Oil, Gas and coal roundup ( more in future)

While these fuels power much of the creation of electricity around the world, as well as most transport and heating, they all need to either be left in the ground or 100% of their emissions. Below is a roundup of a group of articles of importance on these subjects.

Uk’s £22 billion carbon capture pledge follows surge in lobbying by fossil fuel industry, records show

Continue reading “Oil, Gas and coal roundup ( more in future)”

Deforestation and palm oil stories: Deforestation is not a desire, there is demand for what is done with the land

Cattle in a newly deforested area on the edge of more Amazon rainforest – threatened in the future? photo credit Alice Mitchel

The problem with stopping deforestation, is that for the majority of the world we are far removed from rainforests (from where I sit in the UK, I would have to travel 3250km (over 2000 miles) to the nearest rainforest, which is an area on mainland India). Indeed, rainforest is generally something that only survives in developing countries.

This means that, for most people, they either live far removed from the rainforest, and so cant see it impacting them, or they live near a rainforest, but are struggling to provide for their family and those around them. It is quite true that many people in both the first and third world would like the rainforest to survive – indeed, should you talk to people in the west, many are very worried about the survival of the great apes, who are rapidly loosing land.

The problem is simple. Those living in the third world are living hand to mouth, so unless they work in tourism, the rainforest is often an inconvenience that makes life harder.

In 2023 a total of 6.4 hectares of forest were destroyed – more than 25,000 square miles. However, more concerning is the fact that 62.6 million hectares of forest (almost quarter of a million square miles) was degraded – for road building, logging, and forest fires. Degraded land is often less good for carbon storage, as well as conservation of the worlds wild species. It is often, then not long, before someone comes along a removes the rest of the plants so that the land can be used for something else.

And what was this deforestation for (other than logs)? Beef, soy, palm oil paper and nickel.

The Brazilian Amazon is one of the bright spots, where since the election of Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, deforestation has fallen 62%. Unfortunately, in the same time period, Indonesia’s deforestation is up 57%

It seems hard to see how the world will meet its goal of cutting deforestation to zero by 2030 as most countries have pledged. Also, despite reductions in deforestation, the Amazon has had one of the hardest years in terms of forest fires – something that only gets more likely as rainforests are lost, and climate change increases the temperature in many parts of the world. It is a sad fact, that there is often not a great deal of temperature difference between a rainforest which is functioning, and one that dries out and becomes a fire hazard.

Having said all this… a study in Indonesia has found that controlled low-intensity logging doesn’t have to negatively impact a forest in terms of carbon storage or food availability – this in turn means that much wildlife can survive.

The problem often is that if the land is in private hands, then low- intensity logging is not going to happen. If the landowner has decided to deforest, they will raze the land. In national parks, in theory low intensive logging would be possible, but this would require people to control the logging, and this is the issue that we have in the first place. Unfortunately, despite the pledge by 140 countries, deforestation is coming back.

In a related subject, the Indonesian president Prabowo Subianto has stated that palm oil expansion won’t deforest because palm oil has leaves. There are many issues with this, but perhaps primarily amongst them, when forests are cut down, they are usually replaced with grass lands for grazing cattle – these are also covered in leaves. This is obviously stupid – it may well be a better thing, that the rainforest is going to be replaced with plantations, but it has been shown that palm oil plantations take up a tiny proportion of the carbon that rainforests take up.

In another article, there was a finding that macaques living in palm oil plantations have an alarming infant mortality. Unfortunately, these macaques are not unique in being threatened by palm oil, but others include orangutans, elephants, tigers, pangolins, bonobos, and Irrawaddy dolphins.

While palm oil may be a better vegetable oil than other crops, it still looks like it will lead to us loosing most of our rainforests, unless a grip on this is found.

Toyota was a climate hero in the 1990s, why is it now to exact opposite?

I have spent a great deal of time, recently, working on a variety of areas of the website that I hope to become important in the near future (including members areas). During this time, I miss writing on these subjects, so I would open tabs on news articles that had caught my eye – when I turned my attention back, there were more than 1000 tabs. Several hundred are wildlife news, which I will deal with in the near future, but the rest have been grouped. There is a long video embeded in the bottom of the page, which gives similar information but in more detail, if you would prefer (produced by the electric viking)

This grouping is stories about Toyota, and its various moves which appear to clearly show their moves to make the climate worse not better.

Continue reading “Toyota was a climate hero in the 1990s, why is it now to exact opposite?”

Why are people determined to believe that wind turbines kill whales

Coastal Australia is having another flare-up where locals are suggesting that wind turbines are killing whales. If this were the case, it would mean that those who want to save the planet would need to choose between climate change and conservation of whales.

Read more: Why are people determined to believe that wind turbines kill whales

Pictures put up, include images of whales on fire, among others – paid for Newcastle adn Port Stephens Game Fish Club. They suggested that the posters highlighted risks that were known for the whales, but there is no credible evidence that wind turbines have any impact on whales (except during building, but as the picture shows this is short-lived). Indeed Quentin Hanich who is the editor of the academic journal Marine Policy recently had to spend a week debunking a fake article that purported to come from his publication, which claimed that 400 whales would die a year, if a proposed wind farm went ahead. While the facebook post where it originated was taken down, the fake articles can be written far faster than they can be taken down. This offshore wind farm in New south Wales, is opposed by everyone from locals to MPs from outside the region – usually because the are opposed to renewable energy development.

This seems short-sighted- while Australia does have a large coal industry, most is exported (only around 30% is used in the country, and coal in electricity generation is now so much more expensive than almost any renewable generation, that its days are numbered) and of Japan,South Korea, Taiwan,and India which takes the majority, only India does not have a 2050 pledge of zero carbon – so if those promises are to be kept, the market for most of the coal will disappear within the next 25 years.

Opposition has been fanned by the coalition, and people like Baraby Joyce (a renewable energy opponent and climate change denier) have been loudly stating that support for renewables was a cult and the people should fight back.

Amanda De Lore is also fighting against it, and suggest that the 3 month consultation period was rushed and hidden (it was not) and that offshore wind is “not clean, green energy”. She stated that the project was not taking her groups concerns into consideration. However, when concerns are raised which do not conform with reality (like suggesting that offshore wind turbines are not green) they should be ignored. Importantly, when you compare the death toll of offshore wind turbines to a coal power plant, the numbers are stark with thousands more species killed by coal power.

This is part of the issue with public consultation. When opponents lace the population with falsehoods, you find yourself having to engage in a years-long effort to correct, before you can even have an intelligent conversation.

What do we do when carbon offset markets collide with land rights

Stable glaciers are very effective carbon sinks, though if they then melt, they tend to loose all their stored carbon

The problem with carbon offsets, entirely depends on how they are used. When carbon offset money is given to a local project, but many try to buy an area from locals entirely. Kenya currently hosts 11 glaciers within Mount Kenya national park.

The problem is that, many of these projects require a rainforest to be left standing or something similar. Without buying from locals, and an income from the carbon offset to support the people who will loose access to the resource, it is highly unlikely that the deforestation rate will fall at all.

Much of these offset programs are being set up in Africa, on a continent which has the least responsibility for climate change, and yet local people are loosing the rights to land that they have lived on for millennia.

Just how endangered is the Vanuatu dugong? First survey since 1988 underway

The quiet bays in the Melanesian archipelago are perfect for the sea grass meadows, which in turn means that it is fantastic for dugongs – animals also known as sea cows. Just a few years ago, these animals were a regular sight. Growing up to 4m long and 400kg, just a few years ago, it would not be an unusual day when you would see one of these animals in both the morning and afternoon. Now they are rarely seen.

Officially, they are only classed as vulnerable (one of the lowest forms of endangered), but given how long it has been, it is unclear how the population is doing. However, unfortunately, given fishermen (and other people on the wate), are encountering them so rarely, it is likely to have got worse. Dogongs in this area behave differently to Australia where they have huge seagrass meadows, so this full survey is certainly required.

Read more: Just how endangered is the Vanuatu dugong? First survey since 1988 underway

It would be another area, where a growth in the ecotourism industry (ethical – not damaging the animals or stressing them) could be fantastic. Many surveys done on sea mammals, take on tourists to reduce their cost. Personally, I will always look for a research boat, as they want to be there, and will not go out if there is no chance of sightings.

The next-door population of New Caledonia was recently downgraded to endagered, and the east African population is classed as critically endangered.

Globally, the threats to these animals include gill-net fishing, boat traffic, coastal development and even hunting. Unfortunately, climate change is also a threat – rainstorms are becoming far more common, and these are damaging the seagrass, alongside cyclones.

Currently, it is estimated that the world looses 7% of its seagrass meadows each year. This should be concerning, as sea grass has a roughly equal ability to draw down carbon dioxide to land rainforests – so the more we loose the harder it will become to halt global warming. It should also be noted, seagrasses grow more healthily with dugongs present – help keep seagrass beds healthy by grazing on them, which controls their growth and disperses their seeds. This process is called “cultivation grazing”. The benefits on seagrasses include growth control (rapid growth can be bad for the long-term survival of the seagrass), disperse seeds (often with some ‘fertilizer’, which can help the seeds grow particularly well- and like various plants and elephants, seeds that have gone through a dugongs digestive tract is more likely to grow than those that do not), Improve genetic diversity (dugongs move between areas of the meadow, and take seeds with them) and help recovery after cyclones (by connecting areas of the meadow, reseeding meadows in danger from elsewhere where they are doing alright).

Unfortunately, this makes the dugong a keystone species – therefore, its loss would have a very negative impact on the whole ecosystem. Other species that rely on seagrass including sea turtles, manatees, a wide array of fish, many sharks are born in the seagrass, including lemon sharks nurse sharks, and bull sharks. A wide array of birds are similarly reliant.

Deforestation in Columbia has fallen 36% in a year

Rainforest is essential if we are to combat climate change. Therefore every fall in deforestation is fantastic news.

Of course, it should be noticed, that this is still a loss of 792 square km of forest from the year before – we need to reach zero forest lost per year, but every step towards this target is positive.

The former higher rate of deforestation has its roots in the chaos caused by the fall of the largest guerrilla group the Farc, which disbanded in 2017.

Columbia is considered the second most biodiverse, is fighting to be a leader in the fight against climate change. Of course, this needs to continue to fall, and indeed have large areas replanted, if we are to avoid much of the climate change, but one step at a time

Currently, in the Amazon rainforest, 5 times more carbon is released from degradation than from deforestation – and still what remains continues to burn

A study, using detailed 3d surveys, found that road building, and other degradation is causing 5 times as much carbon to be released into the air, than deforestation of the Amazon.

From road building, to selective logging, fires and natural disasters, all these activities are combining to having a greater impact on carbon stocks in the Brazillian Amazon than deforestation. This huge discrepancy is not taken into account by the numbers.

This is also a problem to the world, as this carbon is being radically underestimated, which means that large quantities of our remaining carbon budget are being used up. This new survey used lidar, which gives a more accurate idea of what is left in terms of forest cover.

Read more: Currently, in the Amazon rainforest, 5 times more carbon is released from degradation than from deforestation – and still what remains continues to burn

With the addition of lidar sensors on the ISS, it is possible to scan the worlds forests more often – and given the ISS regular passing over 90% of the earths surface (in each 24 period – as while it orbits on a set path, the earth turns below it) this can be a good tool to keep an eye on the forests of the earth.

Another confirmation (as if it was needed) has been supplied by this study, showing that Indigenous territories and conservation units are both more efficient ways to protect the forest. These cover only 47.5% of the land, but contain just 9.1% of the forest clearing 2.6% of the logging and 9.6% of the fires.

Talking of fires

Fires continue to burn in the Amazon, with over 13,400 having been recorded in 2024. President Lula has called for general mobilization and Brazil has pledged to end deforestation by 2030. This is higher than during Bolsonaro’s time in office, though current cause is a drought, not human mismanagement.

Climate change is causing an increasing change in weather patterns, and reduced rainfall is changing the forests behaviour ( it should be noted, that the forest produces a not -insignificant portion of its rainfallm

The livestock lobby is fighting against lab-grown meat this is why we must not let them win

Livestock takes up roughly 20% of the worlds land, or around 50% of the worlds agricultural land. Astoundingly, around 1.3 billion people around the world are involved in the livestock industry.

The worlds remaining land wilderness, takes up just 25% of the worlds land – should we move toa system of growing meat in labs, we could almost double the amount of space for wildlife, which would allow many of the worlds endangered species to recover.

Apart form saving so much of the worlds wilderness, and wildlife, why should we do this? Well, firstly, the fact that people want things to stay as they are, is not new. Every new invention has lead to a change in the lives of many people – before farming came into existence, all the healthy men of each village (and in places, many of the healthy women) would have spent the majority of their time hunting. Looking at the natural world, animals like lion and leopard split their time between hunting and resting, with little else (apart from reproduction) being thought of.

As electric cars started to appear, the vast majority of car companies tried to stop their progress. Indeed, many spent their time buying inventions and smaller companies, just to kill their electric car program. This was not because they were intrinsically afraid of the electric car, but because they were afraid that if adopted, they might have a smaller market share than they did with the internal combustion engine car. As tends to happen in this situation, however, many of these companies are thought likely to go out of business in the next 2 decades (and it took a start-up, Tesla to fully make electric cars work – even now, many are still trying to go back). The same can be said for the factory production line, and many many others.

The problem is that livestock farming is only second to the fossil fuel industry, in terms of its contribution to climate change, so if humanity is to survive, it needs to change dramatically.

Why should we be worried about saving the worlds wildernesses? I think that a great deal of the population feels that we should save them for their own intrinsic value, but there is more than that. Rainforests around the world are the engine that supplies much of these areas rain, and without the rainforest often the area will collapse into desert.

Some suggest that we should all go to a plant-based diet, and certainly this would do what we want (though it should be noted, that this leaves the livestock industry in the same place – indeed, the livestock industry as it currently is, must have its days numbered, as humanity cannot afford its carbon footprint or it will continue our descent into climate breakdown). The only alternative to this is to produce the dairy and meat through other means; and these means are multiplying around the world, as it is recognized that there is a lot of money available for those who solve it early.

These range from growing meat on a scaffold from cells taken from a live animal. This idea is rapidly growing in popularity, though some think that this is a dead end, and instead a lot of people are looking at brewing microbes, which can be made to have a taste and texture that will make them indistinguishable from the real thing. This would also allow the unhealthy parts like fat to be not grown. It avoids the need for a lot of land, needs no fertilizer and greatly reduces the amount of fresh water needed (some can use salt water).

Protectionism is not restricted to farmers, with many governments getting in on the act, and in the EU a new group is pushing for a continent wide ban.

I think that these things will be developed somewhere, and we will miss out, if this happens in places like China (they have a great incentive, as their population eats little real meat, but as the wealth of people are increasing, they are demanding to eat a diet more like the west. For most of us, we are going to be watching from the sidelines, in terms of what happens next, but we can write to our representatives, and make sure that livestock owners are not the only voices that they hear.

Grolar bears or Pizzly bears remain rare in the wild, according to study

Pizzlies in Osnabruck photo credit Corradox CC by SA 3.0

I wrote, yesterday about the fears for the future of the polar bear species, and the problems that global warming are causing. Today, I am writing about another news subject from a few months ago – that of hybrids between brown bears and the polar bears.

Polar bears as a species, are only though to be between 150,000 and 1.7million years old, with most putting their estimate at around 600,000 years. This is very young for a species, and they descend from brown bears, with a 2011 study finding that female polar bear DNA seems to originate from a group of brown bears living in Ireland during the last ice age when vast ice sheets stretched from there to the north pole, and allowed polar bears to truly wander far and wide.

Pizzly’s and Growler bears, while found in nature on rare occasions, would have naturally been so rare as to be insignificant. It is only human caused global warming which has forced these animals together – and regular meetings in the natural world, of closely related species, usually ends up with offspring.

These hybrids (male polar bear and female grizzly ends with a Pizzly bear, while a female polar bear and a male grizzly ends with a Growler bear) are likely to become more common. Polar bears will increasingly have to head south, to be able to survive, and Grizzly bears will increasingly head north for cooler environments, bringing them into contact more and more often.

See Animals Wild

Read more news

Join as a wild member
to list your wild place & log in

Join as an ambassador supporter to
support this site, help save wildlife
and make friends & log in

Join as an Associate member
to assist as a writer, creator, lister etc & to log in

List a wild destination

List a destination in
the shadow of man

List a hide for animals more easily seen this way

Highlight some news
missed, or submit a
one-off article

Browse destinations for fun or future travel

Temporary membership
start here if in a hurry

Casual readers and watchers