Large parts of Australia look like the above photo, beautiful in a rugged way, but quite useless for the survival of many of Australia species. Australia has a wide range of habitats, which means that there are many areas which need to be protected.
The problem is, according to this study, declaring an area protected appears to be having little change on what is happened.
1/3 of all land that is set aside for restoration and conservation, has got worse rather than better. Given the fact that so many species are just hanging on to existence, this could be very bad news.
In one area that was studied, the majority of the area was cleared paddock – a serious problem for the koala and grey-headed flying fox which called the area home.
In particular, the idea of this scheme is so called biodiversity offsetting – if you are to clear wildlife habitat, you protect a similar sized area elsewhere.
Wolves have only recently returned to Austria, with an estimated 80 wolves spread throughout the country. It is perhaps not surprising therefore, that animal welfare activists, took the government to court, when it set cull numbers at 20, or 25% of the population a year.
The Austrian government had pointed to a condition in the 1992 EU directive on protecting wildlife, which states that wolf hunting to prevent financial damage can only be done if the population is in a favourable conservation status – something certainly not true in Austria. This condition can only apply to a wolf population which is stable.
I would also suggest that plans to kill 25% of the population each year, should also damage this, but this is a discussion for another day – when the population is far larger than it currently is. Other countries like Holland have similar sized wolf populations, and so this ruling could be applied in a variety of places.
Regional governments have absurdly argued that the wolf is no longer endangered in Austria, and that therefore its protection should be reduced. had the government listened would a ruling similar to the USA have come forward? Such that open season could be declared?
It is a good thing that wolves are so good at holding on, as we have spent much of our time attacking.
It is funny to think, that it is estimated our relationship with wolves (in the form of domesticating them as dogs) likely goes back to a similar point to the advent of growing crops, and well before the time that we started to keep livestock.
Given our fondness of dogs has deeper roots than our fear of wolves, it seems odd, that wolf persecution ever really got underway. It is true that wolf populations do need handling, but their existence is more good than bad. Places like the UK where they are missing, show this (when looked at the situation rationally)
Wentworth Group of concerned Scientists estimate that for just $7.3 billion a year for 30 years, most extinctions could be avoided as well as repairing soil and restoring rivers. That sounds like quite a lot? Well, invasive species cost the Australian government $24.3 billion a year now.
Recovery of some of the endangered species, could well save more than they cost to save, in reducing this invasive species bill. This would also improve agricultural output, as a result of improved soil health.
Camp Granit – Sumatran rainforest (not the same place)
There is a variety of different causes for deforestation. However, the majority of the work is usually done by individuals – often for subsistence farming, though often the land is only fertile for a short period of time, requiring more rainforest to be cut down.
However, if people on the ground know that cutting down the rainforest will make life worse, then they will not do it.
Efron Simanjuntak (clickhereto see a photo in a new window) was once a successful logger (illegally) in Sumatra. In 2017 he was caught, and in 2018 he was imprisoned for 2 years. In these two years, he had a lot of time to think, and realized the damage that he was doing.
There is still large areas of wildernesses in places like Romania, but this needs to spread across the continent.
What will it do?
Restore at least 20% of the EU’s land and sea areas by 2030Â
Restore all ecosystems in need of restoration by 2050Â
Set legally binding targets for nature restoration in terrestrial, marine, freshwater, and urban ecosystemsÂ
Maintain and increase urban green space and urban tree canopy coverÂ
Restore at least 25,000 km of rivers into free-flowing rivers by 2030Â
Plant at least three billion additional trees by 2030Â
This plan was dropped in March as a result of Hungary blocking it, as well as Austria and a variety of other groups. It is unfortunate, that often in order to meet an agreement, the environmental rules are often watered down so much as to become meaningless. It was cleared, after Austria changed its mind (it should be noted that the Hungarian MEPs were in favour and it is only the Hungarian government that got in the way – as they often are; unfortunately the leader of Hungary Victor Orban is not helpful, and is often the block for the EU. Whether this will change in the near future is anyones guess.
Still this will have to be implemented across the continent to be useful. Having said this, should it be successful it is likely to have a big impact.
The UK has set a hard target of 100% green electricity by 2030, but unfortunately, at the current time, its investments are not keeping up with its targets.
It is estimated that the UK need £48 billion to get to this target in time. This target would require a doubling of the onshore wind capacity, a tripling of solar power and a quadrupling of offshore wind capacity.
The current thinking, is that the UK is just half way to the wind energy target in 2030, however with solar it is worse. Currently we have roughly 15GW installed capacity, but it is predicted that we need 70GW to meet our target. Current progress suggests that we will hit 44% renewable by then, which is far short of the 69% that would be required.
What is worse, is that at this rate, gas will still account for 29% of energy which would be more than the individual contribution of Solar, onshore wind or offshore wind. It should be noted, that it is thought that meeting this target on time, will be worth far more in savings, but there does not seem to be enough urgency from the UK government to push this forwards.
It should be noted, that we have just had a change of government, and if Labour continues as it has started, we should get back on track.
In the summer, a government report found that the policies put in place by Rishi Sunak were only good enough to meet roughly 1/3 of the carbon reduction that we had pledged to make in the Paris climate agreement of 68%.
Recognized as an incredibly popular species, with a great deal of conservation effort being put into its survival. The Queensland conservation council is urging the state government is calling for its remaining habitat to be protected, as logging continues.
Calls are being made to create a park to protect the species.
The Miles government promised (in June) to turn 50,000-60,000 hectares of high value ecosystems into a greater glider national park. Unfortunately, this plan gave detailed listings of where timber would be extracted, but did not include clear maps for areas to be protected. Quite understandably, conservationists are calling foul – it is not possible to deforest an area, and then call for its conservation.
The population of this species is estimated to have halved in just the last 20 years, which should officially declares it as vulnerable to extinction (it is true that this is often decided over 10 years, but still is a very bad sign). Other issues, is fragmentation of their forests – they are generally very unwilling to come down to ground level to travel to other trees. They can stay in the air for around 100m, but this means that a gap greater than this can isolate the population. They require eucalypt forests (this is almost all they eat, with plenty of large tree hollows to make home, and retreat into.
Will Australia step up, or will this species get pushed into planned extinction? Time will tell, though given Australias track record, we should not expect big things without a great deal of pressure from conservation groups, and publicity on what is happening, from around the world.
The wolf disappeared from Holland around 1870, though their decline was rapid – in 1760 (just over 100 years before) people in Brabant talked of a wolf plague). In 2015, the wolf was first sighted in Holland, and while some people had said that Holland was to densly populated to allow the wolf to return, this seemed to be wrong. Wolves have returned to many of the countries around Holland, and so it seems quite odd to think that it wasn’t considered that they would cross into Holland.
In 2022, there were thought to be 4 packs of wolves (including 16 pups) as well as an individual wolf. This number has, however, grown fast in the time since, and the current number is thought to be 9 packs. What is even more exciting, it is predicted that the country can support between 23 and 56 wolf packs at a minimum – which as a wolf pack contains 6-7 wolves on average, means a total population of between 138 and 392. It should be noted, that this number is not likely to remain genetically healthy into the long-term, however Germany has a wolf population of over 1000, and while these are mostly based in the East of the country, wolves disperse great distances, so it is likely that genetic material will arrive naturally, relatively regularly. There is also a founding (if small) population of wolves in Belgium, thought to number between 15 and 24 (it is also predicted to grow by 30% a year.
There is a problem, the Hoge-Velue is one of Hollands biggest reserves, but it is owned privately. They have decided that wolves are not welcome, and are making efforts to kill those that get through their fence. This is because, without the wolf, deer are easily seen within the reserve, and they believe that the number of tourists will dry up, if it becomes hard to see the red deer, as well as the roe deer and boar.
I find this attitude rather baffling and perverse. Furthermore, when we were there last year, we spent time in the government owned reserve, which borders the Hoge-Velue, this is government owned, and wolves have settled here. I spent a number of nights within the reserve in a hide. I did not get to see a wolf (though I met a local who had a wide range of fantastic shots he had taken over the previous years), but while watching and waiting in the hide, I saw red and roe deer, as well as wild boar, in significant numbers. The idea that someone would believe that the amount of tourism visiting after wolves return would decrease, seems quite contrary to what usually happens elsewhere.
Wolves are a part of Hollands animal food web, and while it is likely to take some time to get used to living with them present once again, it is going to allow the whole ecosystem to thrive. I feel frustrated, that in the UK, we do not have a similar situation, where wolves can simply wander across an unmarked border. I do believe that in the end, wolves will return to the UK (our food web is horrifically out of balance because of a lack of predators), however, on the last occasion that it was debated, numbers from a very specific country were used to block any further discussion (Click here to read a previous article on this subject, or visit the wolf page here to get a complete list of all occasions that they have been mentioned on this site)
The UK has been culling badgers since 2013, and since then over 230,000, yet a recent study has shown that vaccination is far more successful than culling.
This trial in Cornwall, found that the rate of bTB in the study area fell to zero.
Why is this important? One of the big shames of the British government is the fact that experts have been telling them since the beginning of the cull, that it will not work. This is for a very simple reason. Badgers are required to mingle to breed, and when you cull badgers, while you can largely eliminate them in the centre of your trial area, in the area further out, you merely reduce the numbers.
As a result, young males and females that are looking for a mate are required to roam further in order to find one. As a result, any local concentrations of bTB get spread around, causing the rate of the illness to increase. The study area covered 12 farms, and they vaccinated 265 badgers.
The next step is to fund a study over a far larger area.
It should be noted, that farmers funded the study, and it has been shown that not only are vaccines more effective at eliminating bTB, but also significantly cheaper. Furthermore, they found that more badgers were vaccinated per km than were culled on nearby land – suggesting a far higher reach within the badger population.
Might we finally be at a place, where with bTB outbreaks, we can vaccinate rather than cull the badgers, so as to reduce the spread in cattle (though as I have written before, much of the spread comes from moving cattle around, rather than from the badgers anyway.
In south Africa, the bTB reservoir is found within the wild lion population. Understandably, few people would want these lions to be culled, but the ability to fire vaccine darts at them, might well be feasible in eliminating bTB here as well, where around 54% of lions have been shown to carry the illness. Whether or how fast the vaccine idea will reach South Africa is something that we will have to look out for.
The UK watchdog (amongst many other groups) have concluded that hydrogen boiler is a stupid idea. It is true that its only waste product is water and oxygen, but the cost of making the hydrogen is very high.
Should there be large quantities of hydrogen sitting around, then this might make sense – burning hydrogen is generally a very clean fuel. The problem is, that it is almost impossible to store or transport it without loosing much on route, and it is incredibly expensive to split water – the current form for the vast majority of the hydrogen on the planet. Fossil fuel companies are keen, because their old methods can extract and split hydrogen, but it will mean large carbon emissions as well, so is useless – there is a reason that it is called grey hydrogen. Green hydrogen is the only kind that will give us any profit as a world.
So why is the government supporting the switch (alongside gas focused industry). The department for energy security and net zero stated this week that the gas network ” will always be part of our energy system”. I am not sure why anyone would look at it, given an air-source heat pump is likely to be around price parity, and ground source heating even cheaper.
Installation, at the cheap end will be far cheaper than a heat-pump, but this will be more than made up for over the lifetime of the device. Furthermore, with the grants currently available, you are far better off going straight to a heat pump. This is a waste of time and money, and it would not be remotely surprising, if you had to remove it before the end of its life,as it would be costing too much
