol-fuelled vehicles with electric alternatives? We may need to rethink transport policies and plan for fewer private vehicles?

Living Not So Safely With Covid?

On Monday 21st of February, the UK government is scheduled to publish its 'Living Safely With Covid' measures. They are expected to include the scrapping of free, home-delivered lateral flow tests and a winding down of PCR screening. The requirements to self-isolate with an infection and to consider working from home are also likely to go (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/feb/18/ending-covid-tests-and-isolation-may-cause-rapid-rise-in-virus-say-experts). A recent modelling study at the University of Warwick suggests, however, that a combination of mitigation measures and behavioural changes (including testing, self-isolation, mask wearing and increased home working), have currently reduced Covid19 transmission by 20-45%. The Warwick model predicts that viral transmission might well increase by 25-80%, if the population rapidly returns to an entirely pre-pandemic modus operandi. If the 'Living Safely With Covid' measures are as predicted, they are clearly not following the science. 'Politics, dear boy'.

Brain Race

A paper in Nature Human Behaviour re-examined the oft-repeated conclusion that human cognition slows from the age of 20 onwards (https://www.theguardian.com/science/2022/feb/17/brains-do-not-slow-down-until-after-age-of-60-study-finds). The study used data from more than 1 million people in the Harvard Project Implicit tool. This was designed to collect data and educate people about their biases on gender, race etc. The tool carried information from people ranging between 10 and 80 years of age. The paper suggested that the speed of mental processing remains almost constant, until the age of 60. The authors concluded that people's brains only appeared to slow from their 20's, because they become more cautious as they age. This, unfortunately, doesn't improve my self-esteem (I am 76).