Category: News

Posted on

Colorado is looking to move a wolf pack – less than a year after it was reintroduced

In 2020, wolf reintroduction into Colorado was agreed by the human population there, while this happened in December of 2023, the nearest wolf population lies around 400 miles north in Wyoming, and this is a distance that is easily covered by wolves. As a result, some wolves have turned up on their own.

Around the beginning of September this year, it was decided to move the pack, to halt hunting of livestock that the pack was doing (though generally hunting of livestock is at very low levels). Unfortunately, the male of the pack was killed in the attempt. Given that wolf packs generally contain a breeding pair, and their offspring (cubs and older offspring often from the year before), the female cannot pick another mate from her pack, as they are often all her cubs. The capture of the wolves for translocation, occurred through leg traps, which in this individual became infected and caused the death. A second of the moved wolves has died, after a suspected fight with a mountain lion.

The cubs are intended to be released in the winter, when they are old enough to hunt for themselves, though the fate of their mother is yet to be decided.

This gives an idea of the recovery of wolves around the USA. One thing to note, is that even Alaska has a wolf population that is very similar to the rest of the USA.

It should be noted, that the red wolf is a separate species. Genetic analysis has found that the red wolf has both grey wolf and coyote DNA, but is to distinct to be classed as a subspecies. The map above only lists 17 red wolves in the wild (other sites suggest 17-19). They were reintroduced in 1987, and while their population did grow to roughly 150, hybridization with local coyotes, meant that the population has since collapsed once again. There are an estimated 290 red wolves in captivity, and there has been action taken to remove coyotes in areas where they species were meeting – and people are working towards releasing more red wolves into its range.

Of interest, the Southwest wolf numbers are also known as the Mexican wolf. There are a further 45 across the border in Mexico. This population was thought originally to number in the several 10s of thousands (though given the USA population was estimated at between 250,000 and 2 million both have suffered horrific declines).

As with Europe, the recovery of the wolf is requiring people to learn to live alongside an incredibly wily and potentially dangerous species. However, wolves play important roles in the natural environment, and their return should be seen as a good thing. While occasional culls are necessary, these should be decided on scientific basis, and not at the whim of state politicians, who often choose unscientific culls because it is a vote winner. Many argued against delisting, as the wolf population is below 4% of the historic population (and excluding Alaska, below 2%) but Donald Trump rarely worried about science. What is going to happen to wolves now, as he has been returned to the white house for a second term, we will have to wait and see.

Posted on

Donald Trump is president again – impact on the world

I am not going to pretend that this is not bad. Donald Trumps former term was bad for the natural world and the fight against climate change. Likely changes:

  • Leaving the Paris climate agreement again – there is some suggestion that this will lead to a collapse of the agreement. Trump has pushed coal among other fossil fuels, and is likely to roll back various progress. Perhaps a possible hope is Elon Musk and his closeness to Donald Trump – might this relationship mean that less is done against electric cars? Last time, the USA carbon emissions fell despite everything that Trump did (definitely not because). Keeping temperature increases to just 1.5 degrees Celsius is pretty much impossible, if the USA does not do its part.
  • Denialism and doubt will return – it is not just that Donald Trump is not willing to work towards the end of carbon emissions, but he does not believe that global warming is real. This is a real indictment on how he forms his views of the world, as it is a simple fact that the world is warming
  • Clean energy policies will go, along with scientific decisions on wolves and other wildlife within the country. This is quite likely to have an impact on global biodiversity, as the USA will abandon its lead on this.
  • Under Trump the first time, protected status for species no longer required the same protections, and much wilderness in the USA lost its protection. A return to office is likely to make this far worse.

The situation is serious. Having been president before, it is highly likely that trump will be more effective this time, as he knows more than last time. He has retaken the Senate, and it looks like he is going to take the house as well. Will he manage to use his position more effectively? Leadership on climate, biodiversity and many more things will fall open, we must wait and see if other countries step up to fill their shoes, and continue to push forwards.

We are in for another bumpy road

Posted on

Toyota now claims just the electric car market will never be bigger than 30% – you have to be kidding

Akio Toyoda is the chairman of Toyota ($10.2 million earnings in 2023) claims electric cars will never exceed 30%

So, when someone who is chairman of the car company which sells the most cars in the world says something, people listen. Toyota sold a total of 11.23 million cars in 2023, out of a market of around 92 million cars, or around 12% of global car sales. So perhaps he is right? Well a large number of people do not think so.

His arguments against electric cars include

  • access to electricity – 1 billion people worldwide do not have electricity. However, there are only 1.475 billion cars in the world, or 2 for every 11 people in the world. Further more, it seems likely that the 1 billion without electricity, probably also do not have a car.
  • Customer choice – he argues that customers should be able to choose the powertrain they want. However, the electric car has not been explored by Toyota, as they only have one fully electric model, the BZ4X and the UX400e (under the Lexus brand). The BZ4X is a premium car, but it only has an official efficiency of 2.9 miles per KWH, which is worse than the large tesla X gets (this car is over 34cm longer, and almost 9cm taller. This makes it more comparable to the tesla y (still 6cm longer, 2.4cm higher, slightly less ground clearance, but 34% more cargo space), however this car (which you can see is bigger) gets 4 miles per kwh, over 33% more efficient.

Well, lets look at the statistics.

Continue reading “Toyota now claims just the electric car market will never be bigger than 30% – you have to be kidding”
Posted on

Political suggestion for Americans – do not vote for Trump

We all know what Donald Trump is like. On climate change, he changes what he says on each time. However, his beliefs become clear, when we look at his behaviour. He took the USA out of the Paris climate accord, and made every effort to reverse all improvements on this front.

There are many reasons not to vote for Trummp. While there is a baffling desire to support Donald Trump from the Christian right, consider the facts 

  • He is a thrice married man, who has cheated on all his wives
  • He does not have any idea on the bible, and while he tries to suggest he is a Christian, has no idea what the bible contains. 
  • He has no idea what it is to be a Christian, what it means (see video below). Jesus turned himself over to be killed by the authorities, look at what it means, before voting for this man again. You may disagree with everything that Biden has done, but he is clearly a man who has a relationship with God, look at it rationally before voting for a man who has shown himself to be unsuitable for the role.

What is a Donald Trump second term going to mean for the environment, nature and climate change?

  • He is especially opposed to wind power and has promised to halt offshore wind development, which he claims harms marine life. Not only is impact on marine life not true, these are not only the cleanest, but also the cheapest ways to make power (wind and solar is currently around 50% less than coal power, and this is only getting better).
  • Trump greatly expanded the right to hunt on federal land. His changes increased hunting of wolves to such an extent that many years of progress was lost. Grizzly bears are in a similar position, as well as Jaguars and many other more common species.
  • While carbon emissions did fall under Trump, this was despite not because of him. He relaxed rules on carbon emissions from cars (despite the opposite direction that the market is going).
  • He has greatly expanded drilling for both oil and gas, and has no intention of curtailing this. We cannot afford to burn all the fossil fuels, but this is not Trumps position.
  • He rolled back over 100 major climate policies and rolled back many more rules governing clean air, water, wildlife and toxic chemicals, despite his mantra of clean air and clean water. Click here to view a new york times with all of these in detail.
This is just a quick list of some of the reasons why you should not vote for this man. Should you have children, or child relatives, it should be obvious why, and I would hope that even without descendants, you would want to leave the world in a better place.

Please share this, and other similar articles with friends who can vote. Lets help Americans to recognize the danger that Trump poses – analysis shows that should climate change continue, the USA falls in just third from the top, in terms of the amount they are likely to have to pay, should climate change continue.

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Posted on

Is climate change denial over? Well perhaps white-washed into climate doomism

CC by sa 2.0 climate change denial photo credit Edward Kimmel

Why is climate change denial still not over? Because the amount of money that can be made by denying climate change.

Has there been a change? Yes, but not necessarily for the better. For many people (generally with a financial motive) they have gone from outright climate denial, to climate doomism – we have already emitted too much carbon, we are going to see global warming, so there is nothing I can do (this has the advantage of allowing those people to continue to behave in the same way). Climate doomism says, I am too little, I cannot do anything.

Continue reading “Is climate change denial over? Well perhaps white-washed into climate doomism”

Posted on

Has France decided their wolf population is too big?

In 2023, the wolf population of France fell by 9%. This population was thought at 1003, down from over 1100.

It should be noted that France, as a large country, is likely to easily be able to support many more wolves than this. There are parts of the country, where wolves have not returned, with their main population lying in the Alps and surrounding areas, but also along the border to the East, and along the south of the country, with another population lying in the Pyrenees (it should be noted that this population is just started – thought to only be 16 individuals, though likely already increased). Should the wolf population in the Pyrenees become stable, wolves would be capable of using them as a staging area for repopulating both Spain and France.

In short? No, there is not too many wolves in France. This is patently absurd. It is true that many people believe that wolves have no place in France. In the UK, while I cannot see any UK government doing something sensible and returning them, there are many benefits. There are likely over 200,000 red deer, and 500,000 roe deer within the French nation. As such, predators are important, and with careful monitoring, the downsides are small.

With care, wolf watching could develop as a significant market within France

Posted on

The end of coal powered electricity generation in the UK? Where is the rest of the world on cleaning their power generation

The last coal powered power plant in the UK is having its last day today, before it is closed down

The shrink in the electricity generation in the UK for coal, has been quite astounding. in 2006, coal produced 37% of the electricity for the UK, dropping to zero by 2024.

Holborn Viaduct was the first coal power plant, opened in 1882 (In the early 1800s, coal was used to make town gas for lighting and to fuel the expansion of Britain’s burgeoning railways, but not for electricity).

It is estimated that the UK has burnt 4.6 billion tonnes of coal since this time, emitting a little over 10 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide.

Greece and the U.K. achieved the fastest coal power reductions — moving at a quicker pace than what’s needed globally but Denmark, Spain, Portugal, Israel, Romania, Germany, the United States and Chile are all not too far behind. However, there is still a huge amount of work to be done. Coal, the most polluting fossil fuel, supplied 36% of electricity generation in 2022. This must drop to 4% by 2030 and then 0% by 2040 if the world is to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees C and prevent the most catastrophic impacts of the climate crisis. This is frankly an astounding rate of decline, and there are many countries around the world, who will have to be supported, if we are to meet this requirement.

Paradoxically, the USA also appears on the list of countries furthest from phasing out coal, along with India and China. It is quite feasible for the USA to cut its way to coal at a surprising rate (though whether Trump returns to the White house, or Kamala moves from the vice presidents wing, to the presidents wing, is likely to have a big impact on whether coal is left behind in the USA or not)

It is true that coal is the most dirty fuel, but we still have a great deal of work to do as a species, if we are to avoid the worst of global warming. It is thought that we have just 6 years to stop burning gas, and this accounts for around 22% of global electricity generation. In much of the west, gas is also used for heating, and while there are alternative options (we had a heat pump installed this year, after it was clear that our boiler was failing). 73.8% of UK houses are heated in this way, and so there is clearing a big need for the transition to occur faster.

In the UK, all electricity generation is meant to be carbon neutral by 2035, so gas must disappear by then – though as the financial penalties for continuing to burn things and the cost of other electricity generation falls, the financial imperative to end gas power plant use, is only going to increase, so we may well get there far faster. It should be noted, that the government also has a 95% electricity generation target in 2030, so gas must reduce fast over the next 5-6 years.

Currently, wind power generation accounts for 30 gigawatt hours, but the 2030 target is 50, and solar generation is targeting a 5 fold increase in the amount of generation by 2035. These two alone, will greatly outweigh the loss of gas.

Of course, you can save money in almost any part of the world, but installing solar (we nearly have ours working) will not only help in cleaning up the grid, but our investment, is likely to be paid back from savings in around 3 years.

In the global south, it is even easier to make this work.

Posted on

Wind energy grew by 50% in 2023, is it enough?

50% growth in a year, is the fastest pace recorded in the last 20 years. The COP28 has a target of tripling clean energy capacity by 2030, and this speed keeps this target in contention.

Worldwide renewables have now reached 510 gigawatts of energy, which is fantastic, and means that humanity stands a good chance of pushing out fossil fuels in the near future. However, it suggests that renewable power is behind target, with the expected increase being 250% by 2030, rather than 300%.

Still, it is growing, and many countries are only slowly getting round to making their own progress. Another positive, is the increasing number of houses that are putting solar panels on their own roofs – with the huge rewards for investing in solar (and other home generation) and the reducing costs, the finances are increasingly obvious. While this is initially, meaning that well off people in the developed world are doing this, there are large parts of Africa, which are skipping large joined electricity networks, and getting remote communities off grid one by one.

It seems inevitable, that wind and solar are going to supply the majority of our energy needs in the future, however, the faster this happens, the better it is for all of us.

Posted on

Eu cancels nature restoration law and its needed

Back in march, there was plans for the EU to put into laws, that would require 20% of land and sea areas in the EU to be restored by 2030. This was postponed indefinitely, after it became clear that it would not pass.

More than 50% of Romanias ancient forests have been lost in the last 20 years

In the main, two groups withdrew their support. The first group (often touted as pro-wildlife) was farmers, and the second was the country of Hungary.

Firstly: Farmers are often talked about as being pro-wildlife but this is often not the case. Laws on usstainable farm practices (such as crop rotation and reduced use of pesticides have been weakened or abandoned as a result of opposition – despite the vast majority of consumers being for these laws).

Secondly: Hungary – why is Hungary so against recovery of wildlife? This is an important question, though it should be noted, that Hungary is one of around 5 countries in central Europe, that is almost a complete block for wildlife to migrate from Eastern Europe into the little (wildlife) populated areas of western Europe. This can be a problem, as the few populations that hold on, in western Europe, are often small meaning that in order for the wolves/bears/lynx or other species to survive and thrive long-term, they need new members of their species to arrive, in order to widen the genetic base.

If such a small group of people can block this sort of project, it is a problem, as we do not vote to destroy areas.

Posted on

Might carbon neutralization policy eliminate the remaining habitat of the North China leopard (also known as the North-west China leopard)

The Chinese government has introduced a carbon neutral policy, in an attempt to mitigate and reduce the impact of climate change. Under the expected model for what is going to happen to the climate (at the current time) the North China leopard will gain in range, However, with the increase in carbon emissions, this territory is also expected to the reduction, migration, and fragmentation of the suitable habitat distribution of the North China leopard. It should be noted, that under genetic analysis, some authorities merged the north China leopard with the Amur leopard. Many disagree with this.

Havin said this, carbon neutrality policies can protect suitable wild habitats when carefully planned. In the future, the impact of carbon neutrality policies on future wildlife habitat protection should be carried out in depth to effectively promote the construction of wildlife protection projects – for instance, by making sure that planted woodland matches native woodland, and therefore adds to existing ecosystems. In many parts of the world, trees planted for carbon sequestration are often picked for how fast they grow – and thus eucalyptus trees have often been used. The problem with this, is that they are often impossible of supporting local wildlife, from insects to birds and even mammals. This was seen clearly in the UK, where a pine plantation replaced an oak woodland, the number of species supported, dropped from 200 to just 4.

The North China leopard is considered critically endangered, with the population definitely under 400 (given its remote habitat, a clear count is hard to get. It is undeniable that the North China Leopard and the Amur Leopard are genetically close, and quite conceivably closer than they should be for 2 subspecies. Should these 2 subspecies be recognized as one, it would allow us to greatly expand the genetic makeup of both populations. This would likely have a huge impact on both areas, and allow each population to expand rapidly.

It is essential, that as we grow huge areas of forest, to soak up as much of our carbon emissions as possible, that these fit into their ecosystems and are a positive addition. Apart from this appearing to be common sense (why would you not boost endangered species around the world, if we have to plant these forests anyway) but also, should you plant fast growing trees from elsewhere, very often they die, or cause serious issues elsewhere.

The right climate mitigation will have a bigger and longer term impact, something that is essential.

See Animals Wild