It's a Dead Parrot!

Scientists (what do they know?) are generally agreed. Most think the Paris Accord of limiting global heating to 1.5 degrees Centigrade above pre-Industrial values is 'deader than a doornail'. 2024 is almost certain to be the first individual year above this threshold. The planet is on track for an elevation of 2.7 degrees Centigrade, with dramatic climate repercussions (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/nov/18/climate-crisis-world-temperature-target). We've known about the climate impact of anthropogenic (human generated) 'greenhouse gas' emissions for decades. Our rulers and shakers have simply been too slow to act. Some folk have (and still are) dialling-up the emissions for greater 'profits'. Folk need to be reminded of the following a) 1.5 degrees C was merely a 'guesstimate' in Paris for a 'safe' increase; b) 'tipping points' might mean there already can be no return to previous climate conditions; c) if a return to 'traditional' climates is possible, there will be a long, long time lag before any emissions reductions take effect; d) most countries haven't/ can't put mitigations in place for dealing with the likely climate change and e) the higher the global average temperature goes, the worse the consequences. 1.5 degrees C seems to be like Monty Python's Norwegian Blue. Let's hope 2.7 doesn't go the same way!

Feeling It 'In Our Thames Waters'

Thames Water is the largest of England's privatised water companies. For decades, this entity has accumulated debts, directing much of its monopoly income to shareholder dividends and CEO bonuses/'golden hellos'. Dealing with leaks and infrastructure upgrades should have been its major priorities. The ability of Thames Water to now keep London's taps flowing, is reported to be 'on a knife edge'. The company is said to urgently need £23bn for 'repairs', having failed to tackle serious safety concerns or to upgrade its vital IT services. Floods, explosions and asbestos removals all need to be dealt with (https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/nov/17/thames-water-supply-knife-edge-23bn-repairs-needed). What's the point of a water company, that doesn't do its job? For much too long, England's privatised water companies were treated as 'cash cows'. Water companies have even, in some cases, deliberately polluted lakes and rivers to boost their profits. Although,'bailing out' Thames Water by its users, shouldn't be an option, folk can't live without clean, potable water.

Winter Waste?

From November to March, in the UK, an extra 5000 tonnes of household waste is sent to landfill or for incineration. This is a 40% increase on values seen in the warmer months. This is because the wetter, winter period makes effective separation by recycling plants of 'co-mingled' items, next to impossible. 'Co-mingling' is the practice of requiring households to put all their recycling in single containers. Householders can be (and in many cases are) required to separate their paper, plastic, glass, metal, as well as food and garden waste. This prevents contamination, reducing the need for landfill and incineration. The UK government will have to rule on whether to abolish 'co-mingling' in England (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/nov/17/how-winter-makes-recycling-harder-with-40-jump-in-contamination). Most householders can and will separate the items for recycling, if they are helped and given clear instructions. The variations between the practices adopted by different councils doesn't help them. There could also be more use (as in The Netherlands) of communal drop off points for certain materials within walking distance of people's homes.

The UK's Unhealthy Eating Habit Is Costing It Dear!

Brits seem hooked on foods that are high in fats, salt or sugar. They are also attracted to highly processed foods. Such food items are linked to obesity. Their consumption also produces high incidences of type 2 diabetes, coronary heart disease, stroke etc. The Food, Farming and Countryside Commission (FFCC) estimates that unhealthy food habits currently cost the UK at least £268bn per year. This figure far outstrips the entire cost of its National Health Service (NHS). The FFCC figure is made up of direct NHS costs, charges for social care services and welfare system pay-outs. Lost productivity is also an added component (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/nov/15/uk-unhealthy-food-costs-268bn-a-year-report-food-farming-countryside-nhs). Injecting folk with eating suppressing drugs isn't a real answer. It's expensive and is unlikely to prove a healthy, long-term option. Prevention is always better than cure. Relying on the 'good' intentions of food producers isn't an option. They have had decades to get their collective act together. Profits have always trumped health considerations. The UK government clearly needs to a) refocus on preventing dietary-linked disorders, b) heavily tax unhealthy foods and c) use some of that tax, to give poorer folk better access (via vouchers) to fruit and vegetables. It may be 'nanny state' but Brits are clearly incapable of looking after themselves!

Seeing the Changes 2102

Winter heliotrope (Petasites fragrans) was flowering in Loughor.

Too Greedy To Change Course?

George Monbiot suggests an 'all-seeing eye' (a god?), looking at the Earth, might be intrigued to spot 'A species that knows it is destroying itself but is too greedy to change course'. That 'greed' is not, however, apparently equally shared by the 8 billion humans on the planet. The vast majority of folk express concern about the effects of global heating. They think there's a real danger of an existential climate crisis. The 'rich' and powerful, however, seem ever keen to get 'richer' and even more powerful. The rich produce massively more 'greenhouse gas' emissions, than their poorer brethern. They also use a fraction of their wealth, to reduce any chance of potential restrictions on their climate wrecking behaviour (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/nov/15/dying-earth-cop29-azerbaijan-species). Jonathan Watts notes the rich are now developing a 'doomsday bunker mentality'. These folk are building 'bolt-holes' on remote islands. The bunkers have stores and protections against invasion by the masses. Watts regards this as an attempt to ensure 'survival of the richest' (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/nov/14/survival-of-the-richest-trump-climate-and-the-logic-of-the-doomsday-bunker). It's clear that the rich know what forces they are unleashing and its likely outcome. Humans are frequently said to be a social species. Real social concern, however, often seems to only extend to that individual and his/her/their immediate families. Current paper 'money' is actually a somewhat arbitrary human invention. Will 'having' it, always make people greedy for more? Have humans bizarely invented a system that will ultimately destroy them?

Food For Thought?

The link between global heating and food prices is clearly illustrated in a recent CarbonBrief (https://www.carbonbrief.org/five-charts-how-climate-change-is-driving-up-food-prices-around-the-world/#:~:text=The%20heat%20impacted%20the%20cost,with%20the%202C%20warming%20target.%E2%80%9D). This brief, notes that, although European food inflation generally hovers between 0.43 and 0.93%, in parts of 2022 and 2023, rates peaked by as much as 19%. It predicts that the extra levels of heating, projected to hit Europe by 2035, will amplify food costs by 30-50%. Globally, the masses are feeling the effects of rising food and energy prices. In some cases, this has resulted in their sometimes electing climate-denying political 'strongmen'. James Meadway points out reasons why this appears to have happened in the recent US elections, when the economy was supposedly 'healthy'. Meadway notes that inflation figures are based on a 'basket of goods' for the 'average' household. This doesn't, of course, capture the very wide variations between households. The basket includes items like emissions-boosting air travel abroad. Twenty-seven percent of US citizens have never been to a foreign country. Costs of air flights don't change their lives. The 'basket' also includes, the now cheaper, purchase of a flat screen TV. How frequently, Meadway asks, does the 'average' holdhold purchase a new TV? Everyone, however, has to buy food. The rising food and energy prices, impact most heavily on the poorest folk. Meadway also opines that central banks changing the interest rates to 'combat' inflation only make things worse. It worsens the lives of marginal folk, without stimulating food production (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/nov/13/grocery-prices-donald-trump-climate-crisis-olive-oil-butter-extreme-weather-cost-of-living). Meadway also notes that, between 2020 and 2022, 62 new 'food billionaires' were created. He thinks their excessive profits should be taxed. Meadway also believes that governments must subsidise the costs of basic foods for their poorer populations. Those governments certainly need to get an urgent 'handle' on minimising climate change! Otherwise, food cost inflation is only going to get worse.

Pointless?

Lots of fine 'pledges' were made at last year's Dubai COP28. There's been, however, no sign of the promised transition from fossil fuels to 'renewables' in 2024. The burning of coal, oil and gas all continued to rise (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/nov/13/no-sign-of-promised-fossil-fuel-transition-as-emissions-hit-new-high). At Baku's COP29, the Albanian Prime Minister (PM) now wonders what's the point of the meeting, 'if the biggest polluters continue as usual' (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/live/2024/nov/13/cop-29-leaders-speak-after-report-finds-climate-pledges-not-kept-live-updates). This PM clearly has a point. Do the COP meetings actually make any difference? Is it just 'window dressing'? The actions of the big players (countries and consortia) will ultimately determine whether catastrophic climate change can be avoided. There's little sign of these folk wanting to change their current behaviour. 'Drill, baby, drill' seems even more in vogue!

Bad COP?

At COP 29, the UN Secretary General described 2024 as being a 'masterclass in human destruction' of the planet. That COP is in Baku (Azerbaijan). Azerbaijan is a long-established major producer of oil and gas. COP29 has had a number of strong 'pledges'. These have mainly concerned promises of reduced 'greenhouse gas' outputs as well as funding to help undeveloped nations avoid adding to emissions totals. 'Pledges', however, rarely seem to be converted into meaningful action. Scandalously, there's also evidence of the organisers selling opportunities for fossil fuel producers to make deals to increase extraction (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/nov/12/year-masterclass-in-human-destruction-un-chief-tells-cop29). One must ask whether COPs like this, serve any useful purpose? The organisers appear to be 'fiddling whilst the planet burns'. But what did we really expect? There's little sign that a climate crisis can be avoided.

War: What's It Good For?

Oil and gas producers in Iran, Russia and Venezuela never reveal their annual profits. In spite of this, 2022 was clearly a bonanza for the world's 90 plus big fossil fuel companies. Actual profits that year exceeded expected values by circa $490 bn (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/live/2024/nov/11/cop29-live-the-climate-summit-gets-under-way-in-azerbaijan?filterKeyEvents=false&page=with%3Ablock-673201128f084530d737d6aa#block-673201128f084530d737d6aa). Russia's war with Ukraine in 2022, clearly greatly magnified the annual profits of oil and gas producers. War enhances 'greenhouse gas' emissions. It also encourages fossil fuel producers to extract even more product to chase growing profits. Perhaps, such 'super-profits' should be ploughed back into helping the global South reduce its emissions? Unfortunately, Iran, Russia and Venezuela are unlikely to contribute to this reparations pot.

It Should Also be Born in Mind?

Creatine supplements have long been used by bodybuilders and others to provide legal performance boosts. Energy for physical activity comes from Adenosine Tri Phosphate (ATP). ATP is mainly generated by the cellular break- down of glucose and other organic compounds. ATP production is, however, sporadic and short-lasting. Creatine seems to act as a buffer, allowing this energy compound to be produced more quickly. This allows maximal effort to be given for longer. Evidence now seems to be accumulating that creatine supplements can support neural function. The brain has no glucose stores, entirely depending on receipt of this sugar via its blood supply. Intense neural activity, however, uses lots of ATP. There are suggestions that, in some folk, creatine improves mental clarity and focus as well as concentration duration. This supplement may even be neuroprotective, limiting damage to the brain from free radicals etc. (https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2024/nov/10/the-creatine-conundrum-can-it-really-help-your-muscles-and-your-brain). Much more research is needed on the potential mental boost possibly provided by creatine supplements. Proper double blind studies will be required. If the mental health effects are confirmed, older folk and menopausal women could be obvious potential beneficiaries.

Seeing the Changes 2101

Red campion (Silene dioica) is again in bloom in Penclacwydd!

A Play Area For Townies?

There's a proposal to create a new Welsh National Park. The location would run from Prestatyn in the North-east, take in LLangollen and include Lake Vyrnwy in the South. This proposal has predictably generated a raging debate. The claim has been made that the park would be 'a play area for townies' (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/nov/10/new-national-park-wales-local-opposition). Supporters of the proposal, point to the importance of improving access to the countryside. Such access has mental and physical health benefits. Even 'townies' need such opportunities. The setting up of a National Park would, they say, also make it easier to protect this part of rural Wales. There's clearly a need to utilise our limited environment to help deal with climate change. Opponents of the National Park development, worry about increased traffic from Birmingham, Liverpool and Manchester, disrupting their lives. They also express concern about outsiders purchasing second homes and Airbnbs in the newly attractive location. This could, they claim, make it impossible for their young locals to get on the housing market. Some opponents are even concerned about the restrictions placed on residents living in National Parks. Constructing new buildings and the setting up of new businesses is more tightly controlled. This one, as they say, is likely to 'run and run'. It should, however, be possible to solve, so long as the argument doesn't simply come down to 'us' against 'them'? National Parks need careful nurturing and rather better financial support.

Honey, Honey!

DNA profiles have been developed to test the authenticity of honeys. Ninety percent of UK samples, failed such tests. The failure rate of honeys from UK supermarkets, was strikingly high. The honey trade body has counter claimed that the supermarket product is 'of high quality'. They have expressed doubts about the validity of the DNA tests. The suspicion remains in minds of some folk, however, that certain supermarket products have been 'bulked out' with cheaper sugar syrup (https://www.theguardian.com/food/2024/nov/09/nine-in-ten-honey-samples-from-uk-retailers-fail-authenticity-test). It can be argued that it really doesn't matter, so long as the supermarket 'honey' is a safe product. Honey has, however, often been championed on the basis of its 'naturalness'. Some of the claims are almost mystical. There's no good reason, however, why a premium should be paid for a cheap, concocted item. It's suggested that honeys should specify their country (countries?) of origin. Their labels should also give more detail on production methods. This seems entirely reasonable.

Hair Today (But Not Gone Tomorrow)?

A person consuming certain drugs, retains traces of those compounds in their growing hair. Consequently, hair-strand tests, for drug or excessive alcohol consumption, have been developed. In the UK, such tests have proved popular with some employers (e.g. railways) and Family Courts. More than 30 years of testing has revealed, however, that hair-strand tests need careful evaluation. Recorded drug values are influenced by factors including the subject's race, hair colour and even the use of particular hair products. Pregnancy, exposure to UV light and whether the individual lives near drug users, will also change the readings (https://www.theguardian.com/law/2024/nov/09/uk-children-taken-away-from-parents-due-to-misreporting-of-drug-tests-say-experts). Hair-strand tests have resulted in some folk losing their jobs. They've also influenced decisions made by Family Courts. Such tests may result in a child being removed from its parents and placed in the care of a local authority. Folk, relying only on hair-strand test data, need to be educated about their limitations. Erroneous decisions can be life-changing (usually for the worse).

Taking a Stake?

Nature campaigners are calling on UK taxpayers to take stakes in forest and peatland restoration projects. Forests and peatlands are carbon sinks. They remove atmospheric carbon dioxide, reducing the rate of global heating (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/nov/06/nature-campaigners-urge-uk-taxpayers-to-take-stakes-in-forest-projects). Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are already at record levels. We are near exceeding the Paris Accord's alledgedly 'safe' increase of 1.5 degrees Centigrade above pre-Industrial levels. The recent US Presidential elections will, however, result in that country leaving the Paris Accord for the second time, crippling the climate agreement (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/nov/01/a-trump-presidency-could-cripple-the-paris-climate-agreement-warns-un-chief-antonio-guterres). Getting the UK taxpayers to take stakes in local carbon sinks, just became a much harder sell. Small countries have little impact on climate change, when big countries are intent on maximising their emissions. People know that!

Every Move You Make?

Air fryers are increasing common in UK kitchens. The consumer body, Which, has found, however, that some smart devices, request permission to record audio on the user's phone via a connected app. This function enables the user to start cooking before he/she gets home. Which found that the app provided by Xiaomi devices connect to trackers for Facebook and a TikTok ad network. The user's personal data is then sent to a server in China (https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2024/nov/05/air-fryer-excessive-surveillance-smart-devices-which-watches-speakers-trackers). Collecting of personal data can also be done by some smart watches and digital speakers. There's debate about whether data protection rules are adhered to. It's somewhat worrying that users may be subsequently targetted by marketing firms. Outsmarted by your own air fryer?

Greater Manchester Windfarm?

Cubico Sustainable Investments (an independent renewable energy developer) has submitted plans to erect 21 onshore wind turbines at Scout Moor. The turbines would be adjacent to a windfarm near Greater Manchester. This site would then be able to generate more than 100 megawatts of electricity. That's sufficient, to power more than 10% of Greater Manchester's domestic energy needs. This installation could also be in operation by 2030 (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/nov/05/biggest-onshore-windfarm-energy-cubico-scout-moor-greater-manchester). So long as the folk living near this onshore windfarm get some benefits, this is a good direction of travel. Cubico have proposed a multi-million pound Community Wealth Fund, as well as a Moorland Restoration and Management Plan. The development would speed up the UK's 'green' transition, without having to transmit the power generated over excessive distances. Building it would also much faster, cheaper and safer than constructing a nuclear powerstation. Sections of the moorland would also still be available for wildlife and human recreation.

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!

Snow Saving

Climate change is making a number of established ski resorts economically nonviable. Natural snowfall now can't be relied on, especially at the beginning of a season. Artificial snow is a possibility but it's expensive to produce. In days gone by, before electric fridges and freezers, Finns used to cut blocks of unthawed ice from rivers or lakes. These blocks were then covered in a thick layer of sawdust. They were then stacked in a barn; a pit or an ice cellar. The ice blocks could then be used in the summer months. The Finnish company Snow Secure, have adapted this technique for the benefit of ski resorts. Rather than sawdust, they produce mats of extruded polystyrene. This same material is used in Finnish house insulation. These mats can actually last up to 20 years. They can help preserve the previous year's snow at a resort, for use at the start of the next season. These mats have been successfully used in Finnish ski resorts. Snow Secure has now/ will soon start exporting the mats to Norway, Switzerland and Spain, as well as Wisconsin and New Mexico in the USA (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/nov/01/finland-exports-snow-saving-mats-ski-resorts-climate-crisis). The insulating mats may help marginal ski resorts for a short time. It's, however, not a cure for the impacts of climate change. Global heating is increasing and skiers flying to the resorts, exaccerbates the problem.

Data Is 'The New Oil'

Most people don't realise that the data they use (sending emails, watching videos, playing games and reading blogs) generates, like oil, a substantial carbon footprint. Datacentres are big business and most countries welcome them as job creators. Only The Netherlands and Singapore are currently considering moritoria on new developments. Chris Stokel-Walker points out that it's very difficult to put a precise figure on the emissions generated by an average user of data (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/oct/31/concerned-about-your-data-use-here-is-the-carbon-footprint-of-an-average-day-of-emails-whatsapps-and-more). It's claimed, however, that, in 2023, Americans used 100tn megabytes of data. Estimates of the world energy used by the internet, vary between 4 and 10%. Both are very substantial values. Even watching 1 hour of Netflix, is equivalent to boiling a kettle of water. Both generate around 36g of carbon dioxide. This might be a small contribution but it all adds up to enhanced global heating/climate change.

The Rain in Spain

Yet another awful, stark reminder of the dangers of climate change. I had a long research association with folk in Valencia. I know from my repeated visits, that they had experienced severe flooding in the 1970s. State-of-the-art defences were consequently engineered, with the intention of preventing any repetitions. Yesterday, these defences were overwhelmed by torrential rain/hailstones. More rain fell in 24 hours than normally falls in a year. Numerous cars were washed away, buildings flooded and more than 100 people killed (https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2024/oct/30/spain-floods-valencia-latest-news). Floods, droughts and violent storms have always happened. Climate change is now, however, making these events more frequent and more extreme. Basic physics shows that heating results in 20% more water being available for precipitation. Extreme weather now even affects 'safe' parts of the planet! And still, the deniers deny!

Gushing 'Greenhouse Gases'

The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) notes that,, over the last 20 years, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide; methane and nitrous oxide have all markedly increased. These are, of course, the 'greenhouse gases', elevating global temperatures. They inevitably produce marked climate change. In deed, the WMO record a full 10% increase in carbon dioxide over the last two decades. In 2023, atmospheric concentrations of this gas, were at the highest ever seen for thousands of years (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/oct/28/planet-heating-pollutants-in-atmosphere-hit-record-levels-in-2023). There's been much debate about the dangers of 'runaway' climate change. There's also been numerous United Nations COP meetings. Countries and companies jumped to make 'pledges'. None of this seems to have made the slightest difference to 'greenhouse gas' emissions. 'Pledges' might cynically be defined as 'cheap promises, that put off the need for actual real action'. One thing is certain. We are not currently handling this anthropogenic (human-mediated) problem at all well.

Capitulating to Covid?

England has a dwingling population immunity to Covid. The Omicron subvariants are proving very successful in overcoming what remains of it. The UK Health Security Agency has noted that, in England, a) hospital admissions for Covid infections are markedly increasing and b) the percentage of folk with symptoms testing positive for Covid in sentinel tests, is also quickly climbing. Most folk are clearly no longer giving any thought to this viral infection. Some vulnerable folk don't even bother to get boosters. Immunologists now feel England has largely capitulated to Covid (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/sep/26/covid-on-the-rise-as-experts-say-england-has-capitulated-to-the-virus). Specialists feel that booster vaccinations should be given more widely. They also think that testing for the virus needs to be re-boosted. A new variant of Covid, XEC, is now emerging. It doesn't seem very sensible to completely let our guard down at this time.

Worse Than Car Crashes

Pollutants from gas stoves annually kill more Europeans (in the EU and the UK), than car crashes. A detailed study considered only the health-damaging effects of nitrogen dioxide, ignoring the impacts of carbon monoxide and benzene derivatives. It consequently produced a conservative estimate of 40,000 annual deaths. The harmful gases released by gas stoves, have been strongly linked to heart and lung diseases. Overall, the study suggested they cut nearly 2 years off a person's life (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/oct/28/pollutants-from-gas-stoves-kill-40000-europeans-each-year-report-finds). Cooking can also be done efficiently with air friers and induction hobs. They should replace gas hobs and ovens. These findings also provide another good reason to replace gas central heating with heat pumps. The home should never be less healthy than the motorway!

I Wouldn't Put It Pasta!

Asking a simplistic question like 'Is white pasta bad for you?', clearly illustrates the problem for folk trying to eat healthily. Regular durum wheat white pasta, was lauded in the 'low fat' era. Folk training for marathons, were urged to 'carboload'. The same food was subsequently demonised in the 'low carb' craze. White pasta made you fat! Many alternative brown 'pastas' have appeared, made from rice, soy and other materials. Do most folk have to strictly avoid all white pasta? (https://www.theguardian.com/food/2024/oct/27/is-white-pasta-bad-for-you). White pasta is relatively cheap and quickly digested. This might result in folk over-eating. If, however, white pasta consumption is balanced by exercise, it's a fine source of energy. The 'debate' just reveals that certain foods elicit fad after fad. Statements by food companies, cooking programmes, restauranteurs et cetera generally leave joe public confused about what and how much he/she should eat. Some of the 'information' put out, is clearly tailored to increase sales, rather than inform. We really need to have clearer messages for the general public!

Seeing the Changes 2100

A Red admiral (Vanessa atalanta) flitted on the cycle route in Penclacwydd.

Pigging Out?

In 2023, the Moolec Company inserted pig genes into soy plants. These plants made soybeans, expressing porcine proteins. More than 25% of the soluble proteins in some of these soybeans were pig. It would be much more efficient to grow traditional meat substitutes in soy plants, rather than feed the soybean crop (after transport) to pigs or cattle. This would also dramatically reduce climate-changing emissions associated with meat production (https://www.bing.com/search?q=pig%20genes%20in%20soybeans&pc=cosp&ptag=C999A9C7EDF55B3&form=CONMHP&conlogo=CT3210127). Much of the taste of 'meat' is said to be a consequence of its contained fat cells. The illustration is a London-based company that produces fat cells in giant incubators. Porcine soybean producers should get together with them to produce tasty sausages etc. Brave new world?

Support Biopiracy or Lose Your Jobs?

Poor, biodiverse countries are upset when they get nothing, as Big Pharma currently takes genetic codes from 'their' organisms, to develop new drugs. These countries sometimes call this 'biopiracy'. They have consequently advocated the introduction of a biodiversity drug levy to give them some compensation. A senior representative of AstraZeneca, at a DEFRA meeting, has now threatened that, if the UK government supports the levy, there could be cuts in UK jobs (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/oct/25/astrazeneca-uk-jobs-biodiversity-drug-levy). This AstraZeneca response is a rather unsubtle move to protect company profits. One could reasonably argue that a levy would provide a financial incentive to biodiverse countries to remain biodiverse. Otherwise, such countries won't value what they have and might well destroy species-rich environments to develop more farmland etc. It's actually somewhat predictable that AstraZeneca is taking this line. The Swedish Astra arm of the conglomerate, made its early cash from cocaine. This was when, coca leaf extract was regarded as a wonder drug (used e.g. by the then Pope and Queen Victoria). Astra gave nothing to the Peruvian natives who had identified cocaine's properties. The company became very rich. I guess they would like to continue in this way.

Seeing the Changes 2099

A Fox moth (Macrothylacia rubi) larva strolled across the cycle route at Bynea.

Norovaccine?

Norovirus is the so-called 'vomiting bug'. Because vomiting can result in rapid dehydration, an infection is especially dangerous in the very young; the elderly and folk with impaired immunological systems. World-wide, there are almost 700 million Norovirus cases and 200,000 deaths each year. Currently, hospitalised patients, can only be offered an intra-venous saline drip. Moderna has been building on its experience of developing messenger Ribonucleic Acid (mRNA) vaccines for Covid-19 and its variants. mRNA is the chemical manufactured by a gene, specifying a precise protein. Pre-mRNA vaccines involved exposing the individual to a dead or a damaged microbe. This new technology allows the vaccine-maker to synthesize a mRNA sequence that, when injected, generates a protein identical to one found in the bacterium or virus. This protein is usually associated with the microbe's coat (used to obtain access to the host's cells). The body then produces antibodies (protein defence molecules), attacking the infective agent. Consequently, such vaccines can be produced a) without exposing the vaccinated individual to the potentially more dangerous agent per se and b) that can be quickly modified when the virus/bacterium mutates (https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/oct/23/doctors-trial-worlds-first-vaccine-against-vomiting-bug-norovirus). An effective Norovirus vaccine would clearly have both health and economic benefits. Folk can't work, when they are infected with the vomiting bug. The Moderna mRNA Novovirus vaccine is currently undergoing 'double blind trials' in England and elsewhere. One half of the test subjects are given the vaccine and the reminder a placebo (injection of saline). Not until the end of the study, will experimenters know which subjects received the vaccine and which the placebo. The incidence (and severity?) of Norovirus infections in the treatment and control groups will then be compared. In England, it will then be up to NICE to determine if the benefits of the vaccine outweigh its costs. If it does, the treatment will be offered on the NHS, along with vaccines for seasonal influenza, Covid-19 etc.

Bite of the Tiger Mosquito

Dengue fever is a debilitating viral infection, transmitted by the bite of the Tiger mosquito (Aedes albopictus). 2024 has seen an impressive spike in infections. Thus far this year, there's been 12.4 million cases of Dengue fever. Most have been in Latin America; Africa and SE Asia. Cases are now, however, starting to appear in Europe and the US (https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2024/oct/23/dengue-fever-record-cases-in-2024-so-far-what-is-driving-the-worlds-largest-outbreak). The infection spike appears linked to the spread of the viruses vector. Climate change (areas becoming warmer and wetter) and urbanisation (concentrating folk) are providing opportunities for the Tiger mosquito to flourish in new geographical areas. It's estimated that eventually, world-wide, some 4 billion people will be at risk of contracting Dengue fever. This would, of course, have major impacts on education, working populations and health services.

COProphagy?

Coprophagy is the scientific term for the consumption of faeces. This activity may have parallels with United Nations (UN) location choices for its Conference of the Parties (COP) meetings. For example, COPs 28 and 29 both focus on climate change. The former was in Dubai (United Arab Emirates). Although it ended up calling for an eventual phasing out of oil and gas, it also provided ample opportunities for producers to lobby for substantial delays (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/dec/11/cop28-draft-agreement-calls-for-fossil-fuel-cuts-but-avoids-phase-out). The subsequent planned COP29 will be held in Baku (Azerbaijan), just at the time that country is set for a major expansion of its fossil gas extraction (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/oct/23/cop29-host-azerbaijan-set-for-major-fossil-gas-expansion-report-says). COP16 in Cali (Colombia) will focus on protecting biodiversity. It's scheduled for a location where a local 'warlord' is intent on deforesting sections of the Amazon rainforest (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/oct/22/colombian-emc-warlord-amazon-forest-deforestation-colombia-ivan-mordisco-logging-ban-cop16-biodiversity). The UN does seem to have an incurable habit of selecting some very dodgy locations for its COP 'roundabout' of expensive (and polluting) meetings.

Let's Not Sleep on It!

Per and Poly Fluoro Alkyl Substances (PFASs) is a large family of synthetic chemicals. They're used to make a variety of products (e,g, clothing, cooking utensils, carpets and even fast food cartons) waterproof; stain-resistant and/or non-stick. They are also known as the 'forever chemicals' because they are not broken down by natural processes. This means, of course, that their environmental concentrations are inevitably increasing. It's long been known that PFASs have detrimental effects on somatic health. These chemicals have been linked, for example, to increased cancer risk and reproductive disorders. There's now growing evidence that PFASs can also influence the brain (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/oct/18/pfas-sleep-disorders). A University of Southern California study, measured blood concentrations of PFASs in 19-24 year old folk (undergraduates?). It also looked at their sleep duration. Subjects in the top third of concentrations, slept, on average, for 80 minutes less than the cohort with lowest values. Scientists carrying out the study, noted that the PFAS under investigation, had an impact on 7 genes. One of these genes is involved in the conversion of the adrenal 'stress' hormone cortisol to cortisone. Cortisone has been shown to regulate human sleep cycles. There consequently appears to be a mechanism directly linking a PFAS, to physiology, to sleep.

COP Out?

UN COP16 starts this week in Cali (Colombia). One must ask, what they hope to achieve? It's already clearly evident to scientists that human activity has pushed the current world into the danger zone. COP16 will focus on the major biodiversity losses that are making the Earth less conducive to human life. We already know this. Significant damage is 'locked in' and it's inevitable that we will see more (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/oct/21/humanity-earth-natural-limits-biodiversity-warning-cop16-conference-scientists-academics). Sadly, however, COPs tend to be 'talking shops'. They don't educate the uneducated. It's difficult to see countries and megacompanies changing their behaviours! We basically are a species, apparently intent on producing planetary changes, that will inevitably make it less 'human friendly'. It's not the world in the 'danger zone' (the planet and life will persist), it's the human species?

Litterbugs in Space!

Folk seem to fire as much junk into space as they like. In 2022, circa 6000 satellites were in orbit. It's now predicted that, by 2030, there may be 60,000. There are also now almost 37,000 objects, more than 10cm in size, circling the planet. These lethal objects can be tracked, with the hope of avoiding collisions. In addition, however, there are circa 1 million items, in orbit, between 1 and 10cm. These are untrackable but can be just as lethal (https://www.theguardian.com/science/2024/oct/19/humanity-would-watch-helplessly-as-space-junk-multiplies-uncontrollably-has-the-number-of-satellite-launches-reached-a-tipping-point). The junk circling the planet makes space exploration more dangerous. It also makes astronomy difficult and damages the UV-protective ozone layer. The laws around what can be fired into space are almost 50 years old. They are also generally ignored by governments and commercial organisations. Just another example of how our species fails to worry about the longer term consequences of its actions?

Biodiversity Versus Housing

Middlewick Range, on the edge of Colchester (Essex), is due to be sold by the UK's MOD, to build 1000 homes. There's much debate about whether the biodiversity of this rare Acid Grassland has been properly presented and considered in the planning. The claim that applications of sulphur to existing grassland, will compensate for the losses on Middlewick Range is highly dubious (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/oct/19/middlewick-ranges-sale-essex-acid-grassland-catastrophic-precedent). Given that much MOD land is already biodiverse, it would surely be better to retain such tracts for environmental reasons. If new houses are to be built on 'green' land, they might be better placed on marginal farmland. As mentioned, in an earlier post, agriculture massively reduces biodiversity.