UK one of the most nature depleted countries; is that a surprise for anyone?

The UK is in the lowest 10% of countries in terms of wildlife depletion. It is also last amongst the G7 of developed nations. It is thought that we have about half of our biodiversity left (average world levels in 75%). More alarming, it is thought that long-term 90% is the lowest level biodiversity can reach safely and sustain itself long-term.

It should be noted, that this biodiversity loss in the UK is not a new thing. Indeed, the UK has survived in this state for quite some time.

There is currently a conference going on in Kumning China, which is trying to address this.

Addressing biodiversity loss alongside carbon reduction would be the most sensible. Halting the loss of carbon sinks, is also very good for the wide range of biodiversity that thrive in its ecosystems. Can we move to doing both in tandem?

A new act in the US congress might have the capability to slow or halt deforestation, or at least force instigators to face financial penalties

The Forest ACT bill would make global suppliers responsible for the illegal deforestation that their products cause.

This is a long overdue issue. Currently, large companies will structure things in such a way, that small farmers and other land users are encouraged to deforest their land, knowing that the big company wishes this, and will buy all their resources.

It cannot work this way. If these companies are made legally responsible for any deforestation that occurs to provide their products, they will manage to put an end to illegal deforestation over night.

As well as enacting this process nationally, the bill would require USA trade partners to buy in on these new rules.

Will it work? Who knows, but it is likely to have a huge impact on deforestation, as if this rule is implemented, it will never pay to deforest.

It cannot be the be all or end all, but is a fantastic first step.

Back at the beginning of August the Prime Minister’s spokesman said UK net zero emission goal is to far away, have they done anything about it?

Allegra Stratton is the spokesperson for the British Prime Minister’s office, number 10 Downing Street. She stated that the UK target of zero emissions by 2050 was too far away. She stated that the science is clear and we need to be making changes now.

It is true that we have intermediate targets. We aim to reduce carbon emissions by 68% by 2030 and by 78% by 2035.

Continue reading “Back at the beginning of August the Prime Minister’s spokesman said UK net zero emission goal is to far away, have they done anything about it?”

Has Jair Bolsonaro just ruled out his second term?

Despite the absurdly poor behaviour, the ridiculous name-calling, one of the worst ways of handling covered in the world and a determined attack on on the Amazon rainforest and the indigenous people that live there, it may well be his attack on the supreme court that ends the horror show show of the Bolsonaro presidency.

Jair Bolsonaro is the current president of Brazil. He has been terrible for his country, but the damage he has done to the Amazon rainforest is likely to have impacts far beyond the Brazilian border

For any regular readers of this blog, you will have noticed that I have followed the presidential moves of Jair Bolsonaro over the last few years. 

Continue reading “Has Jair Bolsonaro just ruled out his second term?”

Personal update on cutting carbon emissions – the failure of the green house grant

I wrote a while ago about ways that my household was trying to cut emissions. There are lots of things that we are changing to the way that we live, however there were a couple of ways that we intended to reduce emissions from our house.

The UK had a scheme called the green housing grant – with the intention of helping people green their houses. This only ran for a short period of time, and did not use anywhere near the relatively small pot of money that the government had set aside. Initially, the scheme was given £1.5 billion, to be given out in amounts of £5000, or £10,000 for specific groups.

We applied for thermal solar and additional external insulation – as we live in a concrete conclad house, which is well known for more insulation. Unfortunately, though the person who came to look at our house suggested that they could both be done for 10k – this proved to be rubbish. The best quote we got for thermal solar (this is a system that pumps liquid through tubes on your roof and then transfers the heat to your water, for both hot water and heating your home, greatly reducing the amount of gas or electricity you would have to use) was about £8500. This was felt to be unduly high by the green housing grants, so needed explanation so we had to appeal, our reasoning was accepted. The problem is, that by the end of this process, the people who had agreed to install the thermal solar are fully booked for the length of the installation period allowed by the government and there is no way to extend.

This was frankly a complete waste of time.

What is more annoying, is that we bought photovoltaic solar that was supposed to be installed at the same time to reduce cost. So what have we done?

Well, our 2.8kw of solar panels are standing in the garden, and as we have to pay for installation we thought that we should look at how much we could get the thermal solar equipment for.

My go-to on many things like this, is to look at ebay or similar second hand sites. I realize that many people would calculate that the equipment may not last long enough to make this worth the savings, but on the other hand, if we can get things used there are two advantages. Firstly, the item comes essentially carbon neutral: it does not increase the manufacturing carbon footprint to reuse it. Secondly, it should save money.

In our case, we paid roughly £600 for our solar panels. Brand new, the general rule of thumb is £2000 per kwh so , these panels are only slightly over 10% of standard price

For our thermal solar system we have paid 300, and for that we get the panel (this collects the heat) a pump, and an incredibly well insulated tank (this is necessary so that the hot water stays hot until you need the hot water). The general thought is that thermal solar systems cost between £3000 and £6000 to buy. Our green housing grant included installation, but even so, would suggest an expensive install

Installation, is something that we are still looking at, but should not cost more than a few thousand.

So what savings can we look forwards to? Well, a thermal solar system should save us roughly 2/3 of our gas bill (though some suggest it could be as high as 4/5. Our electricity supplier octopus, has a one in one out tariff, which means that our electricity use should drop in price dramatically (potentially coming close to a net zero charge. This would suggest, that our financial savings are likely to approach £1000 a year. Furthermore, while we are on a zero carbon electricity tariff, as we will be supplying about enough for ourselves, this will free up enough carbon free electricity to eliminate perhaps a tonne of carbon emissions. Our thermal solar will also eliminate roughly a tonne a year.

In short, the the financial payback period will likely only be a few years. As we are using second hand thermal and photovoltaic panels, we will be saving emissions from day one, and are likely to save a couple of tonnes a year, or perhaps as much as 40-50 tonnes of carbon dioxide over the lifespan of the panels.

There is still much to do, including greatly increasing the insulation on the house, and buying an electric car. However, cutting roughly 10% off our family emissions is a useful activity.

If all the readers of this site carried out these measure, net carbon reductions could amount to as much as 10 kilotons. There are many things that humans need to do, in order to cut our carbon emissions rapidly over the next decade or so. There are, however, few that can save so much money or be done so quickly.

Chocolate coffee soya and even palm oil appears to be under threat by climate change

Crops around the world are under threat from climate change. Chocolate and coffee may merely be crops that the western wealthy countries enjoy, however palm oil in particular has been planted with the specific aim, in many cases of providing carbon neutral fuels. This is of course stupid as in many of these areas vast carbon sinks have had to be destroyed, releasing vast quantities of carbon, meaning that these palm oil plantations will have to produce oil in places for more than a century before they get back to carbon neutral.

Continue reading “Chocolate coffee soya and even palm oil appears to be under threat by climate change”

Does the UK government care about River pollution?

New rules on polluting rivers came into force in the UK in 2018. Despite a documented 243 cases of unauthorised pollution not one fine was issued.

One argument is that the environmental agency is being poorly funded by the government, and therefore doesn’t have the resources. Of the roughly 10000 environmental agency staff in the UK only 40 are responsible for inspecting farms, meaning that each farm should be inspected roughly once every two centuries.

In defence the environmental agency said that well no fines or prosecutions were mounted 14 letters of warning were sent. The idea that this is a defence of their success rate is quite peculiar. It is clear that in its current form the environmental agency is completely incapable doing the job it is given to do. This needs to change in fast if we are to have a country that has a good environment for both us and the animals we share the the land with.

A logging company based in in Borneo taking a bizarre action

The company in question, which has no rights to do any logging, is now suing the longtime inhabitants and owners of land it wants to clear, for trespass.

This is obviously quite peculiar, and a case that should be laughed out of court. The community alleges the company has encroached on community land, has withheld key documents about the certification process, and failed to obtain free, prior and informed consent of affected communities during the certification process. 

This should be very simple, if they have permission and they got it legally without dishonesty they will be able to prove it. All of the evidence would suggest that that is not going to be possible, and therefore they should be laughed out of court, unfortunately that is not likely to happen.

Should the wolf return to the wild in the UK

Yesterday, I wrote an article on whether the Lynx should be returned to the UK (returning to the home page will allow you to read it). As a medium sized cat, that hunts by ambush and restricts itself to forests, reintroducing it should be a relatively simple decision. The wolf does not fit into this framework. I do however believe that it too should return to its rightful place as part of the fauna of the wild Britain.

Wolf pack photographed in france

How are wolves similar to Lynx? Well they are predators. Indeed, like Lynx they are at the top of the food chain. So why do we need more than one predator?

Continue reading “Should the wolf return to the wild in the UK”

Will climate change kill the forests of Africa?

There are many threats facing the great apes of Africa, from habitat destruction and fragmentation, to hunting for bush meat. Unfortunately, it is now thought that Chimpanzees gorillas and Bonobos face a still greater threat (assuming humans avoid killing off what remains of their population) the loss of about 94% of their remaining habitat due to forest die off from the warming that we are creating.

Could this become something impossible to see, within this generation? I hope not

Even under our most rosy scenario, they stand to loose 85% of their range.

The same studies suggest that as areas become unsuitable, there are likely to be other that become suitable. Unfortunately, dealing with slow adapting animals this will not help at all without significant assistance from humans.

What is even more scary is that this loss would occur by 2050.

I find this horrifying. I have not been able to yet visit any wild great ape populations, and now it looks as though their future is severely limited. It also looks like, by the time my children have children the huge forests of Africa teeming with wildlife, will be no more.

We must act now!

Human communities which live alongside great ape populations must benefit. Of course these communities must not grow and crowd out the wildlife, but if a similar system can be set up that worked for the mountain gorillas, perhaps many of the great apes could be saved and at the same time, pull millions of Africans living in poverty, into more sustainable and profitable lives.

This is not something that must be left to African governments. Indeed, it also must not be just left to tourism. Governments around the world, need to help in this work.

As well as replanting and recovering rainforests across the globe, the human population as a whole needs to work together to save the remaining tropical rainforests which are so precious to our future and that of our descendants.

A French company Biotope is working on sustainable cohabitation between chimpanzees and local communities in the highlands of western central Guinea.

The west African Chimpanzee once numbered around 2 million. Currently there are roughly 500,000, but without urgent action that number is liable to move quickly down to close to zero.

Conservation for its own sake is all very well for those people living on the other side of the world. For those who live close by it is a different matter. Ending the population explosion that is occurring in Africa, is essential both for the human and wildlife populations that share this continent. Similar programs could do the same thing in south America and Asia.

I am well aware that even if successful, this website will only be part of the solution, but I hope that with your support we can do some good.

See Animals Wild