Is a Vow the Same as a Pledge?

The UK government have 'vowed' that there will be a 10-fold increase in electric car charging points to 300,000 by 2030 (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/mar/24/uk-government-vows-10-fold-increase-in-electric-car-chargers-by-2030). It's obviously very uncertain whether 'vows' are stronger than 'pledges'! Even if they deliver on the 'vow', there is every probability that charging points will not be prominent in rural areas. The current UK government seem very keen to appeal to well-heeled motorists. A major change in their recent mini-budget was to remove 5p per litre from petrol and diesel duty. Most of that money is actually likely to go to drivers of gas-guzzling SUVs! It would have been rather better (certainly in an environmental sense!) to use any cuts to make public transport cheaper. In some European countries, public transport is actually free!

The Trusty Shield Against a Pandemic

Thomas Hale (Oxford University) has, he believes, identified the factor that predicted whether countries would emerge from the Covid19 pandemic in 'good shape' (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/mar/24/countries-covid-trust-damage-pandemic). Hale states that, in terms of their ability to deal with a pandemic, in 2019, countries, such as Slovenia, Spain, the UK and the USA, looked good on paper (in terms of medical services etc). When the virus arrived, they actually did poorly on measures such as deaths, economic damage and days they had to spend in lockdown. Countries that performed relatively well in the pandemic had, however, high levels of interpersonal trust. This is trust in other people, rather than trust in government (this can be dodgy). Interpersonal trust doesn't require actually knowing the other people. It's a belief they will 'do the right thing'. As Hale points out, trust in other people is important in many aspects of fighting a pandemic (such as social distancing). Fotunately, he believes that interpersonal trust can be enhanced in a variety of ways. Rather obviously, it is generally the first casualty of polarisation in society.

Seeing the Changes 1582

In Gorseinon an Umbellifer and Wood forgetmenot (Myosotis sylvatica) were in blomm.

Can We Afford Not To?

George Monbiot says that UK Members of Parliament (MPs), claiming that green schemes are 'unaffordable', are simply wrong (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/mar/23/european-countries-climate-crisis-deniers-green-schemes). Monbiot lists a variety of 'success stories' from around Europe, in support of his conclusion. What they have in common is, that in each case, European governments are driving the initiatives. The UK's ruling party, in contrast, worships 'market forces', even though they have repeatedly failed to deliver. Surely, the UK's climate change-denying MPs need to be reminded of the costs of not quickly limiting global heating. In comparison, the money required for home energy improvements, fitting homes with heat pumps and providing free public transport etc, pales into insignificance. Money will be pretty meaningless, if the entire planet is unliveable!

Microplastics in Our Blood!

Scientists at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, for the first time, found microplastics in 80% of investigated human blood samples (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/mar/24/microplastics-found-in-human-blood-for-first-time). The study involved 22 healthy, adult, anonymous donors. A range of different microplastics were identified in the samples. More than half the donors had PET microplastics in their blood. PET is the plastic used mainly in drinks bottles. It has recently been revealed that recycling drinks bottles, makes them more likely to leach material into their contents. The Vrije Universiteit study is relatively tiny but it raises concerns. It should certainly be replicated using people of differing ages and from different backgrounds. The actual effects of microplastics in the blood are, as yet, unknown. Clearly, however, they also must be urgently investigated.

Has Science Changed With the Introduction of Electronic Media?

Knowledge progresses by scientists looking at phenomena (like the appearance of a 'new' virus); coming up with hypotheses (explanatory ideas) and making predictions, tested in experiments. If the prediction is supported, the hypothesis is strengthened, with other tests following. If the prediction is not supported, the hypothesis has to be rejected or modified. Eventually, one hypothesis becomes acceptable to the expert community and might then be reclassified as a theory. Devi Sridhar (University of Edinburgh) points out that our understanding of the Covid19 virus has changed dramatically over the last 2 years. She asks why then do some scientists 'doggedly cling to theories' (actually erroneous hypotheses) they proposed 2 years ago, at the start of the pandemic? (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/mar/24/scientists-wrong-covid-virus-experts). This is a very interesting question. Back in former times, most scientific argument was conducted slowly in specialist journals and at conferences. People, who devised 'dodgy' hypotheses, often (but not always!) found it difficult to publish their 'findings'. They also tended not to be invited to specialist conferences. This, of course, mean't they generally had no wide circle of supporters. Funding, for continued research, could also become very problematic. Perhaps, the advent of electronic media has altered the behaviour of some scientists? It has never been easier for some scientists to quickly get their ideas 'out there' on podcasts and in electronic 'forums'. Early, speculative ideas about Covid19 attracted the attention of 'like-minded' (often non-specialist?) individuals. Confirmation bias (the tendency to accept ideas that fit our preconceptions) is likely to have had a powerful influence. Science, like politics, may have divided on social media, into the pros and the antis? Perhaps Sridhar's oddly behaving scientists, are simply reluctant to defect from 'their' support group. Some may even benefit financially by continuing to operate in an 'echo-chamber'. Scientists are also people. Some will have flaws (greed, a desire for 'fame' etc) just like anyone else. This is not how science is supposed to function but this modus operandi may be becoming a fact of life.

Seeing the Changes 1581

In Bynea, shoots of the Field horsetails (Equisetum arvense) were looking prehistoric.