Tuesday, 26 July 2011
0.2 % UK growth
Part of the blame for the poor growth of the UK economy has been attributed to the Royal Wedding. This is of course nonsense. Before the Royal Wedding we were all happily informed that it would boost our trade and of course that was nonsense too. You can't have it both ways. I hope the happy couple see it for what it is -Duckspeak so quack quack.
Poor old Badger
It looks as though the UK is going to bend to the opinion of farmers and allow a badger cull in a limited area of the south west of England. There is also pressure on the Welsh Assembly to allow a similar cull in Pembrokeshire. There is little doubt that badgers can become infected with bovine TB and that they can become a source of infection and transmission of the disease. Other animals can also become infected including deer, foxes, rats, cats and even humans. What remains clear is that the primary source of infection and transmission of the disease are the cattle themselves. There is very little evidence that a cull of badgers will significantly decrease the spread of bovine TB. It is possible that frightened badgers will run away from a cull and carry the disease with them and thereby increase the incidence of diease.
The probable solution to the problem involves a combination of vaccination programmes, improved animal husbandry, greater control on cattle movements and better control of grazing etc. and just keeping badgers and cattle apart. Of course, this is difficult and costly - better to blame the poor old badger; kill it and hope the problem goes away. Unfortunately, the problem will not go away by using this ignorant and irrational approach.
We need to do our best to defend the livelihood of farmers for obvious reasons. But farming should not be defended to the cost of all wild life in general. The attitude that no other living creature, be it plant or animal, should be allowed to interfere with our farms could be disastrous. The health of all animals and plants on the planet requires some form of competition between the species. Human beings rely on the rest of nature just as much as they rely on farms; by damaging the rest of nature we could ultimately damage ourselves.
We should not be sentimental about our wildlife. I do not support any form of violent protest against the cull or those who conduct it. There have even been reports that journalists are being threatened merely for reporting the cull . This is unacceptable. If the cull goes ahead it will probably fail to the embarrassment of all concerned so any protest should be peaceful.
The public are overwhelmingly opposed to this cull even if they are not prepared to go out and demonstrate. The public at large is, however, opposed to violent protest; why go out of your way to upset them?
The best way for consumers to prevent this cull would be to buy products only from those farmers who respect their animals fully and those who also show some respect for the environment around them. The case for organic and bio-dynamic farming becomes stronger.
The probable solution to the problem involves a combination of vaccination programmes, improved animal husbandry, greater control on cattle movements and better control of grazing etc. and just keeping badgers and cattle apart. Of course, this is difficult and costly - better to blame the poor old badger; kill it and hope the problem goes away. Unfortunately, the problem will not go away by using this ignorant and irrational approach.
We need to do our best to defend the livelihood of farmers for obvious reasons. But farming should not be defended to the cost of all wild life in general. The attitude that no other living creature, be it plant or animal, should be allowed to interfere with our farms could be disastrous. The health of all animals and plants on the planet requires some form of competition between the species. Human beings rely on the rest of nature just as much as they rely on farms; by damaging the rest of nature we could ultimately damage ourselves.
We should not be sentimental about our wildlife. I do not support any form of violent protest against the cull or those who conduct it. There have even been reports that journalists are being threatened merely for reporting the cull . This is unacceptable. If the cull goes ahead it will probably fail to the embarrassment of all concerned so any protest should be peaceful.
The public are overwhelmingly opposed to this cull even if they are not prepared to go out and demonstrate. The public at large is, however, opposed to violent protest; why go out of your way to upset them?
The best way for consumers to prevent this cull would be to buy products only from those farmers who respect their animals fully and those who also show some respect for the environment around them. The case for organic and bio-dynamic farming becomes stronger.
Thursday, 7 July 2011
Cooling of the planet
A study by Dr Robert Kaufmann and his colleagues, and which was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences on July 5 th, has proposed an explanation why increasing levels of carbon dioxide have not lead to ever increased atmospheric temperature during the period 1998 t0 2009. During that period global average temperatures have not increased as much as they should have done according to climate models. The reason, concludes Dr Kaufmann, is that coal fired power stations have doubled the amount of coal burned during this period , and this coal burning has not only substantially increased the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere but it has also substantially increased the amount of sulphur dioxide. It is an irrefutable fact that carbon dioxide acts as a greenhouse gas and that, with all other things being equal, an increase in the concentration of this gas in the atmosphere will warm the planet. It is also an irrefutable fact that, all other things being equal, an increase in the concentration of sulphur dioxide in the atmosphere will cool the planet.
During the period 1998 to 2009 the effect of the concentration of one gas in the atmosphere offset the effect of the other. Therefore, the mean temperature of the planet did not show a substantial increase or decrease.
Climate change sceptics have jumped upon the fact that the planet has not been warming up as predicted is evidence that global warming caused by man's activities does not exist. Clearly they are wrong: Dr Kaufmann's findings are not inconsistent with global warming or cooling theory or climate science in general.
We should not be relieved by the fact that global warming has temporarily been arrested by pumping industrialised quantities of sulphur dioxide into the atmosphere. Sulphur compounds are quickly removed from the atmosphere by rain. If and when coal burning and other sources of human produced sulphur dioxide are reduced or eliminated the atmosphere will quickly warm up. The carbon dioxide is not so easily or quickly removed from the atmosphere.
Carbon dioxide and sulphur dioxide should not been seen as pollutants; they are part of the natural cycles of the planet and are naturally released into the atmosphere by both living and geological processes including volcanoes. Without carbon dioxide the planet would become too cold to support much of the life on our planet as we know it today, including ourselves. The danger to the environment does not stem from the fact that carbon dioxide and sulphur dioxide are in the atmosphere per se, but from the rate of change of their concentration. If the rate of change is too fast, plants and animals, including ourselves, may not have enough time to change to the new atmospheric circumstances and become extinct.
Some scientists and engineers have proposed that pumping sulphur dioxide into the atmosphere could be used as a solution to global warming. Other scientists have opposed this as being potentially dangerous. It seems that we have been conducting an unwitting experiment with the atmosphere by increasing the concentration of both sulphur dioxide and carbon dioxide to dangerous levels and very quickly. What happens if a sudden volcanic eruption rapidly increases the level of sulphur dioxide to an even higher level? We could be faced with a sudden and unexpected global cooling for two, three years or more years; one that is not offset by the global warming and our harvests could be devastated.
We must do something to tackle the increased production, by our own activity, of both carbon dioxide and sulphur dioxide before it is too late, otherwise we could be faced with having to artificially maintain our planet's atmosphere. There is no room left for climate sceptic complacency.
During the period 1998 to 2009 the effect of the concentration of one gas in the atmosphere offset the effect of the other. Therefore, the mean temperature of the planet did not show a substantial increase or decrease.
Climate change sceptics have jumped upon the fact that the planet has not been warming up as predicted is evidence that global warming caused by man's activities does not exist. Clearly they are wrong: Dr Kaufmann's findings are not inconsistent with global warming or cooling theory or climate science in general.
We should not be relieved by the fact that global warming has temporarily been arrested by pumping industrialised quantities of sulphur dioxide into the atmosphere. Sulphur compounds are quickly removed from the atmosphere by rain. If and when coal burning and other sources of human produced sulphur dioxide are reduced or eliminated the atmosphere will quickly warm up. The carbon dioxide is not so easily or quickly removed from the atmosphere.
Carbon dioxide and sulphur dioxide should not been seen as pollutants; they are part of the natural cycles of the planet and are naturally released into the atmosphere by both living and geological processes including volcanoes. Without carbon dioxide the planet would become too cold to support much of the life on our planet as we know it today, including ourselves. The danger to the environment does not stem from the fact that carbon dioxide and sulphur dioxide are in the atmosphere per se, but from the rate of change of their concentration. If the rate of change is too fast, plants and animals, including ourselves, may not have enough time to change to the new atmospheric circumstances and become extinct.
Some scientists and engineers have proposed that pumping sulphur dioxide into the atmosphere could be used as a solution to global warming. Other scientists have opposed this as being potentially dangerous. It seems that we have been conducting an unwitting experiment with the atmosphere by increasing the concentration of both sulphur dioxide and carbon dioxide to dangerous levels and very quickly. What happens if a sudden volcanic eruption rapidly increases the level of sulphur dioxide to an even higher level? We could be faced with a sudden and unexpected global cooling for two, three years or more years; one that is not offset by the global warming and our harvests could be devastated.
We must do something to tackle the increased production, by our own activity, of both carbon dioxide and sulphur dioxide before it is too late, otherwise we could be faced with having to artificially maintain our planet's atmosphere. There is no room left for climate sceptic complacency.
Every Nation has the Media it deserves
The quote "Every Nation has the Goverment it deserves" is attributed to Joseph de Maistre a polemical author born in the the mid 18th century. It is my view that there is an element of truth in this but it is often quite difficult, even in a true democracy, to remove quickly an incompetent, weak or corrupt government.
I some respects a similar aphorism could be applied to the newspapers "Every Nation has the Media it deserves". During the current media "crisis" in the the UK we should not rush to judgement. If and when all the facts emerge, and it is proven that some newspapers have behaved unethically, then the nation has a simple solution. No member of the public should buy newspapers which indulge in unethical practices. I doubt, however, that this will ever happen.
I some respects a similar aphorism could be applied to the newspapers "Every Nation has the Media it deserves". During the current media "crisis" in the the UK we should not rush to judgement. If and when all the facts emerge, and it is proven that some newspapers have behaved unethically, then the nation has a simple solution. No member of the public should buy newspapers which indulge in unethical practices. I doubt, however, that this will ever happen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
