10 July 2020

Crazy Road Building

I wrote this letter to Scott Mann my North Cornwall Conservative MP today:

Dear Scott,
I hope all is well with you.

I am writing to you about the government road building plans. They are saying in both public statements and on the Gov.uk website that they want a “green and resilient recovery” from the COVID-19 disaster.

At the same time they are planning to spend £27Billion of our money on road building. This BBC report (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-53353258) states that this road building will wipe out most of the gains from increases in electric vehicles. It is now well established that road building is the main cause of more road traffic. Even if there were no climate emergency this would be a bad policy and a waste of resources. In the context of the climate emergency and existing emission reduction commitments this policy is also a breathtaking display of hypocrisy. These sums should be spent on public transport, active travel, broadband and other genuinely green infrastructure.

The government is seriously misjudging the change in public mood on these issues. In the last two months surveys have shown that 71% of adults agree that the climate crisis is as serious as the COVID-19 pandemic, another found that 74% said effective measures to protect citizens from air pollution must be taken even if this requires reallocating public space to walking, cycling and public transport (with just 10% opposed). Meanwhile another showed that 84% said that the protection of nature should be prioritised. These numbers are significant. Even the most tone-deaf government would be unwise to ignore them.

Whilst I can understand that a u-turn on this policy might not look good and would upset some industry lobbies, may I suggest that these plans should be quietly dropped. That would be a good result for both politicians and the planet.

Best wishes,
Yan Swiderski

Survey references:



18 September 2019

The Problem With Plastic


So we all know plastic is a problem and many people think it’s enough to “recycle” their waste. This is dangerous nonsense. Research shows that only about 9% of global plastic production ever gets recycled. The rest goes in the sea, is burned or landfilled. But it gets worse. Before we throw it away it poisons our children: in 2018 plastic toys appeared in more than half the EU warnings about toxic chemicals in consumer products. But it gets worse. Food packaging is full of toxic chemicals. Why aren’t our governments doing anything ? The effects are still being studied while the plastics industry delays and denies so that it can continue business as usual. There is good evidence that these toxins are harmful but they are still being sold billions of times a day. Part of the problem is that scientists cannot find “control” populations that are unaffected by this chemical pollution because it is everywhere, in our drinking water, in the snow, in the rain in the air . Humans are estimated to eat and drink 74,000 microplastic particles a year, or 200 every day, which, as one article colourfully put it, means that the average person swallows a credit card a week. Plastics are now found in human faeces. But it gets worse. Humans are poisoning their food production with plastic. Plastics are proven to harm aquatic life. Meanwhile on land we are feeding plastics to farm animals, because it is legal in the EU and many other countries to have 0.15% plastic in processed animal feed. Many farmers also spread microplastics on arable land because commercial compost and manure is also legally permitted to contain plastic. But it gets worse. We now have evidence that earthworms are adversely affected by microplastics, and everybody knows that healthy earthworms are vital for healthy soils which are vital for food production.



So how did we get to this sorry state and what should be done ? Well, the causes are ignorance and greed. Ignorance, in that most regulators and consumers didn’t know much of this. Greed, in that once it started becoming clear there was a problem, all of the decision makers were too busy making money or receiving tax revenue or bribes from the plastics (petrochemical) industries to want to stop the growth of the problem. Meanwhile consumers were sold the myth of recycling so that they could be lulled in to a false sense of security about buying all that plastic. Consumers are now addicted to the ease and convenience of single use plastic. Make no mistake: Plastic is Poison. It will continue to harm people, wildlife and soil and will undermine our ability to feed the human population. The only effective policy solution is to ban all single use plastic and to treat multi-use plastic like any other toxic waste: it must be tracked, the manufacturer must be responsible for it and it and there must be safe, well-regulated disposal facilities. Many may think this is unrealistic but I say we have no choice if we are to stop the madness of spreading poison over the whole biosphere in ever increasing quantities just for money. Plastic is not a litter problem. It is a toxic waste problem. Plastic threatens human health on a global scale.

29 July 2019


I have been struggling with why many people the world over are ignoring recent developments (see below). The Bystander Effect must be a big part of the explanation.  "The bystander effect occurs when the presence of others discourages an individual from intervening in an emergency situation.”   https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/bystander-effect
This must be why everybody just carries on as normal; because everybody else is carrying on as normal even though the emergency is clear and life-threatening.

I am referring to two recent developments, one happened in the scientific world and the other is happening in the wild.

The first is that on the 24th July the International Programme on the State of the Ocean (IPSO) published this report: https://www.plymouth.ac.uk/news/scientific-experts-call-for-eight-urgent-measures-to-preserve-life-supporting-ocean-function-amid-fears-that-changes-could-be-irreversible
The lead author Prof. Dan Laffoley  http://danlaffoley.com/resume/ says simply "All life on Earth is at risk from ocean collapse”. "Experts convened by the International Programme on the State of the Ocean (IPSO) warn that failure to take action in the next ten years to halt damage caused by unprecedented rates of climate heating and other human activities could result in catastrophic changes in the functioning of the global ocean, threatening vital ecosystems and disrupting human civilisation.” More than 60% of our oxygen comes from the ocean quite apart from the many millions who depend on it for food and living.

The second is more dramatic and perhaps more significant which is why it has received more coverage: Millions of hectares of tundra are on fire in Alaska, Greenland, Scandinavia and Siberia https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-49125391
Multi year droughts, abnormally high temperatures, methane releases and lightning have ignited the fires. Some of them may now burn for years. This is an important positive feedback which will accelerate global warming and expand the areas on fire in coming years.

What can we do to confront our psychological bias and take action ?

1. Demand political change. Support the Green Party or Extinction Rebellion or tell your MP that these are the most important and pressing issues.
2. Talk about these matters with your friends, family, colleagues and contacts.
3. Get active - if you are not already - because it is only if enough of us do something that things will change. 

I have not written for a while because I have been busy setting up a charity that aims to try to make a difference. Please look at our website which we have recently updated:  https://www.climatecrisis.earth/ If you want to be on the Climate Crisis Foundation mailing list please let me know by email.
If you want to help us in any way please contact me.

16 November 2018

The Case for Nuclear Power


Climate change requires some radical thinking and significant action. A part of the possible solution is nuclear power. I would say it is a necessary part of any solution. Some countries have got their heads around this. Most governments are trapped by political caution due to deep seated fears amongst their populations. We need to re-examine the issues and encourage policy based on the available evidence. 

This TED talk summarises the arguments in favour of dramatically expanding our global nuclear power production. 

It is well worth watching if you didn't see it when it was published.



02 May 2018

The Importance of Organic Food


I would like to discuss the merits of organic farming and the need for greater incentives for conversion and I’m going to do so by simply pointing to a series of research articles and letting the facts speak for themselves.

In 2016 WWF published The Living Planet Report. This stated that as a result of human activity we are in the midst of the world’s 6th Mass Extinction Event. In the last 540million years five such events have happened slowly over hundreds of thousands, sometimes millions, of years; variously caused by climate change, changes in atmospheric composition or changes in sea levels. What is remarkable about this latest event is not only that it is happening very fast – over only a century and accelerating in the last 50 years – but also that the cause is, for the first time, a single species: homo sapiens. The report shows an average decline in global vertebrate populations of 58% between 1970 and 2012. On that trend the decline was predicted to be 67% by 2020. So in our lifetime – because there is no sign of improvement in the next one and a half years – two thirds of all fish, reptiles, birds, amphibians and mammals will have disappeared compared with 1970! 

The State of Nature Report 2016 covers Great Britain and is a similar report produced by a collaboration of conservation and research organisations (WWF, RSPB, National Trust, Woodland Trust amongst many others). The report assesses about 8,000 terrestrial and freshwater species using IUCN Red List criteria. Thirteen per cent, or 1,057 species are at risk of extinction in Great Britain and two per cent, that is 142 species, are known to have gone extinct. Within this study twelve per cent of farmland species are at risk of extinction. 

The State of The World’s Birds 2018 has just been published by Birdlife International. This is a global report and shows that Forty per cent of species are declining (3,967 species), only forty four per cent are stable (4,393) and a tiny seven per cent are increasing (653 species). Within this, the worst trend is amongst European Farmland species, which have declined by Sixty Four per cent since 1980. 

This brings us to a 2017 report by a group of German scientists which I find to be the scariest and the most startling: Since 1989 they have monitored flying insect biomass (simply the total quantity of flying insects) over 63 nature reserves throughout Germany. They found a Seventy Five per cent decline over 27 years and a peak seasonal decline of Eighty Four per cent. This is bad news for many fish and small mammals but it is catastrophic for birds – about 60% of bird species depend on flying insects for food. It is also, obviously, very bad news for plant pollination. Butterfly losses have been well documented but this research, for the first time, includes all flying insects and it is the most comprehensive to date. The researchers did not exhaustively analyse the range of possible causes but they point to agricultural intensification and specifically pesticide use as a plausible cause. 
Insect Biomass Research 2017 (Hallman et. al). 

In my view these facts do speak for themselves; Pesticides are designed to kill insects and we systematically spread industrial quantities across the landscape both in Britain and in Europe. In the absence of a better and simpler explanation pesticides should be treated as the cause of the collapse in insect populations. Occam’s razor requires no less. 

In September 2017 Alice Milner and Professor Ian Boyd published an article in Science Magazine entitled “Toward Pesticidovigilance”. Prof. Ian Boyd is not a controversial scientist he is Chief Scientific Advisor to DEFRA. In this article they pointed out that – like pharmaceuticals – pesticides are tested and registered for approval but unlike pharmaceuticals they are not monitored post-approval to determine unexpected effects. In the pharmaceutical context such post-approval monitoring is termed “Pharmacovigilance” and in the article they argue for “Pesticidovigilance” in other words use of pesticides should be monitored post approval. To quote their conclusion: “The effects of dosing whole landscapes with chemicals have been largely ignored by regulatory systems. This can and should be changed”. I suggest they wouldn’t propose such caution unless they thought there was something serious to worry about. 

The last report on my list is from January 2017 when the UN published a report to the UN General Assembly by the “Special Rapporteur on the right to food” calling for an international treaty to regulate hazardous pesticides. The report points to the significant harms of pesticides citing “catastrophic impacts on the environment, human health and society as a whole.” It states that it is possible to produce healthier food with high yields without polluting and exhausting environmental resources. The report points to studies showing that “agroecology” – that is farming methods which do not use pesticides and respect ecosystems – is capable of delivering sufficient yields to feed the entire world population without these harms. They refer to the assertion that “pesticides are necessary” as “dangerously misleading”. I don’t want to go into the details of the report here but the main argument is that it is a myth that pesticides are necessary to feed the world. 
Report to The UN General Assembly on the right to food

I wrote at the beginning that I wanted the facts to speak for themselves; I found many of these facts to be quite shocking. After reading these reports it seems clear that we are killing three quarters of our insect populations by spreading poisons, so it should be no surprise, with that in mind, that birds and other species higher up the food chain are in sharp decline in almost similar proportions. My own conclusion is that we, by that I mean all of us, all of society, have a Moral Duty to farm responsibly and I believe that means organically. The precautionary principle should be applied; this requires that activities which present a plausible risk of harm should be banned until proven to be safe. 

I don’t want to have to look at anybody’s grandchildren and say: “Yes, sorry all the birds are gone, I suppose we should’ve applied the precautionary principle, but it was easier and more profitable not to do so….” 

So I ask you to please consider these facts next time you are discussing farming policies or buying food and to think about what measures can and should be taken to tackle these complex problems. My recommendations are: - 
  • Stronger control of pesticides; a ban on routine use. 
  • Subsidies to promote Agroecology and Organic Farming 
  • Support for training in alternative pest control methods (which do exist and are effective). 
  • Support for diverse, less intensive farms 
  • Support for sustainable land management practices designed to protect and encourage biodiversity. 
  • Promotion of Organic produce in order to avoid the harms of other production methods. 
Anyone who does not support such measures is colluding in the destruction of the planet’s ecosystem. There is simply no excuse for that destruction. Profit is the weakest of justifications, to pretend that money today is more important than preservation of the health of our ecosystem amounts to theft from future generations and should be regarded with equal contempt and disapproval.

24 April 2009

More on Climate

Since I read Lovelock's book (see previous post) there have been two reports supporting the argument that this is all happening much faster. One was widely reported last week which was the collapse of the Wilkins Shelf Ice Bridge in Antarctica. The second was the publication of a report by the American Meteorological Society about falling water levels in rivers all over the world.

Here is a link to a BBC report about the ice shelf. The article describes the surprising speed at which this ice shelf and others before it are shrinking. The last two paragraphs of the article are particularly important:

"Separate research shows that when ice shelves are removed, the glaciers and landed ice behind them start to move towards the ocean more rapidly. It is this ice which can raise sea levels, but by how much is a matter of ongoing scientific debate.

Such acceleration effects were not included by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) when it made its latest projections on likely future sea level rise. Its 2007 assessment said ice dynamics were poorly understood." (My emphasis) This supports Lovelock's argument that policymakers are complacent about the speed of climate change.

09 April 2009

Climate Complacency

I have just read James Lovelock's book 'The Vanishing Face of Gaia, A Final Warning'. It is well worth reading. He makes a few simple but compelling arguments which I will summarise here:

The weather is part of a complex system that is inherently very difficult to predict accurately with any confidence. Scientists and in particular the IPCC have become overly reliant on models and do not place enough emphasis on traditional scientific method based on observation and measurement. The measurements now suggest that sea levels are rising 1.6 times faster than the models predict and that the climate is heating 1.3 times faster than the models predict (Science, May 2007) . He makes the point that nobody knows what will happen but that the probability of extreme climate change happening much faster than the IPCC predict (ie in the next decade or two) has gone up significantly. Climate policy is therefore wholly inadequate and misguided based as it is on gradual predictable warming and a reassuringly gradual response (ie to reduce emissions by 60% by 2050 to avoid dangerous climate change).

He points out that there are powerful positive feedback forces at work some of which are not given sufficient (or any) weight in the models. These forces are capable of causing very rapid climate change because of the exponential nature of a positive feedback loop. The processes he mentions are:

I) Every summer larger areas of polar ice melt than the year before (IPCC Nov 2007). Ice and snow reflect 60% more sunlight back into space than the darker water which absorbs more heat (because it has a lower albedo). Thus as the ice caps shrink the same amount of sunlight heats the planet significantly more.

II) The less ice there is to melt the more the same amount of heat from the sun will warm the planet, because it takes 81 times more heat to melt ice than to raise the temperature of liquid water by one degree. This is because of what is known in physics as latent heat. The heat energy that is not used to melt ice every summer will therefore heat the planet by much more as the buffer of ice diminishes.

III) In addition to their well known function of absorbing carbon dioxide, forests are important regulators of temperature. Trees draw water from beneath the soil and release it through their leaves in a process called evapotranspiration. It takes nearly 600 calories to evaporate one gram of water and this allows trees to maintain their leaf temperature at the optimal level for photosynthesis. In warm sunlight forests act as giant cooling systems affecting both local and global temperature. As forests recede so do these benefits recede, further boosting global warming.

IV) As the sea warms the amount of algae diminishes and there are now large barren areas of the ocean which are growing (Jeffrey Polovina, Geophysical Research Letters 2008) Algae absorb carbon dioxide, so this further boosts the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. In addition as the seas die off they become darker and absorb more heat from the sun because the albedo of dark water is lower than that of algae-rich water.

(One effect he does not mention is that as the area of arctic tundra that melts each year increases it releases methane since much of the area is frozen peat bog. This has a huge impact since the greenhouse effect of methane is some twenty times that of CO2 and the areas affected are vast; in the many thousands of square kilometres Nature July 2006)

All of these powerful mechanisms are part of a global positive feedback loop: as the earth heats, these effects promote further heating which in turn produce more of these effects and so on.

Lovelock says "I find it extraordinary that, given the depth of our ignorance, scientists are willing to put their names to predictions of climates up to fifty years from now and let them become the basis of policy. Surely they are not predictions, just speculations to assuage the fear of the dark clouds that loom on the climate horizon".

My conclusion is that it is probable that global warming will happen much faster than current projections and if that is what indeed happens then certain consequences will inevitably follow. Lovelock then says we should be preparing for those consequences now. I think he is right and that public policy should be an exercise in risk management; if something nasty is more likely to happen then it is responsible to take precautions in case it does happen.

So what are the likely consequences of faster and greater global warming ? Media coverage concentrates on higher sea levels and extreme weather events. These are clearly undesirable and dangerous outcomes but far more dangerous would be the catastrophic impact on agriculture.

If warming continues huge areas of agricultural land will become dust bowls, crops will fail and millions will starve. This is the main challenge of global warming. The processes that are in place are unlikely to be reversed by the timid efforts at carbon emission reduction that are being undertaken. Even if these efforts were accelerated Lovelock credibly argues that we are too late and should be directing our efforts towards preparing for the consequences rather than trying to assuage our consciences by switching off lights or buying carbon offsets (which he likens to papal indulgences).

Read the book. Move away from the tropics. Move away from the sea. Learn how to grow your own food, buy land, prepare to defend it. Convince your government to prepare for the likely consequences. These are the measures we should be taking.

24 February 2009

Red Squirrels

I now hear that there is going to be a Grey Squirrel cull in the UK in order to improve the chances of survival of the Red Squirrel. Apparently the Grey is more aggressive and successful and carries a deadly squirrel-pox, lethal only to the Red. The justification for the cull is that the Grey is an immigrant species, alien to the British Isles, having arrived from America in the 1870s. The cull is clearly evil rascism; a vile campaign of murder against immigrants because of the colour of their fur and reports of disease. Ethnic cleansing. Poor Greys, who will stick up for them ?