On this post, I will list a group of articles on North American politics and stories. It is unfortunately a fact, that, no matter what your position is on American politics, it has an outsized impact on the rest of us. From emitting as much as a quarter of the worlds emissions, to incredibly high levels of denial -often of facts right in their face, to the bizarre idea that one of their main parties is lead by someone who denies science.
–How has lobbying stalled climate change? We saw it coming, why was it allowed to work?
-Billions of snow crabs from Alaska likely gone due to warmer sea
–Huge amount of natural hydrogen found under USA
Rare white alligator born in Florida park
–Living alongside polar bears Churchill bay, Canada
-USA government spends $1.2billion on conservation, but almost half goes on just 2 species of fish
–Climate Scientist Michael Mann awarded $1million in defamation lawsuit – good news
Two giant pandas which have been on loan to the USA for over 20 years are returning home
Wolves are finally confirmed as back in California – not everyone is happy.
Trump once again claiming that wind turbines lead to whale deaths, by making them batty
Around 60% of fossil fuel projects are protected from protest due to money spent on lobbying
-How has lobbying stalled climate change? We saw it coming, why was it allowed to work
For people who have been studying it for some time, it seemed inevitable. First there is outright denial of the facts (in this instance climate change is caused by carbon dioxide) “its a natural gas”, “we cannot change the climate” and on and on. However, it has become completely untenable to hold to this position (it is obvious). So what is the next position for fossil fuel companies?
Climate talks have been occurring since 1995, when he first was held in Berlin. On each occasion, a huge amount of money is spent by fossil fuel companies and others who will loose out financially due to the move (of course, if these companies went all in, they would stand to gain, but this is not of interest) along with so-called ‘thinktanks’ who generally think the way that their funder wants them to think. For instance, “Global Warming Policy Foundation”, who always refused to disclose its donors, but one, which donated over $30 million was found to have shares in 22 companies which would lose out should climate change action continue. Similarly, Sarah Scaife Foundation, which is the giving arm for a family fortune tied to banking and oil, also gave over $200,000.
This is just one group, but it is incredibly clear, that the majority of groups campaigning against climate change mitigation and fighting to reduce carbon emissions stand to loose much income or indeed go bankrupt, if the world ceases to burn fossil fuels.
It is now simply too stupid to say that global warming is not happening (this is not to say that stupid things like this are avoided – think Donald Trump).
In the UK, there is a similar issue, onshore wind farms. It is easily the cheapest form of power generation, yet it has been targeted by a majority of MPs. Indeed a study found that 47% of MPs think that voters would oppose onshore windfarms, when only 17% in favour, however the actual figures were found to be 14% against and 56% in favour of wind farms, even close to where they live.
This is a larger problem in the USA
What can we do? Well governments must not be swayed by being told things that are simply not true.
Billions of snow-crabs likely vanished due to warm ocean
It appears that billions of these snow-crabs have vanished from Alaskan waters, as a result of the waters being too warm. It appears that they starved to death, because the warmer waters required a higher calorie intake and their diet could not support this.
Found in the Eastern Bering sea, the snow crabs were thought to have been overfished, but it appears that it was mass starvation. 2018-19 was particularly warm, which saw the population boom, before crashing. It is thought that the population dropped by 10 billion in 2022 alone. ‘Unfortunately, it appears that much of the excess heat caused by global warming, is being taken up by waters, with as much as 90% of the worlds excess heat being found in water. This is causing regular coral reef collapse, so it seems obvious that it might effect other sea life in similar ways.
-Huge amount of natural hydrogen found under USA
Hydrogen is considered the holy grail of fuels for the future, as when used, it only leaves water. On earth, though, the majority of the Hydrogen is already tied into water.
There is other places where we find hydrogen like within oil (hydrocarbons), however, as splitting hydrocarbons results in large quantities of carbon dioxide, it is not useful in the fight against climate change (it is named grey hydrogen).
However, people have recently found pure hydrogen pockets underground. Some of these reservoirs are thought to be able to keep the world going for hundreds of years. When I say this, we are talking about trillions of tonnes of this hydrogen in reservoirs around the world.
Now, even with this hydrogen, it would be stupid to burn this in cars, or even lorries – they have been categorically shown to be most effectively powered by electricity, stored in batteries. Even sea-faring ships are likely to have better methods, from solar to kites and various sorts of sails. The one area which could be fantastically dealt with is aircraft. Hydrogen has, weight for weight, around 4 times the energy of fossil fuels (and we are a long way from passenger jets being powered by batteries.
It is not a long-term solution, as we will eventually run out of hydrogen as well, but for the time being, this seems the easiest way to decarbonize air flight. There is also another issue, which is that the hydrogen is often mixed with things like methane, which would have to be removed.
An incredibly rare white alligator has been born in a Florida park
There are an wide array of species which can be born melanistic (generally largely black) or leucistic(largely white). Famous examples include melanistic black leopards, while leucistic animals include white lions, white grizzly bears and a whole range of other rare species. With humanity, pale skinned people of europe and asia will be descended from people born with leucistism.
Alligators can be born albino (with pink eyes) and leucistism with normal coloured eyes, along with patches of skin of the same colour. These are rare, so it is quite something for several to be born from the same nest in Gaterland in the USA.
How can we help polar bears and humans coexist?
As the climate crisis continues (remember that the climate change is happening faster at the poles), humans are moving closer to the poles, and polar bears are moving south as the ice retreats.
As one of the few predators which are known to actively and intentionally hunt humans, this can cause problems.
In a community like Churchill in Canada, this makes life complicated. Conservationists go on patrol with a shogun loaded with a noise-banger cartridge as a deterrent. These are important, as they scare the bears back into the wild, without killing them, and they also alert local inhabitants to the bears presence.
Lying on the north shore of Hudson bay, it is in the right place to encounter bears. However, great progress has been had since the 1970s when problem bears would have just been killed. It is particularly busy over the summer months, when the bears are forced onto dry land for months at a time. While highly resourceful, in the past, they would not have eaten during these times, however the length of this starvation period has grown, and so they try harder to get food. around 100 calls were made for nuisance bears in one year.
Polar bears are endangered, so we cannot afford to kill them. There are only 16000-26000 spread around the arctic, however, these bears appear to stay within their own groups, suggesting that some of these populations may well be more endangered than we thought.
New York lobbyists fighting both sides, happily fighting for the interests of both victims and Perpetrators.
It becomes incredibly clear, when lobbying firms are representing both sides of an argument that no-one is winning.
In this situation, the lobbyists best move, is to keep the argument going as long as possible. As such they are now assisting in climate change (a delay in action is not to the planets advantage. A new report from a group “F Minus” compiled a database of disclosures of state-level lobbying, and LittleSis was a project created by the government.
They looked at the 6 top lobbying firms in New York revealing how education business and cultural leaders (who often claim good behaviour on the environment) are actually linked to the fossil fuel industry.
One example was New York University, which pledged to divest its $5 billion endowment from coal oil and gas, shares its lobbyists with 6 fossil fuel companies including Valero and National grid.
It should be possible to demand that these lobbyists drop firms working against their interests. What is clear, is that a lobbying firm which only works for the fossil fuel companies is not likely to last long.
Across the USA there are 1500 lobbyists working for fossil fuel companies while at the same time working for cities universities and tech firms who have a green reputation – thereby lending their credibility to firms that they know nothing about.
Tellingly, F minus confirmed that in the New York lobbying act, there is nothing to stop a lobbyist from working for and against a bill at the same time.
Given the huge amount of money being spent on lobbying, it would seem reasonable for some lobbying firms to concentrate on just lobbying in the environmental direction – but at the current time, it seems that most companies are quite happy to pay through the nose, despite the lobbying firm working against their aims half the time.
Companies which are environmentally aware, don’t lend your green cloak to firms which have not made the investment that you have.
The USA government spends $1.2 billion on endangered species, but almost half is spent on just 2 species of fish
The array of species that are found in the USA are dizzying. What is more, is that this wide array of species face all kinds of threats, so how is the USA spending half of its endangered species money on the survival of Salmon and Steelhead trout?
The endangered species act passed 50 years ago, and now counts over 1700 species on its list. These include plants, mammals, fish, insects and other species.
That means that around $600 million a year is spent to protect two species and help their population recover. These fish are found along the west coast of the USA.
This does leave a further $600 million for saving manatees, right whales grizzly bears and spotted owls to name just a few.
WHY THIS ODD IMBALANCE?
The endangered species which is thought to have had money spent, but at the bottom of the size is the Virginia fringed mountain snail, which has had around $100 in 2020 and that appears to be it.
The underground dwelling snail has only been seen once in the last 35 years and yet, this is better than 200 other species which have not had a cent spent to try to stop their slide towards extinction.
Furthermore, with climate change rapidly threatening more and more species, the money has to be split between more and more ways.
Currently, it is often given out on the basis of how charismatic the species is, and while this helps keep public support, it means that while spending many millions on the spotted owls each year, a tiny amount could save for instance a species of cacti that is nearing extinction.
So how is the money broken down? An Associated Press analysis in 2020 found 67% (2/3 of all the money) goes fish, with the majority going on several dozen salomn and steelhead populations in California, Oregon and Washington. Mammals account for just 7% of the spending, while birds have around 5%. Insects get around 2% of the funding with plants getting around 0.5% (it should be noted that out of this 0.5% of the funding around 900 trees, ferns, flowers and other flora are protected – for around $26 million.
Is this the best way to go? Often the best conservation projects elsewhere look to protect a whole ecosystem. This is how keystone species came about. It may not be sexy to talk about steehead populations, or cacti species that are almost extinct. However, talk about the 2 packs of wolves that roam this wilderness – where the cacti still surivives, or the Jaguars which roam an area of new Mexico which if protected will benefit other species such as Ocelots.
A change is clearly needed, though whether it happens is another matter
Climate scientist Michael Mann awarded $1million in defamation lawsuit
Michael Mann was forced to sue 2 conservative writers 12 years ago, after they compared his depictions of global warming to a convicted child molester. Famous, as the creator and publisher of the so called hockey stick graph first published in 1998.
While the work bought much positive attention it also made him the easy target for climate sceptics. These two made a number of comments which affected his career and reputation.
In 2012, a libertarian think tank called Competitive Enterprise Institute, published by Rand Simberg. He compared this to a case if Jerry Sandusky, a former assistant football coach at Pen state univesity who was convicted of sexually assaulting multiple children. He got further scrutiny after leaks of emails in 2009 were leaked. Despite being cleared repeatedly, the conservatives continued to attack it. In particular, he wrote “Mann could be said to be the Jerry Sandusky of climate science, except for instead of molesting children, he has molested and tortured data”.
The US government is opening up 22 million acres of federal lands to solar installations
Solar is quickly becoming one of the cheapest forms of electricity generation. It is true that it can take up a great deal of space, but each acre can house roughly 5/8 of an gigawatt of solar. As such, each acre should be able to generate around 3 gwh of electricity a day (more in particularly sunny areas).
With the USA using around 4000 Terrawatt hours per year, which equates to roughly 11 terrawatt hours per day.
In order to produce all of this power, we would need around 3600 acres fully covered to produce this.
In order to make sure that this would be fully covered regardless of the weather, I would suggest using around 10 times as much land, in order to be sure that it is covered. Even 10 times as much, only requires around 60 square miles of land.
Furthermore, there are many crops (like soft fruits) which grow far better under solar than in the open. Choosing from 22 million acres, would allow a great level of flexibility as to where they were put.
Here is a video on this subject.
Florida's dwindling manatees have been given a review to see whether their loss of protected status under the Trump administration should be undone; yet just a few months ago we were treated to a mas sighting of Manatees - we must work to make sure that this is not the last time
Unfortunately, under Trump, it was not the primary issue to decide whether a species was endangered, but rather whether further protection would get in the way of any business venture (and given Trump is famous for building golf courses, it should be noted, that most of the demands that he has made in various places are not essential).
Manatees were removed from the threatened list under Trump in 2017, so what has happened in the years since? Well, in 2018, more manatees died in boat deaths, than in any previous year, and a total of around 20% of the population was lost between the end of 2021 and 2023.
Back in 1991 there were only 1700 manatees with a current population of around 7000-11000. However, that is down 20% in just 2 years.
The future of this species is in our hands
To visit our page on this species click here
Mri Xiang and Tian Tian are two Pandas which have been on loan to the USA and living at the Smithsonians national zoo, are returning to China
Panda diplomacy is an interestingly effective diplomacy tool. China “loans” (more like rents”) 2 pandas to a zoo. These are often used as diplomatic tools, though also much research can still be done around these animals. The first Pandas arrived in the USA when Richard Nixon expressed his interest in the species back in 1972.
These pandas returned with their cub, but it is usual for older pandas to return home, so that they can die back in China.
With them gone, only Atlanta hosts pandas in the USA, and these are due to go home next year.
There is hope for a replacement pair for the national zoo, but given rising tensions, it may not be possible.
Wolves are finally confirmed as back in California - not everyone is happy.
It is unclear exactly how many wolves lived in the USA when Europeans started to settle, however the current population of the continental USA is thought to be around 18,000 though as much as 11,000 of these are in Alaska.
It is estimated though that they currently only live in around 10% of their former range, so it is reasonable to suppose that the population when Europeans first arrived would have been 200,000-250,000. The arrival of the “native Americans” is thought to have had a far smaller impact on wild populations, as they intentionally lived in harmony with the wildlife that lived there (though having been on the continent around 30,000 years, they could have had a hand in the last great extinction event).
There are now an estimated 3 packs of wolves living in California, with the latest living in Sequoya national park. Other areas which would benefit from wolves presence include Yosemite, and lone wolves have been known to be on the edge of this national park several times in the last few years. It is likely to be a different position, when a young couple arrives together. What is clear, is that wolves are now back in California, and while they only currently number around 44, short of an intentional eradication campaign, they are likely here to stay.
There are adaptions that need to be made, in order for them to not eat a lot of livestock, however, the return of the apex predator will solve far more problems than it causes.
Trump once again claiming that wind turbines lead to whale deaths, by making them batty
Will America re-elect a president who is known to have lied in office around 30,000 times? There is a clear rational answer, but politics rarely follows rational patterns.
In this instance, Donald Trump is once again spouting his dislike for wind turbines. There is no evidence to suggest that wind turbines have any impact on whales. Multiple surveys have been done, and there is no scientifically connected reason for whales to have any problem with wind turbines. Certainly, whales are damaged far less by wind turbines than the multitude of threats caused by oil and gas extraction.
With the greatest respect (something that he has made clear (repeatedly) that he does not deserve) Trump is not a conservationist, and what is clear is that the people pushing this line are conservatives not conservationists, we cannot afford as a global community to listen to rich peoples dislike for a stain on their view.
Should the USA be stupid enough to ignore all we know once again, it will hurt the world, but I think on this occasion it will be far more damaging for the USA. Looking at the video below, it would suggest that the reason for these attacks is far more simple – wind turbines threaten the oil and gas industry, so to suggest that these wind turbines are damaging whales causes confusion.
Do not be confused. We cannot afford two-faced politicians any more; conservatives are right and the whole scientific community is wrong on global warming, or conservatives are wrong, scientists in general are right, and the conservative wing is fighting a loosing battle to prop up fossil fuel companies – to the benefit of a small number of very rich people, but against the benefit of the rest of hte country. The interests of a tiny minority should never win, you can change this.
Around 60% of fossil fuel projects are protected from protest due to money spent on lobbying
In a democracy, the people are supposed to be able to elect their representatives, and the representatives are then supposed to govern to the best of their ability.
So why is Greenpeace in the highlighting the fact that 60% of fossil fuel operations are protected from protest?
It seems that the companies in question have spent millions in order to have state lawmakers on side, who then sponsor anti-protest bills.
Laws like this, now cover 18 states, including Montana, Ohio, Georgia, Louisiana, West Virginia and the Dakotas. Anti-protest laws include trespass “near” so called infrastructure, which makes it harder for communities to oppose pipelines and fossil fuel projects. This is despite the fact that these projects threaten their land and water (never mind the global climate). 4 further states have put in narrower restrictioins, though it could still have an impact on the ability for peaceful protestors to register their opposition.
9 out of the 10 companies that did the most lobbying for anti protest bills work in fossil fuels.
For the people on the ground, it is now clear that given a level playing field, it is far cheaper to heat and power their homes from renewables (particularly solar, thermal solar and air/ground source heat pumps, which once installed are far more efficient and cut out the profits for other organisations.
Much of this is against the right for people to power and heat their home from their roofs.
California Public Utilities Commission, has had its thumb on the scales. Obviously the electricity company looses money when houses make their own power, so it is quite bizarre when a public boy behaves so badly. One of the things that this organization did, was to ban properties from having 2 meters. Given the single meter was incapable of keeping track of electricity coming in and going out, this has meant that power produced on the roof of schools or homes, is treated like any other power coming into the house.
This means that the power company can steal any power created on the roof of buildings and then sell it back to the owner as though the power station created it.
This is insane, and is essentially allowing simple theft by the utilities companies. We need to eradicate this, power companies should not benefit, instead they need to be building green power such as wind and solar, so as to supply only green power
Even in Democratic states this is going on, what will happen when republican states move over?
Of course, if you read many recent papers this will continue if Trump is re-elected, as he is ignoring climate change, and vowing
‘drill, baby, drill’