Turkeys, Votes and Christmas?

It seems highly debatable (given recent events in Edinburgh and Manchester) that voters in any large UK conurbation will opt for the imposition of a local congestion charge (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/dec/16/letters-climate-change-green-issues). The main problem seems to be the fact that the people most likely to vote on such issues are members of the "car owning democracy" and are unlikely to support anything that costs them more in the short term irrespective of any longer term gains in traffic flow, local health issues etc. This certainly seems to be Peter Preston's view (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/dec/22/congestion-charge-climate-change-government). I wonder if congestion charges were voted on in Scandinavian locations (although individuals in these countries do seem to find supporting things for the general 'good' easier)? Perhaps individual choice is not wholly appropriate in such cases? I thought politicians were supposed to take some difficult decisions for us?

Birder's Bonus 34

Strange goings on with respect to Jackdaw (Corvus monedula) populations. Large flocks of around 300-400 birds seem to be roosting by the Loughor estuary at Bynea. The birds return each morning to locations around Loughor and Gorseinon to forage. Their allelomimetic wheeling flight is not quite as impressive as that seen in Starling flocks but their current numbers (perhaps maintained over winter by feeding on human waste) seem potentially problematic for many smaller birds whose eggs and chicks can be decimated by these intelligent and voracious members of the crow family.

Mytholtoe and Whine

A British Medical Journal article by Vreeman and Carroll cited by the BBC(http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7789302.stm) has attempted to debunk some of the 'scientific' myths associated with the winter months. These are supposedly believed by a majority of people (even by some physicians). The myths include one of interest to field biologists, namely the claim that hats are essential in the winter as most body heat (>40%) is lost through the head. It appears that the myth stems from a 1950's study on the US military in which soldiers waring Arctic survival suits lost most heat through their uncovered heads. It now seems that the rate of body heat loss from any uncovered part of the body is remarkably uniform (although keeping the brain warm is important). Other myths subjected to re-analysis are the claims that sugar makes children hyperactive ( it seems that parents rate their children as more hyperactive when they believe they have been consuming a sugar-containing drink that was actually sugar free); that night snacks will make you fat (excess calories make you fat irrespective of the time you eat them); that one can 'cure' a hangover with a range of drugs and foods (the only way to avoid a hangover seems to be to moderate your alcohol consumption); that Christmas Poinsettias are poisonous (the red leaves are not, in fact, toxic) and that suicides rise over the holiday period (they are not clustered here in spite of the modest increase in family conflict at this time).

Whistling in the Dark?

It has been revealed (http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/dec/15/orangutan-animal-behaviour-zoo) that Bonnie, a 30 year old Orang-utan (Pongo pygmeus), at the Smithsonian National zoo in Washington DC has learned how to whistle (another thing it was thought great apes could not do). Workers who have studied this innovative primate reckon that she must have copied the activity from a keeper and now performs the activity (in spite of being somewhat tone deaf) for her own 'amusement'. Rumour has it that Bonnie has even passed on the activity (cultural inheritance?) to at least one of her cage mates.

Elephantine Obesity?

Somewhat counter-intuitively, it has been claimed by the RSPCA that captive elephants do badly (http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/dec/12/elephants-animal-welfare) in comparison to 'wild' counterparts. Comparisons were made of almost 800 Asian and African elephant born and raised in European zoos with 'free' counterparts. Asian elephant were compared with subjects of the same species employed by a Burmese logging company. Zoo-based African elephant were contrasted with animals in Kenya's Amboseli National Park. The study appeared to show that zoo-born Asian elephant lived an average of 18.9 years compared with 41.7 years in their logging counterparts. In the case of the African elephant, the figures were 16.9 years and 35.9 years (56 years if culled animals were omitted from the study). The reduced longevity of the zoo animals were linked to obesity, lack of exercise (some captive animals were apparently unable to walk properly) and 'stress' (always a difficult thing to define but being limited to small groups might be problem). Unremarkably, elephant enclosures in zoos are dramatically smaller than the "smallest wild territories" but it would be very difficult to do much about this in a zoo context. I think that this is certainly an area of concern but the study does have some limitations. I suspect that the figures for longevity in the zoo animals are more trust-worthy than their comparisons. Logging Asian elephant are hardly 'wild' and these working animals are certainly selected for their physical prowess. Elephant in Amboseli also live a rather protected existence compared to animals outside National Parks. I also suspect that cases of infanticide and other forms of infant death are more likely to be recorded in European zoos than in these animals. Having said all that, the study does hint at some of the complex issues in zoo versus wild animal comparisons. Perhaps not all captive species (especially wide-ranging and long-lived species) benefit from a 'protected' existence in a zoo.

Birder's Bonus 33

A pair of Curlew (Numenius arquata) were seen on the Loughor estuary near Bynea.

The Final Countdown?

A paper on the likely evolution of the 'greenhouse gas' emissions saga was given in Exeter University (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/dec/09/poznan-copenhagen-global-warming-targets-climate-change) with its author (climate scientist Kevin Anderson) allegedly half hoping, as a human, that he could be proved wrong. His basic conclusion (uncontested at the conference) was that things are worse than recently thought and that our chances of limiting average temperature rises to less than 4 degrees Celsius (never mind, the 2 degrees the politicians claim to be aiming for) are virtually zero. This rise would exacerbate accessing drinking water, generating sufficient food and flooding as well as increasing human deaths from heat stroke. Interestingly, it has been separately claimed that Science may result in oil producers and others being successfully sued for some of the damage they help generate(http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/dec/09/oil-business-climate-change-flooding). George Monbiot concurrently notes (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/dec/09/climate-change-science-environment) that most commentators in the blogosphere express doubts (in various ways) about the reality of global warming. He clearly feels they have been 'brainwashed' by people paid by hydrocarbon industries to cast doubt on actuality. They say, for example, "scientists can't even agree among themselves" without understanding that Science, especially when concerned with complex issues, generally generates a variety of views- the prevailing theory is the consensus view! Monbiot may or may not be right but, it seems to me, that other processes may be at work. Most modern Westerners have grown up in Societies that have preached that they are owed a free, happy (and enjoyable) existence that should not be curtailed by disease, a short life, poverty or limited activities. This is very different from as little as 2 generations ago in Europe when child and adult mortality's were much higher and most people had little 'freedom' from toil. Citizens of other parts of the world (where this was not formerly true) often now aspire to something similar. As more people are currently alive on the planet than have lived in the whole of prior history, one can see the 'size' of the problem. Further, many on our planet clearly believe that Technology and/or their God will always come up with solutions, meaning they don't have to take personal responsibility for environmental problems. We are always told that a 'can do' philosophy is highly desirable whereas pessimists are 'a pain'. People in the UK now generally seem to regard their current lifestyle as a 'right' and many resent being notionally criminalised for some of its inevitable consequences (such as a component of the air they breath out, emissions from their car or land fill use). It is hardly remarkable that it is difficult (politically) to 'sell' any move to rapidly change our lifestyles when a) restrictions don't appear to apply to everyone (we are competitive creatures), b) it seems less 'cool' (literally?) to go down this route than to live life 'to the full' and c) other generations seem to have got away without such considerations (this is a rather 'rosy' view of the past).