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 $0.21Â 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.Â
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.
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.
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).
NorwaySweden 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.
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.
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.
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.
Looking at the busy mass of growing green, it is hard to see how this is the most inefficient way to grow food…
The study that the article is based on comes from the university of Michigan, and is frankly badly, badly made. It is the quintessential study, where this is the answer, now how do we get there, sort of study.
So, what did they do? Well, they put gardens into 3 different categories
Backyard gardens – single occupancy
communal gardens (like the above)
Urban farms
Your backyard garden has about as small a carbon footprint as it is possible to have, it is possible that fruit or veg from here actually has zero carbon footprint. Community gardens can be a bit different – you have a small area, so you might use more compost or fertilizer, and it is possibly further from where you live, so you might drive to it. However, this kind of place also has a low carbon footprint.
It is essentially just the Urban farms which are a problem here: growlights and watering and temperature controls all add up to large quantities of energy.
This video shows this is an easy way to understand.
Do not be put off! If you have an allotment or a vegetable patch in your garden, this is almost completely carbon free food, it does bring down your carbon footprint.
It is unfortunately the kind of study you can find in a newspaper like the Telegraph; I do not think it would be a surprise for any readers to hear, that this is not the place readers go to find out about the new scientific studies of this kind.
I have been ill, which is why the blog has been quiet for the last few weeks. We are continuing to work on various things, and we hope increasingly, for the articles to come from more sources (which would remove this problem).
We are currently trying to iron out some of our issues, but having done that we hope that this platform can start to reach its hoped for heights (with your support).
Thailand is only thought to have around 120 tigers (as of a photo count last year, but this is up from 100 in 2022). This is a significant reduction on the estimates just a few years ago. It is true that Thailand has significant wilderness within its borders, but there is also significant poaching pressure.
Never-the-less, to see a mother with 3 healthy cubs is rare and very encouraging. Recovery must be allowed to continue, both for the species, and the people of the country, as tigers are worth a great deal in tourism money.
This tiger is the Indo-Chinese tiger subspecies (Click here to visit the tiger page, and scroll to the bottom of the page to click on the subspecies tab).
