Seeing the Changes 2114

 

Lesser celandine (Ranunculus ficaria) and Primrose (Primula vulgaris) both flowering in Loughor.

Seeing the Changes 2113

 

Common dog violet (Viola riviniana) blooms in Loughor.

Paint It Black?

 

Each UK offshore wind turbine currently kills between 4 and 18 birds per annum. The government's Department of Environment , Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) has organised a 4 year trial, to determine whether painting turbines black, will reduce bird deaths. Predicting the potential outcome is difficult. Presumably, the black paint will make turbines less visually obvious. It's uncertain whether birds are  attracted or repelled by these structures  (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/feb/27/offshore-windfarms-to-be-painted-black-to-protect-birds). The DEFRA study is clearly needed. There must, however,  be other possibilities e.g. warning sounds or flashing lights. These could be simultaneously trialled to see if they help birds avoid sea-based wind turbines.

Seeing the Changes 2112

It must be Spring, as Horse chestnut (Aesculus hippocastanum) is coming into leaf in Loughor.

No UK Kryptonite For Superbugs?

 

Each year, antimicrobial resistance (AMR) contributes to the deaths of 35,000 UK residents. AMR results from an inadvertent selection process. The resulting 'superbugs' are either survivors of antibiotic treatments or other bacterial species that received resistance genes from them. Some antibiotic treatments are wholly inappropriate. These drugs only work on bacterial infections. So, prescribing them for viruses is futile. Hospitals, care homes and gyms often require deep-cleaning to remove the superbugs. This doesn't seem to be done systematically. Although banned in Europe (but not the USA), antibiotics are also used as growth-enhancers by some chicken and cattle farmers. The UK's National Audit Office has recently noted that only 1 of the 5 domestic targets for dealing with AMR, seems to be working. Progress has been made in reducing antibiotic use in food-producing animals (hardly the most difficult)  (https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/feb/26/uk-falling-short-in-fight-against-rise-of-superbugs-resistant-to-antibiotics). There's actually a danger of  'returning medicine to a pre-antibiotic age'. That return could be speeded by importing US beef and chicken. The UK urgently needs a range of new, wide-spectrum antibiotics and rather more progress on all its domestic anti-AMR targets.

Green Is the New Red?

 

As predicted, in the aftermath of US political change, BP is attempting to boost its current share price, by almost doubling its oil and gas production before 2030. It's also slashing $5bn from its previous plans to heavily invest in renewables (https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/feb/26/bp-oil-and-gas-spending-green-energy-scale-back). These moves are understandable, in the present financial climate, for a major petrochemicals company whose shares are lagging those of less 'green' competitors. They are, however, highly disappointing for anyone concerned about climate change. They also do nothing for reskilling a workforce for future, well-paid jobs. The anti-green agenda will move the planet into the red zone.

Sentient Invertebrates?

 

Questions posed in this account are hardly new. Does and earthworm feel pain? Does an ant feel happy? The answer to the first is that the earthworm, like many other organisms, responds to potentially damaging  stimuli. Avoidance, where possible, has survival value. In humans, we label this a 'pain response'. Having said that, it's difficult to quantify pain sensation, even in our own species. The response to the question 'does an  ant feel happy?', is easier to deal with. Happiness is very much a human emotion, so it would be difficult to identify something directly analogous in a simple, social insect 'Sentience' (a much considered feature) really requires organisms to have self-awareness and that's very difficult to demonstrate in most non-human organisms (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/feb/25/do-worms-feel-pain-are-ants-happy-science-of-invertebrate-feelings). I have no problem with attempts to reduce gratuitous pain and suffering in all animals. The basic distinction between vertebrates (protected) and invertebrates (non-protected) is distinctly arbitrary. Cephalopods, like the octopus and the squid, have relatively big brains. Although we can't say for certain they feel emotions, it seems appropriate to err on the side of caution by giving them equal protections to those applied to fish and amphibians. Just including Octopus vulgaris, makes no sense (it's just special pleading by scientists working with this species). I'm much less convinced, however, that large decapods (crabs and lobsters) actually have sensations equating to human pain. Perhaps they are just big invertebrates, where the avoidance responses are very obvious? 

Money In Net Zero!

 

In 2024, the UK net zero sector (concerned with alternatives to technologies, releasing massive 'greenhouse gas' emissions) grew an impressive 10%. This added £83bn to the gross value added measure. This sector's growth was three times faster than the UK's overall economy. It seems a 'no-brainer' to focus hopes of both an economic upturn and fuel security on this sector. It generates high wage jobs and cuts climate change  (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/feb/24/britain-net-zero-economy-booming-cbi-green-sector-jobs-energy-security). The UK government has recently pledged £200m to the area around Grangemouth Oil Refinery site. Grangemouth was the last UK oil refinery and its closure has led to hundreds of job losses. It's hoped this investment will attract alternative employment into the area  (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/feb/23/keir-starmer-pledges-200m-for-grangemouth-oil-refinery-site). Fairly obviously, the most likely source of high wage jobs for former oil refinery workers would be the net zero sector. Jobs, improving building insulation as well as making and fitting wind, solar and geothermal devices would be beneficial both locally and nationally. Former workers in the 'fossil fuel sector' need to be given alternatives.

Helpful Herb

 

Over-use of fertilizers, by farmers, degrades soil. Run-off from their fields also produces damaging eutrophication in rivers, streams and lakes. The John Innes Centre (Norwich) have now  identified a mutant form of Barrel medick (Medicago truncatula). This legume has impressive root bacterial and fungal endosymbionts (organisms living inside the plant for mutual benefit), allowing it to thrive with only tiny amounts of nitrate and phosphate fertilizers. A similar gene may also be developed for wheat. This mutant may prove a real boon for genuinely sustainable agriculture  (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/feb/22/uk-soil-breakthrough-could-cut-farm-fertiliser-use-and-advance-sustainable-agriculture). This is a breakthrough. Farmers, however, will also need training. Many of the current problems with nitrates and phosphates, are caused by farmers being too liberal, when spreading fertilizers on their fields. They need to titrate their additions better.

Not Studying It, Won't Make It Go Away?

 

The new US political regime is currently pulling the plug on any research mentioning the word 'climate'. A bit like an ostrich burying its head in the sand? The climate is a fact of life and climate change is gathering speed (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/feb/21/trump-scientific-research-climate). America certainly can never be 'Great', if its environments are completely trashed in a profit-feeding frenzy! In a democracy, presidential edicts should have no place in Science! Science is there to impartially reveal probabilities for society and its leaders. It's useless, if has to conform to the wishes of one 'very stable genius'. 

Tracing the 'Anthropocene' in the Fossil Record?

 

Currently, humans have, by far, the biggest impact on the planet and the Earth's biota. In recognition of this, some folk have suggested calling the current geological period the 'Anthropocene' (the age of the anthropoid ape). It's, however, ultimately the fate of all species to become extinct. We've learned about previous organisms (coal measure ferns; ammonites; trilobites; dinosaurs etc.) from fossil records left in sedimentary rocks. Palaeontologists (fossil specialists), have recently speculated on what might be in the human record, when we pass as a species. They suggest our 'geological signature' will largely consist of traces of plastic bags, cheap clothing, aluminium drinks cans and chicken bones  (https://www.theguardian.com/science/2025/feb/22/technofossils-how-plastic-bags-and-chicken-bones-will-become-our-eternal-legacy). It doesn't seem much of a legacy! In addition, there might well be human bones and, perhaps, other remnants of our metal, glass, stone and plastics technologies. Would AI or another replacement for humans, actually be interested? 

Improving the Country's Health?

 

An Imperial College London study notes substantial UK health gains to be made from net zero carbon actions. These are largely a consequence of reducing air pollution. Air pollution is globally the major cause of human ill-health and early death. Walking, cycling and e-biking would, however, also be encouraged by traffic-regulating measures. Exercise improves both physical and mental health. The Imperial study calculates that, by 2060, UK benefits from fewer deaths could be worth £26-31bn. Reducing illness, might add a further £20bn boost (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/feb/21/rolling-back-on-climate-actions-may-spell-rise-in-preventable-illness-study). Limiting vehicle, household and factory emissions, would, of course, produce economically-important, health gains in all other countries. So, irrespective of limiting climate change, there are very good reasons for persisting with measures designed to achieve net zero. It's worth adding that excessive heat also produces ill-health and early death. This is amply illustrated by the a) heatwave-associated deaths (mainly of older folk) seen throughout Europe in recent times and b) damage to kidney and liver functions recorded in agricultural and construction workers toiling under hot conditions. 

Ice, Baby, Ice!

 

Freshwater accounts for only a tiny percentage of water on the planet. It's declining. An assessment, by scientists at the Universities of Edinburgh and Zurich, records that, annually, the world's glaciers collectively lose an average of 273bn tonnes of ice. This is equivalent to 30 years of water consumption by the global human population. Thus far, this century, glaciers have lost an average of 5% of their total volume, These losses are, however, highly variable. Antarctic glacier declines are around 2%, whereas Europe's have lost 39%. The rate of loss is accelerating, as 36% more melt occurred in 2012-2023 than in the previous decade. After thermal expansion of water, glacial melt is the biggest contributor to sea level rise. The scientists assess, that in the present century, melting glaciers have contributed almost 2cm to the rise  (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/feb/19/melting-glaciers-cause-almost-2cm-of-sea-level-rise-this-century-study-reveals). This decline of the glaciers threatens humans. Rising sea levels will greatly increase the chances of coastal flooding. Major cities tend to be located in the milder conditions of the coast. Currently, circa 2 billion people also depend on glacial meltwater for their supplies. Losses of glacial water will render many hydroelectrical schemes inoperable, perhaps encouraging more use of fossil fuels. The reduced albedo (reflectiveness), as the ice melts, will also intensify the 'greenhouse effect', accelerating glacial melting. It's not cool!  

Plastic Truths?

 

The Centre for Climate Integrity opines that, for more than 30 years, producers of plastics have known that recycling their product is neither economically nor technically feasible. They recognised, however, it would be difficult to defend single use plastic. A symbol for 'recyclable' plastic was consequently devised and a centre funded to study plastic recycling at the US's Rutgers University. In spite of this, recycling plastics seems to be largely a myth (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/feb/15/recycling-plastics-producers-report). The vast majority of carefully-collected UK and European plastic is sent to other countries (such as Turkey) to be dumped or burned. Consequently, it's hardly surprising that microplastics are becoming a ubiquitous feature of the environment (and, eventually, the rock strata). It's said we now all have the equivalent of a credit card inside us!

Corporate Raiders and Ethical Investments

 

2024 was a bad year for shareholder proposals that aimed to tackle environmental, social and governance (ESG) issues. ShareAction (a campaign group for responsible investment) found that only 4 of 279 (1.4%) ESG resolutions, presented at annual general meetings, secured majority support. In 2021, that figure was 21%. This drop was most marked in the US, where right-wing activists and politicians have targeted firms supporting climate and diversity policies   (https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/feb/18/support-for-esg-proposals-at-record-low-driven-by-us-investors-report-shows). David Yelland and Simon Lewis, give an illustration of this phenomenon in their 'When it hits the fan' PR podcast. US hedge fund Elliot Management have bought a 5% stake in British Petroleum (BP). That company is now very vulnerable, as it pledged earlier to reduce its fossil fuel extractions, as well as to invest in renewables. This makes good economic sense but the BP share price has remained lower than those of its fossil fuel rivals. Yelland and Lewis note that, whereas BP has to follow financial rules when making pronouncements, Elliot Management can simply get a 'source' to reveal they're unhappy with BP's basic strategy. It's an unequal PR contest. The podcasters feel that BP's current executives are likely to be ejected. BP's oil extraction activities (in the US) may be hived off as a separate, more active, body. In spite of underpinning many pension funds, BP may even cease to be a British company. As the song goes, 'money doesn't talk, it screams'.

Cancer Warning Labels on Alcohol?

 

The World Health Organization (WHO) has called for cigarette-style warnings on alcohol cans and bottles. It's argued that such labels are needed to warn drinkers of the link between heavy drinking and seven forms of cancer. This WHO move has been supported by cancer charities including Cancer Research UK and the World Cancer Research Fund. Ireland is the first European country to compel alcohol producers to include health warnings on their labels. France and Lithuania both require product labels to warn about the negative  impact of alcohol on pregnancies. The Portman Group, representing UK alcohol producers, claim the labels would be 'too harsh' and would 'unsettle' people (https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/feb/14/who-world-health-organization-calls-for-cigarette-style-cancer-warnings-on-alcohol-packaging). Alcohol is a venerable, old drug. If it were discovered today, there would undoubtedly be regulations surrounding its use. The link between alcohol and cancer isn't generally well appreciated by the general public (they tend only to know about alcohol's impact on the brain and the liver). The warnings on cigarette packets seemed to work for tobacco. It might be worth doing the same for beer, wine and spirits. It's debatable, however, whether they will work.

Sunstroke In the Sea

People lavishly apply UV filters (sunscreen) to prevent sunburn. Large numbers of people take beach holidays. Sunscreen's chemicals consequently globally pollute marine environments. For example, an estimated 6000 to 14000 tonnes of sunscreen are annually released in coral reef zones. The contained chemicals can bleach and deform the coral. They also decrease fish fertility in these same areas (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/feb/18/sunscreens-impact-on-marine-life-needs-urgent-investigation-study-finds). Folk, holidaying in locations near coral reefs, are likely to both use sunscreen and go snorkelling. They might consequently be destroying the organisms they have paid to see. There must be ways of reducing the release of sunscreen's 'pseudo persistent pollutants', without increasing the damage to human skin by intense UV light.

Wake Up But Can You Afford to Smell the Coffee?

 

2024 was the hottest year on record. Steep rises in the prices of a number of food commodities in the year up to January 2025, correlated with the extreme weather. The biggest rises were for cocoa (163%) and coffee (107%). This was due to higher than average rainfall and temperatures in their production areas. Cocoa and coffee 'beans' are both grown on bushes, that take time to become established. It's not easy to quickly move them to other locations. Even, theoretically more mobile, crops showed lesser price increases. Climate breakdown leads to food shortages. These shortages drive up prices (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/feb/15/extreme-weather-likely-to-cause-further-food-price-volatility-analysts-say) .The Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research's data, confirms that heat extremes directly affect food prices. Even in the UK (a relatively rich country), climate breakdown has been linked to a rise in the number of hungry and malnourished households. Agriculture is another human activity relying on predictability. Climate change is feeding into global food security concerns. 

Wolf At the Door?

 

For many years, it's been claimed  that wolf reintroduction greatly improves the health of northern forests. The wolf packs efficiently prevent deer populations expanding. This is generally done, by the predator taking young and semi-incapacitated deer. A balance between predators and prey is achieved. Otherwise, deer populations have to be 'culled' by forest wardens with guns. Forest deer especially feed on tree saplings, preventing tree replacement after storms. Forests, also can't expand at their margins. A Leeds University study has now calculated that a reintroduction of the Grey wolf to the Scottish Highlands, would expand these native woodlands. This expansion could store an extra 1 million tonnes of carbon dioxide per annum (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/feb/17/wolves-reintroduction-to-highlands-could-help-native-woodlands-to-recover-says-study). There's no doubt that such a Highland reintroduction would reduce 'greenhouse gas' emissions. This would be a local contribution, countering climate change. People might even travel to see the wolf packs (it could have commercial benefit). The persistent problem (seen recently in Sweden), however, is that some groups will passionately resist the process. This will include hunters who might want to shoot wolves, as well as deer. Nearby farmers, also tend to express inflated concerns about their flocks. Humans living and/or working in such areas will worry about their (and their families?) safety. Although such risk would be very slight, folk take being consumed by wolves very personally. It's not going to be easy to get general agreement.

Flying With Bias

 

Air travel's a very major source of the greenhouse gasses', that cause climate change. The UN Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection (CAEP) meets every 3 years, to address issues related to aircraft emissions and noise. Its parent body, the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) is sponsored by large fossil fuel companies and airlines. Critics feel the ICAO has been 'captured by its sponsors' in order to go slow on efforts to efforts to reduce aircraft carbon emissions. Many of this parent body's meetings have had a strong industry bias, with very few 'green' delegates. The next CAEP meeting starts today.  Little public information has been made on its agenda or its key participants. It's in marked contrast to the UN's climate body (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/feb/14/industry-influence-un-aviation-body). The ICAO enthusiastically forecast a doubling of air passenger numbers by 2042. It claims that more efficient aircraft, 'sustainable' fuels and its own offsetting scheme will control the consequent carbon emissions. Independent experts doubt these measures can offset the huge traffic growth. Experts also maintain that aviation growth must be curbed if climate targets are to be met. Is the next CAEP meeting being rigged to favour the ICAO line? Surely, they wouldn't be influenced by their sponsor's money?

For Peatland's and Our Sake!

 

Peatlands account for only 3% of the land surface. They’re, however, very major carbon ‘sinks’ (locations where carbon can remain for extended periods of times). Peatlands actually contain more carbon than the entire planet’s forests. Unlike forests, however, peat lands have few protections. Only 17% are in protected areas. Peatlands are currently being rapidly drained by farming and mining interests. This releases massive amounts of ‘greenhouse gasses’ . If peatlands were a country, they would now be the 4th biggest polluter (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/feb/13/worlds-largely-unprotected-peatlands-are-ticking-carbon-bomb-warns-study). It seems extraordinary that, given their potential impact on climate change, peat lands are not better protected. Action to protect peatlands, is a very effective way of countering climate change.

Forcing Coca Cola?

 

Coca-Cola is probably the biggest generator of plastic pollution. Its CEO now suggests his company will be ‘forced’ to use more plastics, if tariffs increase the price of aluminium. The company has already been going back on its pledges to reduce its plastics use. This seems a timely excuse. Environmental issues mean very little in this ‘brave new world’ (https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/feb/12/coca-cola--trump-tariffs-could-force-it-to-increase-use-of-plastic-in-us). Tariffs, of course, wouldn’t influence the price of glass. But, why change when you can flood the planet with microplastics? Soon, everyone will have a little of a Coca-Cola bottle inside them! That’s what I call effective branding!

Spurring On Biodiversity Losses?

 

A major part of Whitewebbs Park (Enfield, London) was a public (rather than a private) golf course. That golf course ceased operation in 2021. Its area consequently reverted to nature. The park became home to 80 bird species; circa 9 bat species; 29 butterfly species; badgers and even the endangered Great-crested newt (an amphibian). This public park was a 'Mecca' for natural history enthusiasts. This was essentially a North London success story for an otherwise biodiversity-blighted country. Despite public protests, the council have now sold, for £2m, a 25 year lease to Tottenham Hotspur football (soccer) club to build a women's football academy. The academy will have all-weather pitches (monocultures, plastics plus herbicides- bye-bye birds and insects), floodlights (bye-bye also bats) and a 'turf academy'. Predictably, the council bleat about the 'created' job and recreational opportunities  (https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/feb/12/dark-day-for-parks-plans-to-build-spurs-academy-on-london-green-space-approved). It was ever thus! Maintaining viable natural ecologies comes very low down the list, when money is waved around. Councillors never seem to realise that the bioservices offered by nature are also important to human health. These 'free' services clean our waters, provide our pollinators etc. etc. Spending time in 'rewilded' locations, even improves human mental health. 

Bird Dips

 

It's been long-established that Japanese macaque monkeys improve the taste of raw sweet potatoes, by dipping them in salt water. Workers at the University of Veterinary Medicine in Vienna, noted that, before eating, some captive Goffin's cockatoos dunked pieces of cooked potato into blueberry soy yoghourt. Consequently, they did a series of trials with 18 birds. Subjects were presented with bowls of either pasta/cauliflower or potato/carrot. All subjects had access to blueberry soy yoghourt, plain yoghourt and water dips. The birds never dunked carrot or cauliflower in dips. Nine cockatoos, however, tipped pasta, potato or both into soy yoghourt. There was a strong preference for blueberry. Further tests, suggested this preference wasn't  simply due to the dip's colour. All the foods were soft and dunking only lasted around 3 seconds. In other observations, dry rusks were dunked in water for about 20 seconds. It consequently seems very likely the birds were flavouring bland food  to make it more palatable (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/feb/10/cockatoos-show-appetite-for-dips-when-eating-bland-food-find-scientists). Parrots are intelligent birds. Perhaps, however, other animals also manipulate their food to make it more tasty? Parrots for Master Chef?

Birth of a Conspiracy 'Theory'?

 

3-nitrooxypropanol (3-NOP) is a dietary supplement for cows, marketed as 'Bovaer'. It reduces the animal's flatulence, decreasing methane release. Methane is, of course, a very potent 'greenhouse gas', producing global heating/ climate change. 3-NOP has been safely used in thousands of animals but agricultural workers have been warned to not get it in their eyes. Major dairy consortia are now considering using the supplement to reduce the environmental impact of their milk, butter and cheese. A conspiracy 'theory' has been whipped up on the 'dangers' of consuming products from cows given Bovaer. Its even been claimed that the drug might damage human male fertility, Predictably, some of the strongest voices raised in this area, come from folk associated with climate change denial (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/feb/11/conspiracy-theory-on-methane-cutting-cow-feed-bovaera-wake-up-call-say-scientists). Veterinary scientists have been told they must improve their public information dissemination. Actually, no amount of improved public information is going to stop conspiracy theorists. They take the information they 'want', out of context, if necessary! Why miss a new opportunity for misinformation?

Record Pay-Outs and Climate Change

 

The whole basis of the insurance business is risk (i.e. predictability). So, what happens when risk suddenly changes, is clearly illustrated by UK insurers having to pay out a record £585m due to 'weather harm' in 2024. Climate change makes 'extreme weather' events more intense as well as more likely. Last year, with its record 12 named storms, generated record numbers of costly home damage claims  (https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/feb/10/uk-insurers-paid-out-record-climate-breakdown-intensifies). Increased risk associated with climate change will result in some UK properties becoming uninsurable (especially in exposed or flood-prone areas). Premiums will also be increased for the rest of the country. Things could, of course, be made more predictable by mitigating our infrastructure. In many locations, better drainage and land stabilization would be a start . 

Leave It In the Ground?

 

This is really catch-up on an item I had intended posting earlier. The debate, however, on this issue runs on. Drilling in the North Sea's Rosebank oilfield was curtailed, when a judge ruled that the environmental impact (given carbon zero commitments) of its output, hadn't been properly considered by government. The then UK opposition, strongly supported this position and pledged to ban drilling in new fossil fuel locations. Now, in government, the same party suggest drilling might be allowed in Rosebank, as it  isn't 'new' (in the sense of being a new discovery)  (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/feb/03/pm-faces-growing-internal-backlash-over-potential-approval-of-rosebank-oilfield). This potential change of policy seems calculated to boost the new government's 'pro-growth' mantra. Economically, however, exploiting Rosebank wouldn't improve the UK's situation much. It would do nothing for people's cost of living expenses or energy security (the oil and gas would be sold on the international market). It's trading an environmental pledge for a business soundbite. This kind of volte face further damages any belief in political statements.

Monkey Business

 

Sri Lanka's electricity supply is said to be a primate playground. A single monkey has been blamed for a long outage to electricity supplies for the island's 22 million people. This lone primate seems to have come into contact with a grid transformer, unbalancing the complete system. Although hospitals and water purification systems were quickly reconnected, many folk went without air-conditioning and/or lighting for hours (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/feb/10/total-chaos-monkey-blamed-for-nationwide-power-cut-in-sri-lanka). It's obviously problematic to operate such an animal-vulnerable electricity supply. Neither the monkeys nor the humans can operate safely under these conditions. Some resilience is needed. What would happen if an elephant got into a power station?

Seeing the Changes 2111

 Domestic daffodils (Narcissus pseudonarcissus) was flowering in Loughor.

Artificially Unintelligent?

 

The four generative AI (artificial intelligence) tools (ChatGPT; Copilot, Gemini and Perplexity) to answer 100 questions, using BBC articles as the source. The tool's 'answers' were then rated by BBC journalists specialising in the appropriate areas. More than 50% had 'significant issues'. Errors on numbers, dates or statements occurred in around 20%. Quotes, sourced to the BBC, could be altered. Sometimes, they didn't exist in the article cited. Concern has been expressed that these tools threaten to further undermine the public's "fragile faith in facts" (https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/feb/11/ai-chatbots-distort-and-mislead-when-asked-about-current-affairs-bbc-finds}. Generative AI can be an expression of the old 'garbage in: garbage out' adage. Its output certainly has to be handled with care. There's a danger of folk uncritically accepting what comes out of these tools. They might be the source of the next big 'conspiracy theory'?

They Cannot Be Serious!

 

The regulator is investigating UK's biggest privatised water company, Thames Water has reportedly diverted millions of pounds pledged for environmental clean ups to bonuses and share dividends. This is the same company that's had its begging bowl out for increased charges to their monopolised customers and extra finance to prevent re-nationalisation  (https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/feb/12/regulator-investigates-thames-water-over-delayed-environmental-schemes). This isn't anything new. It's the standard modus operandi of the water companies. Increase debt, to have 'disposable' money and use it for their own life-style improvement. Fill the rivers with faeces, risk contaminating tap water and hardly rush to fix leaks! It only seems to have occurred to them recently that climate change will involve a modicum of forward planning. 

Thames Water 'Feeding Frenzy'

 

Thames Water is the UK's biggest privatised water company. It loaded itself with £19bn of debts, largely to keep its shareholders and CEOs happy. There's currently an attempt to extract a further loan in an attempt to stave off re-nationalisation. A very large proportion of any increased investment, however, is likely to be consumed in fees for the competing teams of lawyers, bankers and public relations advisors (https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/feb/10/how-army-of-advisers-is-making-millions-from-thames-water-loan-court-case). Privatising an effective monopoly was always a bad idea. There's can be no effective competition. England's water companies haven't focussed in providing a service for users (consider the repeated leaks and discharges of raw sewage into rivers). They've been used in stead as 'cash cows'.by armies of speculators. Ultimately, they may have to be re-nationalised, costing the tax payer dear.

The Air That We Breathe

 

The UK not normally thought of as a region, with serious atmospheric pollution. Air pollution certainly isn't as obvious as in parts of China, India and the USA. The World Health Organisation suggests, however, that UK air pollution annually results in more than 1000 cases of the main form of lung cancer  (https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/feb/09/air-pollution-causing-lung-cancer-uk). Air pollution may also reduce human cognitive ability. A small study in Nature Communications gave 26 individuals cognitive tests before and after one hour of exposure to particulate matter (from candle smoke) or clean air. Particulate matter, also produced by burning wood (as fuel or in wildfires), some fossil fuels and by vehicle engines, creates the air pollution so evident in parts of the world. After exposure to particulate matter, there was a marked reduction in a subject's ability to focus on everyday tasks. Air pollution could consequently have major effects on efficient working, driving etc. The effects were evident whether the subject breathed normally or just through the mouth. Perhaps, it even gives non-breathing Artificial Intelligence, yet another advantage over human workers? (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/feb/06/air-pollution-affects-peoples-ability-to-focus-on-everyday-tasks-study-finds). Particulates are, however, not the only damaging components of air pollution. It also includes a variety of gasses (largely of nitrogen and carbon) along with volatile compounds. All have been shown to negatively impact human (and other animal's) health. Air pollution is the major cause of global ill-health and early death. It's negative effects are just less obvious than infectious diseases, war and famine. People objecting to emissions zones and speed limits, need to be reminded about air pollution's impact on themselves and the folk around them. Planners need to be prevented from siting major emissions sources without carbon capture, near to human populations. Incidences of wildfires must also be curtailed. Air pollution needs to be taken much more seriously.

All Change!

Worrying observations from the Copernicus Climate Change Service. In spite of the cooling impact of the La Nina weather pattern on the tropical Pacific, January 2025 was the hottest month on record. Global temperatures were 1.75 degrees Centigrade above pre-industrial values. Folk should hardly need reminding that the 2015 Paris Accord arbitrarily suggested limiting the rise to 1.5. That's not all! Sea surface temperatures were unusually high in many ocean basins and seas. In deed. January 2025 was the 18th month of the past 19, to record global sea surface temperatures 1.5 degrees Centigrade above pre-industrial levels (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/feb/06/hottest-january-on-record-climate-scientists-global-temperatures-high). The planet's  oceans absorb a large percentage of the extra heat produced by the anthropogenic 'greenhouse gas' effect. Higher temperatures, means thermal expansion of the water, raising sea levels. They will also increase the melting of the polar ice caps. This further reduces the reflection of solar radiation back into space. Global heating carries on increasing in what's termed a positive feedback process. Switching this process off, if this is still an option, ain't going to be easy.

Even Billionaires Are Running Scared?

 

The $10 bn Bezos Earth Fund has reportedly halted its funding for the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi). The SBTi is an international body, supposedly monitoring whether major companies are decarbonising in line with the Paris accord (the aim to limit the increase in world temperatures to 1.5 degrees Centigrade above pre-industrial levels). It appears that the US mega-rich are withdrawing funding support for any cause that's an anathema to ruling climate change denialists (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/feb/06/jeff-bezos-climate-group-trump-bezos-earth-fund-science-based-targets-initiative-decarbonisation-aoe). The rich are major producers of 'greenhouse gases'. 10% of folk produce nearly 50% of the planet's total emissions. The mega-rich account for the 'lion's share' as this. Now, they appear frightened to even 'greenwash' themselves.

Blasted!

 

Storm Eowyn (24th January, 2025) devastated Scotland's four Royal Botanic Garden sites. Numerous tall trees crashed to the ground (especially in Benmore), also damaging smaller plants. It's estimated that 700 species of plants (many rare and/or endangered) were damaged. The Royal Botanic Gardens in Kew is now sending a team of skilled arborists (tree specialists) to help with the clean up. It's estimated that several years of work will be required to save the plants (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/feb/08/kew-rescue-mission-arborists-head-to-scotland-after-hundreds-of-trees-and-plants-felled-by-storm-eowyn). Some folk suggest replacing some of the exotic tree species with more resilient local varieties (like oaks). This, however, somewhat negates the point of having botanic gardens. People pay to see the exotics, especially when they are impressively large. These plants can also be a 'hedge' (pun intended) against species loss in other parts of the world. Kew is involved in restoration programmes. Others advocate using the 'opportunity' to plant exotic species that have, until now, only thrived in southern parts of the UK. They are convinced that climate change will result in Scotland soon being warm enough. This may not work. Ambient temperatures may well increase but severe storms, like Eowyn, will also increase in frequency and intensity. Storm damage to botanical gardens is likely to become a regular event?

Homes Need To Be Insured as Well as Assured?

 

There's a perceived 'housing crisis' in England. The new UK government's solution is for an extra 1.5 million houses built over the next 5 years. Whether there's a benefit or not depends on the type of house and where it's built. Richard Dawson (Newcastle University) points out that, in 2020-2021 and 2021-2022, circa 7% of new properties were built in zone 3. Zone 3 is applied to locations with at least a 1% chance of annual flooding from a river and/or a 0.5% risk of flooding by the sea. This zone has the highest flooding risk and building in these areas is supposed to be discouraged. Unless government intervenes, more than 100,000 of the new homes target, could be in zone 3. This would means these flood-prone properties would be virtually uninsurable (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/feb/08/more-than-100000-homes-in-england-could-be-built-in-highest-risk-flood-zones). The problem, however, doesn't stop there. Climate change is increasing the probability of extreme weather events. Zone 3 might well expand. It's also necessary to put changes into planning to reduce flooding risk. House builders should be required to fit new properties, so they minimise their 'greenhouse gas' emissions. This will inevitably make the new houses more expensive but retro-fitting is even more costly. Locations, where new homes are built, will also need be provided with improved drainage (as may well be true of established areas). The Water Companies must also be required to improve their management of flood waters. Folk, especially in flood-prone areas, should also be prevented from turning their gardens into hard standing for motor vehicles. This markedly reduces drainage. In some adjoining riverine areas, beavers might even be put to work to make their habitats hold more of the increased precipitation. 

Runners and Riders in the UK Electricity/Economic Stakes?

The UK government presumably has limited cash to wager in the 'electricity/economic stakes'. When assessing the odds of 'winning', criteria must include, a) energy security, b) 'kick starting' the economy and c) being seen to do something about climate change. The current field of 'runners' is an odd collection. Horse One: 'Old Smokey'. This is encapsulated in Drax, an old coal-fired power station, privately converted to run on wood pellets. It currently receives billions of pounds in state subsidies because of its alleged 'green credentials'. Carbon dioxide is converted into wood and burned to release carbon dioxide. This process is, however, far from 100% efficient. Drax has also had to supplement its wood pellet fuel with material imported from the USA's deep south. This latter material isn't guaranteed and its transport certainly adds to 'greenhouse gas' emissions  (https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/feb/06/green-campaigners-fear-uk-to-renew-subsidies-to-drax-power-station). Horse Two: 'Oily Slick' is most recently manifested in the debate around whether the current UK government should re-approve drilling in the North Sea's Rosebank oilfield. Any oil would be extracted by a Norwegian consortium, and would finish up on the international market. The UK wouldn't feel any improvement in its energy security. There also wouldn't be much of an economic stimulus (except for the, already loaded, fossil fuel companies). The generated 'greenhouse gas' emissions, would confirm the UK isn't taking climate change seriously. This 'horse' ought to be a complete outsider (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/feb/03/pm-faces-growing-internal-backlash-over-potential-approval-of-rosebank-oilfield). Horse Three: 'Flashes in the Pan'. This 'runner' links to the proposal to curtail the ability for folk to legally challenge infrastructure projects. It would, for example, make it easier to get a 3rd runway for London's Heathrow airport. This would increase 'greenhouse gas' emissions. Having 'green' aircraft fuels on tap is currently 'just an expensive  gleam in their advocate's eye'. The only way in which the UK would be more 'open to business' post a  3rd runway, is by having boosted the profits of the airport operators, airways and holiday travel agencies. In a related vein, the drive to locate more small nuclear power stations to power a desired expansion of data centres, also seems ill-conceived. When operating, nuclear power stations don't emit 'greenhouse gases'.  Building them, however, is a different story! Nuclear reactors use concrete and steel. Fuel for nuclear power stations also has to be imported (security?) and waste disposal is very problematic. Nuclear power stations also routinely take much longer to come online than people think. Data centres, not only require massive amounts of electricity, they also need copious supplies of cooling water. They might well result in many more job losses, than their building and operation creates  (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/jan/23/legal-challenges-to-infrastructure-projects-to-be-blocked-in-push-for-growth). Horse Four: 'Dobbin'. 'Dobbin' is a collection of old fashioned actions such as a) improving insulation for leaky buildings, b) encouraging home uptake of air pumps, solar panels, small turbines etc., c) facilitating greater use of relatively emissions-free public transport and d) greatly improving the country's electricity and water distribution systems. All, would require training of armies of skilled fitters and other technicians. By using less electricity and improving its renewables generation, these changes would certainly make the UK less reliant on imported oil and gas. The country would be clearly 'doing its bit' to counter climate change. 'Dobbin' doesn't involve the creation of impressive buildings etc. One, however, certainly gets 'more bang for one's buck' with this old nag. I'd put my entire wager down here!  

AI and Breast Cancer

 The UK's National Health Service (NHS) is starting the world's biggest trial, using artificial intelligence (AI), to detect breast cancer. Two thirds of the circa 700,000 annual mammograms (breast scan) in England will be assessed to see if AI can read them as accurately as a trained radiologist. Currently, NHS hospitals operate a 'second reader' system. In this system, the second radiologist studies each mammogram to ensure that signs of cancer are not missed. The initial hope is that one radiologist  can read the scan with AI providing a 'second opinion'. This would speed up the process and free up specialists to do other work  (https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/feb/04/nhs-to-launch-worlds-biggest-trial-of-ai-breast-cancer-diagnosis). The use of AI in programmes, like this, require careful analysis/validation. Speedy diagnosis, of course, improves the patient's prognosis. If successful, however, it raises the possibility of  a future, where mammogram screening is completely automated. Would folk be comfortable with that? Perhaps not for some time?

Lung Cancer and Non-Smokers

There's an increasing proportion of folk, who've never smoked tobacco, diagnosed with lung cancer. Lung cancer in such folk is  now the 5th highest cause of cancer deaths, worldwide. It seems very likely this increase is linked to air pollution. Most of the deaths result from adenocarcinoma, a form of lung cancer  prevalent in people exposed to dangerously polluted air. The greatest incidence was recorded in folk in SE Asia (especially China)  (https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/feb/03/lung-cancer-never-smokers-rise-worldwide-air-pollution). It seems clear that a combination of reducing tobacco smoking and an improvement of air quality is needed to bring down lung cancer. Sadly, some folk counter any attempts to improve air quality in cities. They resist establishing emissions reduction zones, lowering speed limits and limiting car access. Air pollution is a hidden cause of human ill-health/death.

Cool For Cats

 Pets produce political ruptions. Panic erupted in Scotland, when some folk assumed their cats were going to be banned. In the UK, pet cats annually kill circa 27 million wild birds. The independent (non-governmental) Scottish Animal Welfare Committee had published its recommendations on responsible cat ownership. One suggestion was that new housing developments in selected rural areas with  red-listed (seriously endangered) bird species, might consider banning cat ownership. This resulted in senior politicians having to clarify that a country-wide cat ban wasn't on their agenda  (https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/feb/03/scotlands-first-minister-forced-to-deny-plans-to-ban-cat-ownership). Folk take any challenge to their dog or cat, very personally. It's interesting how few pet owners actually consider the carbon footprint of their home-based carnivore. This might be a potential sales pitch for companies making pet food and treats by cultivating animal cells in vats (it generates much less carbon dioxide and occupies less land). Some owners, however, would be less likely to give 'tiddles' this food, than to eat it themselves.

Plastic Brains

Microplastics are our fragmented plastic waste. These pollutants have shown an exponential environmental rise over the last 50 years. We are progressively becoming more plastic. Microplastics are routinely found in human blood, bone marrow, breast milk, placentas and semen. Their precise impacts on human health are, as yet, uncertain. Some studies have found, however, that brain concentrations of microplastics in folk with dementia, are 6 times the supposed 'normal' values. A recent study in Nature Medicine analysed samples of brain, liver and kidney tissue from  folk in New Mexico. Twenty-eight died in 2016 and 24 others in 2024. Brain concentrations of microplastics were much higher than in the other tissues. Neural and liver concentrations were also higher in 2024 than in 2016. These scientists confirmed this rising trend of neural microplastic contamination, in samples taken from folk dying between 1997 and 2013 on the US east coast. The accumulation of neural plastics in humans appears to be widespread (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/feb/03/levels-of-microplastics-in-human-brains-may-be-rapidly-rising-study-suggests). Microplastics cause neurological damage, by blocking the brain's capillaries in mice. Human capillaries are, however, much wider. Consequently, no causal link between the presence of microplastics and human mental health should currently be assumed. The possibility exists, however, that these plastic pollutants are linked to conditions such as Alzheimer's. This is an area that certainly warrants more investigation. 

Forget Keeping 1.5 Alive ?

 

A 'renowned' climate scientist, James Hansen, has claimed that the climate change target of 2 degrees Centigrade (above Pre-Industrial levels) 'is dead'. He bases this largely on studies on emissions from shipping (especially the enormous cruisers, favoured by well-heeled holiday makers). The 'greenhouse gas' contributions of shipping is a relatively neglected, but growing,  concern. Hansen's conclusions are said to be at 'the high end' of predictions about the rate of climate change  (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/feb/04/climate-change-target-of-2c-is-dead-says-renowned-climate-scientist).  Science is based on probabilities. Something as complex as climate change (you are dealing with the entire globe, human populations, solar emissions fluctuations, extended time periods etc., etc.), is always going to result in varied 'predictions'. This is often interpreted by the public as a lack of accuracy. This is a feature certainly exploited by groups/individuals, with vested interests in continuing (and even exacerbating) their activities (digging oil and gas, boosting 'economic activity', running transport, selling holidays etc.). Climate change is certainly occurring and probably accelerating. Science, however, is always open to interpretation. Sadly, people love simple answers.

If It's Not on the Website, It Doesn't Exist?

 

The United States Forest Service as well as the United States Department of Agriculture have both been ordered to take down any website references to a climate crisis. This seems to rely on the adage 'out of sight, out of mind'. Or hoping the public won't notice, if instructions to 'drill, baby drill', endangers them and their homes (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jan/31/trump-order-usda-websites-climate-crisis). Unfortunately, climate change is a reality. One can argue about the relative merits of linking any one extreme weather event to human-mediated global heating, but fires, floods and exceptional storms are resolutely increasing in both frequency and intensity. All the markers, including atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations, melting ice, rising sea levels and record ambient temperatures, support the contention we are in a climate crisis.  It's not only ostriches, who apparently stick their heads in the sand? Some humans have very short attention spans. I wonder how much more of inconvenient science will be rewritten.

Birder's Bonus 244

 

European shelduck (Tadorna tadorna) on Loughor estuary at Bynea.

Who Killed Cock Robin?

A European robin (Erithracus rubecula) as a Loughor road casualty. Answer: a speeding car or truck.