Seeing the Changes 997

No moths to the light in Loughor but visited by a Green lacewing (Chrysoperla carnea).

People, People Everywhere?

The Guardian has strongly advocated the view that 'limiting population growth, on its own' will not reduced carbon emissions because more 'advanced' countries, with declining birthrates, counter-intuitively produce more green house gases (http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/aug/02/the-guardian-view-on-population-control-empowering-women-may-not-save-the-environment). This link may well be currently true (and shouldn't be used by developed nations to escape responsibility) but populations in 'developing' nations generally seem to at least aspire to the living standards of the 'west'. It is claimed that there are more people currently alive on the planet than in all of recorded history combined. Some of this may well be down to people living longer and, no, I don't advocate not trying to find better ways of controlling disease. But more people do require more resources (land, food, water et cetera) and even in the 'depopulating, advanced economies' the rest of the species on the planet (on which we depend) appear to be pressured by anthropogenic effects. So perhaps limiting population growth (as an aspiration) may not be a bad thing?

D Day?

'Experts' have suggested that the sun-starved inhabitants of the UK need to take Vitamin D supplements in order to remain healthy (http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/aug/02/britain-not-sunny-enough-healthy-vitamin-d-levels-supplements). This seems especially the case this summer but I wonder if they will concomitantly modify the advice on sun screens?

A Bit of Extra Change?

Got one of the above in my change this week. Allegedly worth a bit more than the standard 50p.

Copper-bottomed schemes?

News that Zambian villagers are taking a copper-mining company to court over pollution that they claim is damaging their health (http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2015/aug/01/vedanta-zambia-copper-mining-toxic-leaks). It does appear that extractors of minerals have to be more careful about their activities in a world where perceived problems quickly get out into the world's media. This is, in general, no bad thing as it should keep organisations 'on their toes'.

Creepy-Crawley Celebs?

The Royal Society of Biology is apparently going to ask Britons to vote for their 'favourite bug' as a means of drawing attention to the effects of pesticides, habitat loss and climate change on such organisms (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/aug/02/insect-poll-highlights-uk-threatened-species). This is all very timely but I can't help but feel that the vote will not be as meaningful as the recent vote for the favourite bird (the European robin, a species that all the people voting in that poll will have seen). The trouble with invertebrates is that there are many, many more candidates and most people will not have even noticed more than a few of them. Ladybirds might get a lot of votes from the children's book series or the nursery rhyme but, I suspect, spiders (in spite of also having a nursery rhyme) have less positive PR. Wasps are also generally misunderstood. Many of the candidates listed in the article seem to be the bigger and brighter species. How many votes is the Beautiful demoiselle (Calopterix virgo) likely to glean?

Seeing the Changes 996

In Loughor, conditions seem perfect for Hogweed (Heracleum sphondylium)!