Author: Tim

Posted on

What is Trumps views on climate change, anyway, and where is the USA currently on its emissions reduction

Trumps beliefs on climate change, from quotes that he gave

Apologies for those who think that this is covered too much on this website – I to would like to just write on wildlife and the threats that they face. Unfortunately, virtually all habitats on earth are threatened by climate change, and as such, politics in the USA has to be of interest to us all. Should any Americans be reading this – welcome. If this is just confirming what you believe, please spread the word (for much of the rest of the world, while Trump has many, many qualities which should rule him out as president (and even more so as a republican candidate) on this website, we are only interested in policies which result in changes to wildlife and issues with climate change.

The emissions of the USA are currently 13.49% of global population as of 2023. While that does not sound too bad, remember on 4.23% of global population lives in the USA, so in other words, the USA carbon emissions are 3 times the global average (never mind how much they need to drop if we are to avoid the worst of global warming). To put that in perspective, currently Europe emits around 8% of global emissions, but with 9.23%, as a block it emits less than its current fair share of emissions. The EU has agreed to cut emissions by 90% by 2040, relative to 1990 levels, and has currently cut emissions by 30%. In the USA, Biden has set an aim of cutting emission by around 50% by 2030, below 2005 levels, and so far, they have cut around 20% so have a way to go.

Read more: What is Trumps views on climate change, anyway, and where is the USA currently on its emissions reduction

So, having laid out where they are, what does Trump think. Well, one thing to bare in mind, is that Trump is terrible in keeping his word. He says whatever occurs to him in the moment. However, what is clear is he has little to no regard for scientists, and believes that whatever occurs to him is probably right. He is also adamant that whatever cuts are made by the USA, must be made by countries like India, China and Brazil, despite their emerging economy status, or the vast historical emissions of the USA – currently, the USA has emitted roughly 25% of all historical emissions since 1750, while by contrast, China has emitted half of that.

Trumps first term in office, was characterized by a range of things, but they included, a heavy and sustained attempt to increase the extraction of fossil fuels, and it is estimated that should he be elected in November, the result will be a net gain of 4 billion extra tonnes of carbon as a result.

So what do we expect from a Trump presidency 2.0? The list is long, and mine will not include everything. Furthermore, given how willingly he breaks his word, it is impossible to know if he will do any of the things on this list, or indeed, if he would have the support in the other branches of government to even try. Still, this is what he is saying

  • Trump believing that climate change is a hoax: While many Republicans are belatedly coming around to the (now obvious) consensus, that not only are humans certainly the main cause of climate change, but also that we can therefore fix it, Trump is still claiming that climate change is a hoax (various reasons for this hoax include money for departments and bodies trying to deal with in and an attempt for China to take advantage after the USA cuts its emissions and they do not). He is also claiming, that even if he is wrong, the impacts will not be felt for 300 years – a bizarre statement, given the cost to the USA economy in 2023 alone (from worsening weather and similar, like bigger storms) is estimated at $92 billion though, when taking everything into account, this bill is likely to be many multiples higher. We are already facing the effects of climate change, as anyone who looks rationally at changing weather, rainfall and other effects can see after rather quickly . Apart from neither of these being good reasons, both China and USA are thought to be going to face costs that will rank highest, from impacts as a result of climate change. It should be noted, that those Republicans to face the horrific climate causing weather changes, are increasingly coming round to the obvious answer. As such, it is well within their own benefit that they do everything they can to limit its effect. This appears to be something that Trump is incapable of changing his view on, which in my mind should rule him out, but that is me. Unfortunately, given that many Republicans put the economy above climate change, this does not change their mind. It should also be noted, that while Trump does not like them, a majority of Republicans want both renewables and traditional power generation to continue – while this makes little sense (renewables are cheaper, more reliable and will not doom the planet) it suggests that Trump is extreme even in his own party (though this should make you wonder how he was chosen once again).
  • Economy: he was very eager to tout his economy and market, but neither did well. Even just comparing him to the other single term president in the recent era, his increas in GDP was less than half of HW Bush. Indeed, while many would claim you should ignore the drop at the end of his term as this was caused by Covid, but he made this far worse than it had to be. 75% of Americans prioritize the economy over the environment, the foolish result of this, is that they are storing up huge costs to the economy for their children’s generation – most generations try to leave the world in a better state for their children than they found it. In recent polls, 53% of republicans would prioritize climate change mitigation over economy – it is unclear how important this is, but if rational, this should make it impossible for Trump to get elected again (unfortunately it is unlikely to work out like this).

Market gains: He spent much time touting his economy on the basis of stock, but this too, he did not do well in, lying in the bottom half of these presidents.

Not investing in climate change mitigation and reduction is insane – the falls in GDP and the market and peoples standard of living will not be known for a long time, however, without other presidents rapidly correcting the mistakes of Trump, the cost of his decisions on the environment could run into the many Trillions.

  • Withdraw from the Paris climate agreement: now one of only 2 countries working together in this way. While Biden reversed this move when he started, Trump is adament that he will repeat the same move, should he return to the white house. While 1.5°C is likely passed, 2.0°C would be greatly threatened by his return to the presidency.
  • Replace the clean power act with Affordable clean energy: While this sounds similar, it is not, and does not do what is required for power generation. This is not only bad for the climate, but also bad for households, as solar and wind are now the cheapest power, and this is only increasing over time.
  • Attempt to freeze fuel efficiency standards, as well as preventing California from having higher ones: It is a fact that higher fuel efficiency does not only benefit the planet, but also consumers wallets. This is obvious – if your car drives 10 miles a litre rather than 8 miles a litre, it costs 20% less to fuel your car. Trumps argument was that this increasing fuel efficiency cost many billions and was passed on to consumers in higher costs. This is unlikely, given the competition in the market, but anyway, he tried to take these rules back beyond current averages in the fleet (which cost nothing to maintain). Over time, this may well be irrelevant, as the onward march of electric cars may eliminate petrol and diesel from the roads within the next decade or two anyway.
  • Eliminated and reversed the momentum on this issue that was built up in Obamas term
  • Drill, Drill, Drill: In line with much above, Trump has promised to allow as much fossil fuel extraction as is possible, should he get back into the white house. The fact of the matter is that USA oil demand is only falling, and is likely to do so, more and more rapidly. As with the foolishness of the UK government (agreeing to new oil field off the coast of Scotland), the majority of these assets will be stranded, long before the end of the period in which they could continue to be used.

This is a subject which I have written about before, but as I have said before, if I change one mind, it is worth it. While I do not believe that there are any benefits on the other side, few can seriously argue that in the long-term it would be wise to give Trump a second go at breaking the world.

Posted on

Donald Trump is on the ballot once again. What threat does he pose? Is he of interest to the rest of the world?

Hand-over to Donald Trumps first term, could President Obamas vice president have to hand over the white house to the same person?

Some of us find politics fascinating, some do not, but you might quite reasonably ask why look at in on a wildlife and environment blog?

It is, unfortunately, a simple fact that not only is the USA still the biggest economy in the world, but it is the second biggest emitter. Currently the USA emits around 13.7% of the worlds carbon dioxide with a population of 4.23% of the world. In other words, the USA has a huge amount of cutting to do – if the USA cut its emissions by two thirds, then each individual would emit the worlds average amount of carbon dioxide, however, given the need to reach net zero as soon as possible, they have a long way to go.

Why is this relevent?

Last time, while Trump pulled out of the Paris agreement (it had no penalties, so pulling out did nothing) as well as encouraging drilling and deforestation and basically anything that would take us the wrong way in terms of climate change. Intentional? who knows, though it certainly went against many peoples interests, which only made Trump happier!

Currently 35% of Americans like trump, while 63% dislike him (an incredibly small percentage which has no opinion.

Currently, 47% of Americans support republicans, while 42% support democrats. That leaves 11% of Americans not in either camp. There is lots more analysis to be done on this, but what is clear, is that Donald Trump has a strong chance to return to the white house, and essentially the decision is largely in the hands of the people that do not support either major party.

So what would a second term contain?

  • More fossil fuel production?
  • Ignoring Scientists
  • Ignoring rules which are there to reduce warming gases in the atmosphere.

What is clear, is that if Trump gets back into the white house, it is virtually certain that we cannot avoid 1.5 degree warming, as it will delay everything for a further 4 years. The clearest move is that he will work to undo all positive environmental moves, enacted by Biden during his term.

This the world cannot afford, but over 95% of the planet gets no vote. Readers in the USA, it seems unnecessary to spell out why he should not be in a position of power. The damage he will do to the environment worries people around the globe. His move to overturn treaties is likely to harm the rest of the world, but what does USA citizens have to look forwards to?

  • Higher prices on all imports – because of his desire to have trade wars with the rest of the world.
  • He claims to have changed his mind on Obamacare – but it appears that this is simply because as it has unfolded, it has got popular. The fact of the matter is that if he could, he would have dismantled it in his first time. Can he be trusted to maintain it? I would not

He finished his term, desperately trying to tear down democracy in the USA. Can he be trusted? I would not, but clearly there is still many who would.

I think any country who does not ban a man who did everything legal and illegal to overturn a fair election, and does not bar him from office is mad. I find it hard to believe that even the USA would be foolish enough to re-elect him, but the same was thought last time. We are slowly building progress and agreement on climate change, please dont throw that out.

Posted on

Worlds largest iceberg broke free in November, stuck on the ocean floor for over 30 years

Covering 1500 square miles, the iceberg grounded in 1986 on the ocean floor, but now it is free it is heading into the Southern ocean.

Carving like this, is quite natural. Unfortunately, though this is occurring far more often, and this is a sign of global warming.

It should be noted that as this was frozen sea water, it should not raise ocean levels, as the water was in the ocean before it froze and will return as it melts.

Posted on

Wind-turbines on a track? cheaper even than other forms?

Above, is an interesting video done by one of the more popular youtubers in this space. It looks at a fascinating new idea about how we could harness the wind.

You might well ask, why do we need a new way? and that is a good question. The simple fact is that in the current model that we use with the standard wind turbine, they are reaching the biggest size that they can possibly be (there is a wind turbine in China, which is 50 storeys high). It is likely the simplest way to harness wind power at sea, but what about power for a single building or a small village? This new way of harnessing the wind has got Bill Gates attention with a cost of roughly 1/3. Being only 25m tall rather than the normal height, it could be placed in far more places, without reducing the power given. Furthermore, on this system, the whole of each blade actually helps pull around the track, rather than just the tip. It is true that these are early in their process, but why is this useful. Well with this idea, you could for instance put a track over a long terrace of houses, or even over a stretch of motorways. Furthermore, it is possible to put all of the parts of an 2.5mw turbine inside a single lorry.

Installation costs are Airloom energy $0.21  per watt installed, vs wind farm $1.25 per watt on standard wind turbines. Multiplying that up, Airloom would cost $210,000 per megawatt hour, while a windfarm would cost $1,250,000. Looking at it differently, if Airloom succeeds, you would be able to install almost 6megawatt hours of Airloom for every megawatt hour of normal wind turbine. It should be noted that in recent times, solar has overtaken wind as the cheapest form of electricity generation. This to reverse this gain for a very long time. 

 

 

Continue reading
Posted on

Orangutan killings in Borneo still likely common

There is a serious problem in Borneo, that appears to be largely flying under the radar.

A survey of villages found that 30% of villages had evidence of orangutan killiing in the last 5-10 years. This is despite a taboo on killing the species.

The number of Borneo Orangutans is falling, and it is thought that the wild population will have fallen below 100,000 in recent years.

Posted on

African elephant populations in southern Africa have stabilized!

Southern African hosts roughly 227,000 elephants out of 415,000 on the continent (in addition there is around 100,000 forest elephants).

In 2020, the estimate was that 30,000 elephants were being killed each year. While the majority of these were in the west african rainforest, and in east africa (it was estimated that the Selous lost 10s of thousands alone).

It is not even just in recent years, but over the last century, that the elephant population in southern Africa has fallen.

Another bonus, is that scientists are now finding clear proof in study after study, that elephants do better in reserves connected to other reserves, than they do in fortress reserves.

It is of course true, that a single reserve is better than nothing. However, increasingly, countries are recognizing that by building their reserves on the borders of their countries, their neighbours can also have reserves, and between them they can put aside enough land to truly allow elephants to live a more natural life.

From the Limpopo transfrontier park – a transfrontier reserve that includes the Kruger, to the Kalahari Zambezi transfrontier park, the Serengeti mara ecosystem and so many more, this is being shown over and over again.

Careful planning of reserves in west african rainforests, can expand this success at great speed if done carefully.

Posted on

Should wolf hunting return to Western Europe?

The grey wolf or gray wolf (Canis lupus) standing on a rock. A large wolf stands high on a rock in a Central European forest.

Wolves still exist in large numbers in Eastern Europe, and are even doing alright in central Europe (this wolf was photographed in Slovakia).

Back in the 1960s, while small populations survived in Western Europe, the wolf had been exterminated from the majority of their former habitat. There was a remnant population of around 500 in the Northwest of the Iberian peninsular (Spain/Portugal) an Italian population of perhaps just 100 in the early 1970s. While the last Scandinavian wolf was shot in the early 1970s they returned in 1977. Although there has been an unpleasant atmosphere for wolves in scandinavia for a very long time, there is a very healthy population in western Russia, as the whole of Russia is thought to have around 300,000 wolves.

So, with all that said, is it time for wolf hunting to return? The suggestion is that, by allowing hunters to kill wolves, culling would not be required, and this would control the population better. It should be noted, that the same attitude in the USA did not work, as the population was eradicated from various areas all together.

Some of this conversation has been prompted by incidence such as the mauling of Ursula von der Leyen’s pet pony. While this is sad, is it actually a sign of how things are working? or is it bad luck?

The green areas mark the current range of the European wolf

Even in hunting areas, generally the take number is not normally above 10%, and given that the wolf is still a recovering population, it should be recognized that hunting quotas, should likely be below 5%.

So we will look at each population in turn. To see my analysis scroll down to below the overview of each European population.

  • Iberian wolf: current population is around 2500. Data shows that between 2008 and 2014 944 wolves were killed, with 333 of these illegally. This works out at around 10% a year, though without the illegal killing, this number would have been just over 600- not far above 5%. However, it should also be noted that wolf watching is highly popular, with the are around the Sierra de Culebra bringing in just short of €1,000,000. Legal hunting has now been banned, though it is a sensible move to remove it, as ecotourism has always given more money. Illegal wolf killing is harder to know, though much is as a result of predation of livestock. There are increasing numbers of livestock farmers who happily coexist with the wolves – eco-tourism and the money that this can bring in, will certainly make this easier. I have had brief glimpses of wolves from this population, as well as hearing a few wolf packs howling.
  • Andalucian wolf (Southern Iberian wolf population) thought to number around 50-60 back in 2010, the Andalucian wolf was officially declared extinct in 2023. While there may be a few left, there are probably not enough to recover on their own. Wolf populations in the North-west are no longer hunted, which will hopefully lead to these wolves spreading slowly around other suitable parts of the country.
  • Pyrenees wolf and the French alps: The Pyrenees population is small, thought to consist of around 16 wolves, while the total number of wolves in France was estimated 2022/2023 at 1104 in 128 packs (as well as a few pairs). This is a dramatic increase in 30 years, from the 2 that crossed from Italy back in 1992. They certainly have not had everything their own way, with culls keeping this population from expanding too fast. Wolves are capable of travelling great distances when dispersing, and they have been seen in Normandy in recent years. There is much empty space in France, which means that there is much space for a wolf population, and with a boar population of around 2 million, as well as many red and roe deer, there is plenty of food – and keeping these herbivores moving, makes sure that road kill is kept to a minimum.
  • Italian wolf: Wolves survived in Italy, through the whole of the 20th century, with their minimum of around 500 hit in around the 1970s. Since then, the population has rebounded to around 3300, and it is this population which is the origin of the French wolf. Known as the Apennine wolf (living along the Apennine mountain range, the population is relatively stable. While the illegal wolf hunting does continue (resulting in around 200 dead wolves a year) there is no legal hunting quota. There is a sizable wolf tourism market, though from personal experience, this does not exist everywhere that the wolf does.
  • Dinirac/Balkans wolf: These wolves roam through areas, formerly controlled by Yugoslavia, in countries such as Croatia. This whole population is thought to number 3900, but there are few places where the wolf is easy to see. Having said this, there are places in Croatia, where you can expect at least 1 sighting a week (Croatia is thought to have around 200 of the wolves living within their border).
  • Norway Sweden border: Norway has decided that its population, wild as it is, cannot cope with many wolves. Around 45 wolves live exclusively in Norway, with a further 45 holding territories which are split between Norway and Sweden. Sweden has roughly 450 wolves. In 2017, when Norway’s wolf population was estimated at 65, the government said that 47 could be recreationally hunted – that is roughly 75% and is clearly not sustainable. It should be noted, that in Norway, the Caribou are considered wild roaming domesticated animals, and as such, despite being there, it is considered predation if they are killed (at this time, there were 9 wolf packs, with the governments target of just 4-6). In Sweden, last year they set the target number of wolves to be hunted at 75 (twice the 2022 so-called “scientific” number) , though they only recorded 56 deaths – though you should note, that this is still above the 10%.
  • Finally (other than Eastern Europe, covered below) there is a small population in North Eastern France, as well as 2 other small isolated populations in Germany (at roughly the same latitude). These were only settled in recent years, which brings hope that they will spread, and join with larger populations in the area.
  • Eastern Europe, into Russia: This is perhaps the only wolf population in Europe, which might be able to stand significant hunting. The wolf population of eastern Europe, is considered at roughly 10,000, though it is linked to the Russian wolf population which is perhaps a further 30,000. This population is not equally spread, with Romania holding 2500-3000, Poland 1900, Germany up to 2000, Slovakia around 500, and 2000 in Ukraine, and 2000 in Belarus. Lithuania has around 500, with Latvia having 700-800 and Estonia 360 (I recognize that this is over 10,000, which is not surprising, as it is common knowledge that wolf populations are usually overestimated, as this allows bigger culls). Protections in these countries vary, with some countries having laws and others none at all. The population here is generally stable, but tourism money would help sustain this population

So, do I agree with Ursula von der Leyen? No!

Apart from anything, looking at the map of where wolves are found, Northwest Germany is not an area which wolves have yet settled in, so this attack was likely from a roaming wolf. I have every sympathy with her loss, and these roaming wolves are certainly the hardest to deal with. They are usually young, having left their birth packs in recent times, and as such are less adept at hunting, and more likely to go for the easy kill. As their experience grows, they tend to take less and less livestock (provided the wild populations are not overly depleted by humans).

It is definitely a complicated task for livestock owners to live alongside wild carnivores. Unfortunately, that is the reality. Having said this, it needn’t be a negative. Guard dogs, electric fences and a variety of other methods, can reduce predation to negligible levels (though admittedly, doing nothing can cause problems). Whether to help with the cost of these measures to protect livestock, or as an extra, there are also large numbers of people in Europe, who would love to catch a glimpse of a wolf in the wild.

If you live in a place where wolves roam regularly, do get in touch (click on “list your wild place” and fill in the form under “in the shadow of mankind”, we would love to link you with people who might like to see wolves in the wild. We are keen to help the world reach a point where wild animals on your land may complicate your world, but they also increase your earning potential.

Posted on

Indonesia to start a study to see whether the Javan Tiger is actually extinct (44 years after it was declared so)

I wrote a few moths ago, about a picture taken in Java, which purported to show a living Javan tiger. As with many similar photos, it was of low resolution, which in many situations, would appear suspicious. If you are on safari in Java, you would think that you would take a high resolution camera, and that this would be within reach at all times, as such the resolution is not really explained well enough.

Having only gone extinct in the 1970s, there are thought to have been a few Javan tigers held in Zoos, though if they were they have been bred into extinction by mixing with other subspecies. The Ringling Brothers Circus, around 1915, was said to have 2 (one in the image above

The latest study has been started after a hair was tested and found to be from a Javan tiger – but recently.

Now, before I say anything, I have to say that I would love the Javan tiger to still survive. However, the simple fact is that they have not been seen in the wild since the early 1980s.

Continue reading “Indonesia to start a study to see whether the Javan Tiger is actually extinct (44 years after it was declared so)”
Posted on

Scientists think they know what wiped out the largest ever ape (a huge species of Orangutan)

Gigantopithecus blacki – the likely largest species of great ape ever to have existed

Thought to have gone extinct 295,000 and 215,000 years ago, having first appeared around 2 million years ago. Rather than being caused by our ancestors, it unfortunately became extinct as a result of the climate became more seasonal and the plant-eating primate struggled to adapt to changing vegetation.

Might this be a for-shadow for the extinction of the rest of the great apes?

The largest ever primate Gigantopithecus blacki went extinct at a time when Asian great apes were thriving, and its demise has long been a considered a mystery. A massive regional study of 22 caves in southern China explores a species on the brink of extinction between 295,000 and 215,000 years ago. As the environment became more seasonal, forest plant communities changed Primates such as orangutans adapted their eating habits and behaviors in response but G. blacki showed signs of stress, struggled to adapt and their numbers dwindled.

This species was 3m (10 feet) tall, it was around twice the weight of the the largest gorillas. It was first identified around 100 years ago, from fossilized teeth (around 2000 have been found) sold as dragon bones. Around (700,000 or) 600,000 years ago we start to see large environmental changes and during that period we see a decline in the availability of fruit.

As a result Giganto (ate) less nutritious fall-back foods. We’ve got evidence from looking at the teeth structure, Westaway added. Pits and scratches on the teeth suggest it was eating really fibrous food such as bark and twigs from the forest floor.

Funnily enough, they are not thought to have ever lived in caves, but instead had their remains carried there.

As there are no, non-cranial fossils (i.e. any fossils of any part of this species below the neck) , it’s hard to know exactly what Gigantopithecus would have looked like. Its upper molars are 57.8% larger than a gorilla’s and the lower molars are 33% larger, suggesting its body weight would have been 200 to 300 kilograms.

Given its size, it is thought to have long abandoned the tree-tops, though given its closest living relative is the Bornean Orangutan, of which, older males are often spending more time on the ground given their large weight as well.

There are fossils of homo erectus from nearby, from around 800,000 years ago, suggesting that we might well have lived alongside them. How happy or harmonious this relationship is, we cannot know. Unfortunately, given recent history, it is quite likely that directly or indirectly we had a hand in this species extinction, given our impact on almost all other species that we know.

Posted on

Should wolves in Europe have their conservation downgraded? Are they really stable enough to be hunted again

The European commision has proposed downgrading the protection of wolves from their current strictly protected, but it has been suggested that this is not based on any science.

A total of 9 countries (The call for a re-evaluation of the annexes of the EU Habitats Directive is included in a note put forward by Finland with the support of Austria, Czechia, Greece, Italy, Latvia, Romania, Slovakia and Sweden, ahead of the EU Agriculture Council meeting of 23 January).

The problem with this move, is that while in some countries like Romania, there is a large and healthy wolf population, in other countries like France it is a very different matter. If there is a change in their status, it needs to be assessed country by country, and the European Union must really require minimum levels, otherwise, this move is highly likely to lead to the extinction of the wolf across much of Europe once again.

While living alongside wolves is not always simple, it is essential to have predators to control populations of prey, such as deer. This is not something that is easily replaced by culling, and in the UK, the likely reduction in car collisions with deer would save far more than the cost of compensation for the occasional livestock that might be lost (of course, the wolf is not currently wild in the UK and the current government sees no reason to change this).

While complicated, the interest in the wolf is high, and it is highly likely that farmers would be able to supplement their farming income by money they could be paid through ecotourism and allowing people to try to see the wolves from their land. Wolves as with many other species are still slowly recovering from centuries of persecution, they are needed for our ecosystem to flourish, and can be good for everyone, with adjustments and compensation for loss of livestock.

See Animals Wild