50:50

A report led by Kevin Anderson (Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, Manchester University) advocates an 'equitable' transition from fossil fuels to renewables. Doing this, the report suggests, means giving rich countries (e.g. Australia, the UK and the US) until 2034, to end all oil and gas production. The poorer countries, who are more dependent on fossil fuels, the report says, should be given until 2050 (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/mar/22/rich-countries-must-stop-producing-oil-and-gas-by-2034-says-study). The Anderson-led report presumably assumes that the use of coal has already ceased or will terminate shortly (untrue?). A total cessation of fossil fuel use by the specified dates will, the report estimates, give humanity a 50% chance of preventing devastating climate breakdown. This is the same as tossing a coin. That is pushing humanity's luck. Wouldn't it be appropriate to aim for rather better odds?

'Forever Chemicals' and Farming

Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) are a large group of manufactured chemicals used in many products. They are employed, for example, in fast-food packaging, non-stick cooking utensils and even carpets. PFASs are often described as 'forever chemicals' as they break down only very slowly when they get into the environment. PFASs have also been linked to a range health conditions in humans including cancers and fertility impairment. In Maine (USA) some small farmers are now facing economic ruin as a consequence of PFAS contamination (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/mar/22/i-dont-know-how-well-survive-the-farmers-facing-ruin-in-americas-forever-chemicals-crisis). In the past, sludge 'biosolids' were often used as fertiliser on fields in Maine farms. This sludge was contaminated with PFASs. Tests have now revealed PFASs in the soil, water for both drinking and irrigation, crops, chickens of the farms as well as the farmer's own bloods. This means that some smallholders in Maine can't sell their produce and are worried about their own health. It seems remarkable that more hasn't been done to regulate the manufacture and release of 'forever chemicals'. People have known about these problematic products for decades.

Pandemic Narratives?

Debra Mackenzie points out that every event has two components. The first is what actually happened and the second is its narrative (the story we tell ourselves). The narrative is generally the stronger. Sometimes narratives are correct but other, false narratives, sow confusion and can result in poor decision making. Mackenzie maintains that false narratives about the Covid19 pandemic probably caused millions of deaths. False narratives about Sars-CoV-2 included the early assumption that such viral outbreaks were only a problem for poor, less developed countries. Other erroneous narratives included claims that the virus would 'soon burn itself out' and that the infection would naturally become milder as the virus 'adapted to its host'. It was even maintained that shutdowns mean't governments had to balance saving people's lives against protecting economies. Mackenzie states that that 'the stories aren't finished and neither is the pandemic'. She clearly feels that we ought to have learnt much more from the experience. This would include putting monitoring in place to warn of the next zoonotic pandemic. The fact that narratives are still having their effects is clearly illustrated by recent statements from the World Health Organisation (WHO). WHO claims that the sharp European rises in Covid19 infections (probably due to the more transmissible BA2 subvariant of Omicron), are consequences of some countries prematurely lifting their coronavirus restrictions (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/22/rising-covid-cases-europe-curbs-lifted-too-soon-world-health-organisation). 'Freedom days' have costs.

The Nuclear Option?

The UK currently gets around 16% of its electricity from nuclear but several of its power stations are due to close. Government would like to get 25% of its electricity generation from nuclear power (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/mar/21/johnson-announces-aim-for-uk-to-get-25-of-energy-from-nuclear-power). On a relatively small island (like the UK), it can be difficult to get planning permission for new nuclear power stations. Nuclear power plants are also very expensive, require specialist builders and can take a long time to construct. Nuclear power stations are not even especially attractive investments for private money. After a plant's active life, decommissioning can also be a very expensive business (this is often why the tab is picked up by the next generation of tax payers). Security issues also cause predictable concerns. It seems unlikely that the 25% of electricity generation figure, will be achieved. Perhaps, that is no bad thing?

Bilge!

Untreated bilge water is illegally discharged into European waters about 3000 times each year (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/mar/22/revealed-ships-may-dump-oil-up-to-3000-times-a-year-in-europes-waters). Untreated bilge water is often contaminated with oil. Bilge can also contain the larval stages of alien species picked up earlier on the ship's travels. Dumping of untreated bilge has many potential etrimental effects on marine ecology. Illegal discharge should be much more closely monitored. Offenders should be punished with fines that reflect more closely the costs of dealing with ecological damage.

Aping Their Colleagues?

A Warwick University study found that Orangutans, in Borneo and Sumatra, repeatedly come up with new versions of their 'kiss-squeak' alarm calls (https://www.theguardian.com/science/2022/mar/21/orangutans-use-slang-to-show-off-their-coolness-study-suggests). The new variants of 'kiss-squeak' alarm calls can differ in pitch and duration. Novel calls are more likely to arise in larger, rather than smaller (more conservative), groups of Orangutans. When novel calls arise, they are quickly incorporated into the group repertoire, enriching its 'slang'. The scientist, who carried out the study, thinks that juvenile apes adopt new calls, to show how 'cool' they are. Perhaps these apes are not so different from humans?

A Triumph of Political Expediency Over the Environment?

Transport generates almost a quarter of the UK's 'greenhouse gas' emissions. Raising taxes on petrol and diesel fuel has been one of that country's methods of limiting climate change (as well as being a 'nice, little earner'). The cost of living crisis has, however, produced a strange cross-party enthusiasm for the Chancellor announcing a 'temporary' 5 pence per litre reduction in fuel duty (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/mar/21/the-guardian-view-on-fuel-duty-cuts-expediency-over-the-environment ). Fuel duty cuts would be popular with the powerful driving lobby. Such cuts would, however, be incredibly short-sighted. Reducing fuel duty effectively encourages people to keep on 'trucking' as well as operating fuel-inefficient vehicles. It has been estimated, however, that only 7% of any savings of a fuel duty cut would go to the poorest (i.e. most vulnerable) 20% of UK households. Slashing fuel duty would also a) make the UK even more susceptible to 'weaponised' of oil and gas production (now evident) and b) further increase the already massive profits of the petrochemical companies. A 'windfall tax' on petrochemical company profits is apparently out (why?). There are better and fairer ways of dealing with the cost of living crisis, that are also more environmentally sound. Using the money to insulate homes, would save the benefitting households much more cash and would slash emissions. Providing free public transport could be beneficial and might take more people off the roads. Money could be spent on rolling out renewable sources of power more quickly. One could even (perish the thought?) increase the allowances paid to assist people in poorer households with food and heating bills. Cutting fuel duty seems hardly to be the 'go-to' action of an avowed 'green leader on climate change'!