An Earth Not 'Designed' for 8 billion Humans

John Vidal (former Guardian Environment editor) highlights the truism that 'runaway climate change' is a consequence of both overconsumption by individuals and an excessive world human population (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/nov/15/population-8-billion-climate). Vidal notes that rich folk (with their frequent flying, space tourism and overconsumption) individually generate a much higher proportion of the 'greenhouse gases' than their poorer bretheren. Getting them to change their behaviour is clearly important. It will not, however, stop the planet continuing to heat at an alarming rate. Every human directly and indirectly generates carbon dioxide. This will be the case, even if we all adopt a vegan diet; dramatically reduce travel; power our buildings/ transport with only renewable energy sources; effectively insulate all buildings; never become involved in wars; cease having International 'Sporting' events et cetera, et cetera. The human species was once only a relatively minor component of the Earth's biota but has now become an agent capable of terraforming the entire planet (as did the bacteria billions of years ago!). Eight billion people is clearly way too many. Effective contraception is needed to ensure that every birth is an actual choice. In spite of this, much of the recent Western coverage is from countries concerned about their declining birth rates. Worried that this could impact on their 'economies' and result in a lessened ability to cater for their aging populations (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/nov/16/latvia-baltic-population-demographic-crisis).

Human Fertility: Crisis, Which Crisis?

Somewhat contrary news items. An article in Human Reproduction Update re-raises the spectre of a human fertility crisis. Between 1973 and 2018, there was a decline in the average sperm count of circa 50%. This occurred in 53 countries, distributed across the entire globe (https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/nov/15/humans-could-face-reproductive-crisis-as-sperm-count-declines-study-finds). On the same day, the United Nations decided the world's human population had reached 8 billion (https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/15/world/world-population-8-billion.html). It also seems likely that the human population will reach 9 billion, mainly driven by birth rates in 6 African countries. In spite of declining sperm counts, human fertility seems to be in relatively rude health. Populations are falling in some countries largely, it seems, as consequences of human choice rather than declining fertility. In actuality, the greater the world's human population, the less likely we will be to effectively counter both catastrophic climate change and biodiversity loss.

Why Are Humans Obsessed with Being 'Unique'?

Humans have repeatedly claimed to be the only animal capable of doing X and Y. They maintained they were the only beast capable of making and using tools. It now transpires that many other vertebrates do this. Humans also suggested that only they could interpret their image in a mirror. Again, not true. Our species then claimed to be the only animal that used 'language'. Not true, either. Still, we are the only beasts who point out 'interesting' objects to members of our own species. This also seems unlikely to be a unique property of our species (https://www.theguardian.com/science/2022/nov/14/cool-leaf-study-records-chimp-showing-off-object-in-human-like-way). One has to strive to avoid anthropomorphism ('humanising' actions), when interpreting the behaviour of other species. A video record of adult chimpanzee appears to have an adult primate showing off a leaf to his mother in a very 'human-like' way. The study, published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, looked at Chimpanzees in Uganda's Kibale National Park. The animal in question removed and 'groomed' a leaf, before making repeated attempts to 'show' it to his mother. The leaf wasn't a food item. It actually seems very unlikely that humans have a specific skill or attribute distinguishing them from the rest of the animal kingdom. Something that works for one species, can always work for another. Humans, however, seem obsessed with not being dismissed as 'mere animals'.

Not Alive?

Bill McGuire (Emeritus Professor University College of London) clearly thinks it was a mistake for the Paris Accord, to specify 1.5 degrees Centigrade above pre-Industrial levels, as a 'safe' figure for global temperature rise (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/nov/12/climate-target-cop27-breakdown-fossil-fuel). As McGuire points out, giving an upper 'limit', gives bags of scope to 'greenhouse gas emitters'/ climate change sceptics, to haggle about the need for speed (in reductions). Actually proving that 1.5 is unattainable, only occurs when that figure is actually exceeded. By this time, it's much too late. It also removes a focus from the fact that every fraction of a degree increase in global temperature, is linked to detrimental changes in the planet's climate. McGuire opines that Cop27 must admit that the 1.5 degrees Centigrade climate target is 'dead'. 'Keeping 1.5 alive' always did seem more like a slick marketing slogan, than a realistic ambition. Although they claim to be 'worried', the 1.5 alive mantra still seems to obsess many folk (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/nov/14/what-happened-on-day-seven-at-cop27). We can't suddenly 'turn things around' in 2030 or 2050!

The Dash for Congo Gas

Africa's natural gas, if extracted and burnt, would wipe out the Congo Basin rainforests (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/nov/10/dash-african-gas-wipe-out-congo-basin-rainforests). This would, not only completely negate attempts to reduce 'greenhouse gas' emissions elsewhere, it would remove one of the planet's major carbon sinks. it is, however, hardly surprising that African nations are tempted to extract and burn the gas. This is especially the case when signals from Cop27 suggest that rich developed nations seem averse to using any of the poorer nations heavily impacted by climate change. Many, developed nations, indeed, seem to be using the energy cost crisis, to carry on extracting coal, oil and gas. African nations currently add little to 'greenhouse gas' emissions but are experiencing some of the worst consequences of climate change.

Where's the Beef?

George Monbiot points out that livestock farming currently consumes 50% of the world's carbon budget. In spite of this, rearing animals for food has hardly been mentioned at any of the 26 climate summits (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/nov/09/leaders-cop27-livestock-farming-carbon-budget-governments). Monbiot notes that the two most obviously effective ways of preventing catastrophic climate breakdown are:- a) to leave fossil fuels in the ground and b) reduce animal farming. Livestock have, however, only been mentioned in three of the 26 agreements. The only action agreed was improved management with no mention of any reductions. Monbiot, not unreasonably concludes that the power of the petrochemical and farming industries is such, that attempts to limit their products have been largely unmentionable. Perhaps, this is why they have been so well-represented at Cop meetings?

Airmail Influenza

UK folk are concerned about the likely impact of bird 'flu on the availability of Christmas chicken, goose and turkey. The highly virulent H5N1 strain of the virus, is currently decimating wild bird populations. The recent outbreak has resulted in all domestic poultry being confined to quarters. 'Free range' birds and eggs are now things of the past. Devi Sridhar (University of Edinburgh) warns that, if the H5N1 strain jumps to human hosts, it could generate a new pandemic (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/nov/09/bird-flu-mutation-h5n1-virus-strains-pandemic). Viruses are constantly mutating. Indeed, Covid19 made this jump, probably from bats to humans. A small number of people, intimately associated with poultry flocks, have apparently already been infected with bird 'flu. If H5N1 made its way into substantial numbers of humans, further mutations might well produce dangerous strains, geared to infecting our species, rather than birds. Biosecurity is currently being employed, attempting to prevent domestic poultry contacting wild bird viral vectors. Such security also needs to be 'beefed up' with a stronger emphasis on limiting passage of the bird 'flu virus to humans. Things are complicated in the UK, as the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) is the country's favourite (and richest) charity. Many folk have wild bird feeders in their gardens. I suspect that RSPB members would be loath to stop feeding wild birds. Because birds fly, avian 'flu is capable of reaching all areas. In spite of complaints by some bodies, biosecurity (for many organisms) should not be an optional extra.