Unnatural Selection?

Rhino horn is essentially compacted hair. In spite of its being largely inert keratin, it's become a very expensive ingredient in some 'traditional medicines' of China and Vietnam. Over the last 100 years, rhino horns have become progressively shorter (https://www.theguardian.com/science/2022/nov/01/rhino-horns-have-become-shorter-in-past-century-study-finds). Like the weapons of other large herbivores, rhino horns were probably developed for a combination of defence and sexual competition. Natural selection would normally have favoured animals with impressive horns. Big game hunters and poachers are likely, however, to have favoured rhinos with the longest horns. Big horns mean big profits. The shrinkage of rhino horns, over the last century, could be a consequence of traditional medicine. Animals, with smaller horns, would be more likely to survive to breed. Perhaps hornless rhinos will evolve?

Europe Leading the Way?

The European State of the Climate report notes that, over the last 30 years, this continent has increased its temperature by twice the global average (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/nov/02/europes-climate-warming-at-twice-rate-of-global-average-says-report). Between 1991 and 2021, European temperatures have warmed at an average rate of 0.5 of a degree Centigrade per decade. This has had notable effects on the continent's glaciers and the Greenland icecap. As climate change intensifies, Europe will increasingly be exposed to exceptional heat, wildfires, droughts, sea level rises, further ice melting etc. These 'extreme weather events' will have very profound effects on society, economies and ecosystems. Sadly, all this has been event for decades. Europeans can't say they weren't warned! Many of their leaders, however, have behaved as if climate change is a phenomenon resticted to distant lands.

Nature Can Do Without Humans: Humans Can't Do Without Nature

Christiana Figueres (Head of the UN Climate Change Convention that delivered the Paris Agreement in 2015) makes an impassioned call for humans to change their environmental 'mindset' from competition to collaboration (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/nov/02/nature-climate-crisis-new-mindset). Figueres reiterates the 'Tragedy of the Commons' phenomenon, where everyone operating according to their own self-interest, ultimately depletes/destroys a shared resource. In a very real sense, our planet is a giant commons. People may arbitrarily specify land borders, air space, maritime limits, government/company/individual 'ownership' etc, etc but the Earth is an interconnected entity. It doesn't recognise human divisions. And, humans like any other species, are ultimately wholly dependent on the viability of their planet's ecosystems and the integrity of its biogeochemical cycles. Figueres opines we need ambitious, joined-up actions at the imminent meetings, in Egypt and Canada, to cut 'greenhouse gas' emissions, as well as reverse catastrophic biodiversity loss. She's absolutely right but I wouldn't hold my breath. Getting governments and companies to sign pledges is one thing. Getting real positive action is something quite different. There will always be countries, political parties, major corporations and individuals, entirely driven by self-interest (even if they bother to 'greenwash'). For example, the UK's PM's U-turn on attending Cop27 in Sharm-el-Sheikh (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/nov/02/rishi-sunak-u-turns-decision-not-to-attend-cop27-climate-summit), is much more likely to be a recognition of political imperatives than a damascene conversion. Little sign of a change of 'mindset' there?

Cost of the British Cuppa

A report by the British Retail Consortium/Nielsen found that UK food prices have soared by a record 11.6% in a single month (https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/nov/02/uk-food-prices-soar-by-fastest-rate-on-record-as-cost-of-living-crisis-bites). Particularly affected are fresh foods (goodbye healthy eating initiatives for the poor) and the ingredients for making the archetypal 'British' cup of tea. Teabags, milk and sugar all showed marked price increases last month. Perhaps, we will be returning to the pre-1830s, when the rich had lockable tea caddies, preventing their servants stealing the valuable leaf. Interestingly, modern lockable tea caddies are now widely available online.

Hoovering Up the Microplastics

Microplastics find their way into our oceans from many sources. For example, even 'green' electric vehicles produce particles of these substances from their tyres and braking systems. Krill are about the same size as microplastics. Predictably then, filter-feeding whales have become the largest consumers of microplastics on the planet (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/nov/01/whales-ingest-millions-of-microplastic-particles-a-day-study-finds). A California study was carried out on Blue, Fin and Humpback whales. All consumed millions of microplastic particles each day. Blue whales, for example, ingested circa 10 million pieces in 24 hours. This equates to a billion microplastic particles in a 3-4 month feeding season. This ingested pollutant could weigh between 230 kg and 4 tonnes. Plastics have no nutriant value to the whales but their contaminants have been found in the animal's blubber (fatty insulation). The authors of the study, point out that Californian waters are relatively clean. Other parts of the world have oceans that are much more polluted. One would expect filter-feeding whales to 'hoover up' even more microplastics there. The exact effects of ingesting microplastics on the health of whales is yet to be determined. It's, however, likely to prove extremely detrimental to whales and many other marine organisms.

Gone With the Windfall?

The Ukraine war/return to pre-Covid levels of industrial activity have resulted in UK and US petrochemical companies making 'eye-watering' profits. Given the impacts of the energy and cost of living crises, talk has naturally turned to appropriate levels of government 'windfall tax' on these 'unearned' profits (https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/nov/01/bp-pay-windfall-tax-profits-oil). The most recent example is British Petroleum (BP) that has announced a record $8.2bn in profits for its third quarter. BP expect to pay $800m in windfall taxes. Some people think this figure is much too low and should rise. More worrying' is the case of Shell, who have made extraordinary profits of $30bn, thus far, this year. Shell don't expect to pay any windfall taxes. They claim to have 'off-set' the tax, against their costs of exploration, to find further reserves of oil and gas (under legislation brought in by the current UK PM, when he was Chancellor). Well into the future (it takes time to bring new sites online), these additional reserves might well further boost Shell's already considerable profits. Such exploration will do nothing, however, to help folk with their energy supplies or the rampant cost of living, now. Climate change must mean strongly disincentivising the extraction of oil and gas from new sites. Perhaps the UK's PM needs to travel to Cop27 to be reminded of this fact?

Our 'Polluting Elite'

The rich have always been with us. The planet may, however, be unable to tolerate the behaviours of such folk much longer (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/nov/01/polluting-elite-enormous-carbon-dioxide-emissions-gap-between-poorest-autonomy-study). A study, by Autonomy, looked at the relationship between UK earnings and 'greenhouse gas' emissions over the 20 years from 1998-2018. Emissions for people in the top 1% of UK earners (getting £170,000 or more per annum in 2018) were compared with those of folk in the bottom 10% (getting £21,000 or less). Over that period, members on the 'rich list' each generated an average over 2000 tons of 'greenhouse gases', whereas poorer folk produced only 88 tons. This means it takes a relatively poor individual around 26 years, to produce as much climate-changing material, as a member of the 'polluting elite' achieves in a single year. Remember also, that there were 10 times more folk in the former category in the comparison! The period examined in this analysis was just before the UK's onset of the Covid19 pandemic, with its consequent travel restrictions (for most). Recent data from airlines, travel companies etc, suggest that the 'polluting elite' are now back to pre-Pandemic levels of effluence. The 'polluting elite' also have tended to have disproportionate influences on attitudes, taxation and legislation. They do need to stop indulging themselves quite so much. It seems, however, likely that they will have to be 'encouraged' to modify their behaviour.