Fish in high-flow zone of rivers may be the first victims of climate change

Maanantai 25.9.2023 klo 18:56 - Mikko Nikinmaa

Fish living in high-flow areas of rivers have chosen (or evolved in) that habitat, because they need a lot of oxygen for their high activity. Flowing water becomes well oxygenated, as it is continuously exposed to air. However, the amount of oxygen taken up by water decreases with increasing temperature, simultaneously as poikilothermic fish need more of it, as temperature increase speeds up their metabolism.

If temperature increases enough, fish heart cannot pump enough oxygenated blood to sustain metabolism. This we have clearly shown in our article Anttila et al, Comp Physiol Biochem A 275, 111340 (2023). Although the study was done on seabass, the principle holds also for river fish. The amount of oxygen initially reaching the gills, where it is taken up, further decreases the maximal temperature the fish can tolerate.

Zhi et al (Nature Climate Change 2023;  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-023-01793-3) have shown that the oxygen level in rivers throughout Europe and United States has decreased for the past forty years. While increased temperature was the main driver, the oxygen level decreased more than expected because of temperature increase. It is possible that the general eutrophication with increased oxygen consumption.

Regardless, associated with the physiological response to increased temperature of fish, the temperature-caused decrease in maximal amount of oxygen the water holds, can cause extinction of salmonids living in the fast-flowing head streams.

Still alive

Sunnuntai 24.9.2023 klo 13:48 - Mikko Nikinmaa

The blog has been silent for a while. I was hospitalized for about two weeks. Initially there was blood poisoning and then slime in the lungs so that one was almost suffocating. After about 50 ml of thick slime was taken out with endoscopy, life started - if not smiling - to become bearable. Without the help of lung department the blog would undoubtedly have become silent forever.

But the hospital visit also showed a big problem with the healthcare system. Everybody is only concerned with their own sector. As the initial problem I had was concerned with urinary tract, when that was considered over, I was sent home, although I asked them to keep me in hospital another day. The result: ambulance fare back to the hospital 12 h later. Then they started to take the lung question seriously, and I was sent to lung department.

Hopefully I will be writing environmental stories again in a short while. At least now things look good, as I already have enough energy to write this short explanation, why I have been silent

Environmental crisis is not over even if climate change is successfully combatted

Tiistai 5.9.2023 klo 19:06 - Mikko Nikinmaa

News have recently given several technological solutions for catching and storing carbon dioxide. Further, several uses for caught carbon dioxide have been demonstrated. This has generated quite a lot of optimism that technological advancements can solve the climate change problem. So, many people in rich industrialized countries think that once the climate change problem is solved, life can go on as before, and economic growth can continue to be the goal.

Unfortunately, environmental crisis does not disappear anywhere. I have also earlier pointed out that climate change is just one symptom of environmental crisis. Thinking that successfully combatting climate change would solve the underlying environmental crisis is more or less the same as thinking that a drug that alleviates head aches caused by brain tumour would also cure the tumour. Environmental crisis is caused by our overuse of the planet’s resources. There are two components to the overuse: the rich countries are still thinking that economic growth is something to strive for, and human population has exceeded the carrying capacity of the earth. As the result of the two, land use is excessive – deforestation is needed to achieve adequate food production, water use exceeds all the limits, the mineral resources are overused, and biodiversity is decreasing.

Inequality is an important component of the environmental crisis. Actually Africa should be rich, because a lot of the resources that have made us in the Industrialized North rich were stolen during the colonial period (and continues to be stolen now). Much of the agriculture in the poor countries is not their needed food, but water-consuming cotton, coffee and cocoa, which is then sold to us. The majority of people in rich countries are against immigration from poor countries, and are willing to use a lot of resources to preventing that. The populist parties also say that money should be spent in the countries of origin of the poor immigrants, and by these means reduce the need to leave their birthplace. I actually agree with this notion. However, the right wing populists want to decrease foreign aid, whereas we should increase it to 10-100-fold to pay back some of the stolen resources of the colonial time.

It is good that technological solutions for combatting climate change are forthcoming. It shows that remedies can be found to environmental crisis. However, environmental crisis goes nowhere, and if climate change is successfully combatted, we must start fighting against other aspects of environmental crisis. The fight can be successful only after all of us agree that we are all citizens of One World.

Broken water cycle

Tiistai 29.8.2023 klo 15:42 - Mikko Nikinmaa

The civilization as we know it is dependent on appropriate availability of water. Water availability has been adequate and constant for the past 10000 years. It has enabled the development of agriculture followed by industrialization. Feeding the billions of people has been possible, as there has been enough water at right time.

However, it appears now that humans are breaking the water cycle. Intensive agriculture is using more fresh water than would be available. Climate change affects the timing, duration and place of precipitation. Also, glaciers, which are the source of many rivers, have melted to such an extent that the river flow is reduced. Deforestation affects the rains in the areas in the vicinity. All in all, although roughly ¾ of Earth’s surface is covered with water, the cycle of fresh water, needed for civilization as we know it, seems to be in peril.

It is easy to blame climate change for the fresh water problems, but it is only part of the problem. Because of climate change, droughts and heat spells become more common, heavy rains come irregularly and at unexpected places. Often they occur after severe drought, whereby the soil cannot bind the water, which flows to the sea. An important component of the water cycle in equilibrium is that the upper soil is moist. It is then able to bind additional water.

As for many other resources, mankind is overusing water. Intensive irrigation and domestic water use have emptied Jordan, Sacramento River, Colorado River etc., caused almost total disappearance of Dead Sea and Aral Sea, and lowered ground water level to such an extent that Earth’s poles have shifted slightly.

With regard to deforestation, rainforests are much more than important carbon dioxide sinks. They suck moisture from soil, liberate water in the air, and thus cause development of rains in the surrounding areas. With deforestation, this cycle is weakened with the result that rainforest may turn to savannah. It is estimated that when ¼ of the forest is cut, this happens. We are nearing this  percentage both for Amazonas and Congo rainforest.

In view of the disturbed water cycle, one should make every effort to diminish water use in any area to the amount which is certainly replaced by inflow. In terms of plants that are grown, this means that we should at least stop using cotton products, as there is already a sustainable alternative for cloth fibre, i.e., wood fibre. Deforestation of rainforests should be stopped. In this context it would be valuable to be able to stop population growth, as it inevitably causes the need for increased agricultural production, which is a primary reason for breaking water cycle.

Kestävään kalanviljelyyn hyönteisrehulla

Tiistai 22.8.2023 klo 15:05 - Mikko Nikinmaa

Taimenet hyppivät iltahämärissä napatakseen vedenpinnan lähellä lentäviä hyönteisiä. Ne selvästikin haluavat hyvänmakuista hyönteisruokaa. Perhokalastus käyttää hyväkseen tätä halua. Jo yli 40 vuotta vanhat tutkimukset ovat osoittaneet, kuinka lohenpoikasten kasvu kiihtyi, jos ne saivat viljelyoloissa normaalin ruokinnan lisäksi hyönteisravintoa. Näitä havaintoja ei kuitenkaan ole käytetty hyväksi kalanrehujen valmistuksessa, kun rehujen pääasiallisia osasia, kala- ja äyriäisjauhoa on saanut halvalla. Toisaalta hyönteisten lisääminen kalanrehuun olisi ollut kallista, minkä vuoksi havainto, että hyönteislisä tehostaa muuten normaalilla rehulla syötettyjen lohenpoikasten kasvua, on jäänyt unohduksiin.

Tänä päivänä tilanne on muuttunut. Rehujen kalajauhon saamiseksi on merien ylikalastuksen jatkuttava entiseen tapaan tai jopa kiihdyttävä, kun naudanliha pyritään korvaamaan kalanlihalla. Periaatteessa tämä voisi vähentää tietyn lihamäärän kasvatuksen aiheuttamaa ympäristökuormaa kymmenkertaisesti. Näin ei kuitenkaan käy, jos perinteisten rehujen käyttöä jatketaan. Tällöin on paremminkin uhkana se, että merien kalastoa uhkaa laaja sukupuuttoaalto, kun ihmisravinnoksi huonosti kelpaavia kaloja pyydetään rehuksi laajamittaisen kalanviljelyn tarpeisiin.

Jotta kalajauhon käyttöä rehussa pystyttäisiin vähentämään, on rehuteollisuus pyrkinyt ensisijaisesti siirtymään kasvipohjaisiin rehuihin. Tähän liittyy kaksi ongelmaa. Ensinnäkin kalankasvatuksen tärkeimmät lajit Suomessa ovat puhtaita petokaloja, joiden luonnonravinnossa ei ole mitään muuta kuin eläimiä. Sen vuoksi niiden on paljon vaikeampi saada tasapainoinen kasvisravinto kuin kaltaistemme sekasyöjien, joiden siirtyminen kasvisruokaan on sangen helppoa. Toiseksi soija on tärkeä kasvipohjaisten kalanrehujen osanen. Soijaviljelyksien tekeminen on ehkä tärkein yksittäinen syy sademetsien hakkuille.

Hyönteisjauhon käyttö rehuraaka-aineena poistaisi jokseenkin kaikki kalanrehuun liittyvät ympäristöongelmat. Lisäksi se toisi mukanaan ne edut, joiden takia luonnonkalat syövät vedenpinnan hyönteisiä. Ilmeisesti tärkein hyöty, jonka kalat hyönteisravinnosta saavat, on se, että ne pystyvät sietämään oksidatiivisia stressejä aiempaa paremmin. Jokseenkin kaikki ympäristömuutokset lisäävät oksidatiivista stressiä ja hyönteisravinto näyttää lisäävän sekä stressin puskuroinnissa tärkeän kokonaisglutationin määrää että stressin käsittelyssä tärkeiden entsyymien aktiivisuutta. Kun nyt voidaan toukkia kasvattaa suuressa mittakaavassa nopeasti, voisi hyönteispohjainen kalanrehu tulla etujensa vuoksi tärkeäksi rehuteollisuuden innovaatioksi Suomessa. Maailmanlaajuisesti odotukset hyönteisraaka-aineen käytöstä rehutuotannossa ovat jo suuret.

Sekä ilmastoahdistus että ilmastonmuutoskielteisyys haittaavat ilmastonmuutoksen torjuntaa

Perjantai 18.8.2023 klo 18:44 - Mikko Nikinmaa

Kun eräille tahoille ilmastomuutoksesta saarnaaminen on tullut päätehtäväksi, on joutunut miettimään, mitä ilmastomuutossaarnoilla saa aikaan. Vastaus on, eipä juuri mitään. Kun tuomiopäivän profeetat julistavat, että kuljemme tuhoa kohti, niin ihmiset miettivät mielessään, että käynpä nyt Kreikassa, kun siellä vielä voi käydä ennen kuin tulee liian kuuma. Jotkut ihmiset sulkevat korvansa kokonaan moisilta saarnoilta ja elävät elämäänsä kuin ennenkin bensan hinnan korkeutta valittaen – se on vihervasemmiston syytä.

Yhtä lailla ilmastonmuutoksen kieltäjät saavat vain suurta vahinkoa aikaan. Yhden kylmän kevään sanotaan osoittavan, ettei muutosta olekaan. Koko ilmastonmuutos on vihervasemmiston haihattelua tarkoituksena estää yhteiskunnan toiminta entiseen tapaan.

Kummankaan ääripään mieleen ei juolahda, että ilmastonmuutos on toki tosiasia, mutta että meillä on sekä tekniset että taloudelliset keinot pysäyttää muutos. Tämä edellyttää kuitenkin uudenlaista ajattelua, joka unohtaa niin kansallisvaltiot kuin taloustieteen jatkuvan kasvun aksiooman. Meidän täytyy ruveta tajuamaan, että me kaikki ihmiset elämme rajallisella pallolla, missä Suomessa tehdyt päätökset vaikuttavat Naurusaarilla ja Nigerian väestönkasvulla on merkitystä Miehikkälässä. Ja toisin kuin ilmastonmuutoksen vastustajat sanovat, Suomi ei ole niin pieni. Me olemme vähäväkinen, mutta kulutustottumuksemme ovat sellaisia, että hiilijalanjälkemme on suunnilleen sama kuin 100 miljoonan afrikkalaisen.

Tarvittavista muutoksista jotkut maksavat, toiset ovat taloudellisesti kannattavia – jos ilmastopolitiikkamme on kunnianhimoista. Tästä ovat esimerkkinä lukuisat ulkomaisten yritysten investointiaikeet Suomeen. Jos täällä otetaan lähtökohdaksi se, että katsotaan, mitä muualla tehdään ja toimitaan vasta sitten, investointeja ei ole enää tulossa ja muutumme nopeasti EU:n nettomaksajasta nettosaajaksi. Ehkä se onkin Perussuomalaisten päämäärä; EU:n budjettiin laitettu raha on väärin, vaikka se, että Suomi on nettomaksaja, osoittaa meidän olevan hyvinvoiva (jotka ovat hyötyneet useita kymmeniä miljardeja EU:sta).

EU on toiminut ja voi toimia jatkossakin ilmastotoimien edeltä kävijänä. EU kun on taloudellinen jättiläinen, jonka päätöksiä eivät edes Kiina ja Yhdysvallat voi jättää huomiotta. Kun Euroopassa päädytään johonkin ratkaisuun, myös niiden on toimittava samoin.

Flying should be taxed as other forms of transport

Perjantai 18.8.2023 klo 17:49 - Mikko Nikinmaa

Flying is estimated to cause several percent of the greenhouse gas emissions. Its influence on climate is much worse than the emissions, because the gases are emitted at high altitudes. One would consequently think that because there is a sore need to combat climate change, steps would be taken to diminish the effects of flight traffic on climate change. Two such steps have commonly reached the news. First, the possibility of passengers to pay extra to compensate for flying. The compensation is them used to pay either the protection of forests or planting trees. The funds obtained by the compensations are currently so small that it can be said to have only conscience-cleaning effect. Second, an increasing proportion of the fuel, kerosine, is made from biowaste or plant material instead of being fossil fuel. However, the so-called biofuel does not decrease the production of carbon dioxide in the flights, it only decreases the use of fossil fuel. It appears that electric airplanes will at most be responsible for short distance flights in the near future. For long distance travel one needs to ask the traveller if the present-day speed is really necessary. If not, zeppelin-like aircraft could replace a lot of the airplanes and fuel consumption would decrease radically.

However, the biggest change that should be made is that air traffic should be taxed as other traffic forms. Today fuel of airplanes is completely free of taxation throughout the world. As a consequence, air traffic is subsidised, e.g., in Finland approximately 20 times more per customer than environmentally friendly train traffic. And this is true at a time when politicians say that they are trying to get people to diminish travelling, if it has large carbon footprint. Yet they do not use the tax instrument, which would also make fairer to use different ways of transport. It is quite certain that all the nation states say that this cannot be done, since that would generate unfair competition in favour of countries that do not tax their flights or maintain tax level low. However, this is what EU is for. The European Union, which is also otherwise front runner in climate questions, could decide that all European flights would have a common fuel tax. One could try to get a world wide agreement; it should be relatively easy, if climate change is taken seriously.

Climate change and right wing populism

Torstai 10.8.2023 klo 11:18 - Mikko Nikinmaa

With the hottest July ever in the world, heat spells in all continents of the northern hemisphere simultaneously, devastating wildfires, floods and droughts everywhere, one would think that people would finally accept that climate change is here already, and that mankind needs to put significant effort into preventing it from getting worse.

But no, in the minds of right-wing populists, climate change is left-wing hoax. No matter what the evidence says, no matter what the news are, no matter what the scientists say. In USA the conservative thinktank Heritage Foundation has given out a book Project 25, which would essentially scrap all the climate plans of the present government if a Republican president were elected in 2024. Needless to say that it would be a catastrophe for world’s climate, as USA is one of the countries with the greatest carbon dioxide emissions per capita. As compared to European Union, the emissions per person are roughly double, and as compared to world average more than four times greater. (Because of its large population, China is the country with the largest emissions in the world. However, its per capita emissions are about the same as EU’s). Similarly, the Finnish populistic right wing party – presently in government – has opposed “the green shift” of energy production and industrial production claiming that it is too expensive for the taxpayer. At the same time, the calculations of industry show that “green shift” would generate unprecedent amount of foreign investments in Finland. These examples indicate that right-wing populism has started treating climate change as “culture war” issue. To support actions against climate change makes you to belong to the left (or greens which is just as bad).

Because climate has become an issue in culture war, little can be done to change the opinions of right-wing populists. The only way to prevent the devastating implications their policy actions is to make sure that they cannot rise to power, or if they are in power, to make sure that they lose the power in next elections.

Possible effects of climate change to Central and Northern Europe

Keskiviikko 2.8.2023 klo 19:25 - Mikko Nikinmaa

We have been taught at school how the temperature in Central and Northern Europe is much higher than at similar latitudes elsewhere. The reason for this has been Gulf Stream, which flows northeast from the Gulf of Mexico to the Arctic, North of Norway. The stream moves a lot of heat from tropics to high latitudes. Finally the water cools and sinks to the bottom of the ocean and the cold water flows back south in southwest-directed cold streams. An important part of the dynamic water flow is that the Gulf Stream water sinks to ocean bottom, because that generates the driving force for water circulation. In the absence of water circulation, Central and Northern Europe would be much colder than presently, especially in winter. Gulf Stream water sinks, because when its temperature decreases to four degrees centigrade, the density of water is higher than the water below, which has a lower temperature. The density of water depends also on its salinity, the higher the salinity, the higher the density. Earlier on this has also contributed to the water circulation. The surface water flowing in Gulf stream from tropical areas has traditionally had higher salinity than the bottom water of the Arctic Sea.

 Climate change is now threatening to change this warmth-bringing ocean circulation. The melting of Greenland glaciers but also the sea ice of the arctic causes a significant decrease in the density of surface water in the Arctic Sea. As a result, the sinking of Gulf Stream water from the surface to the bottom can be markedly reduced. This decreases the driving force for ocean circulation, and Gulf Stream may stop flowing altogether. The result for Central and North European climate would be that we experience Siberia-like weather patterns. An additional problem associated with presently ongoing freshwater addition is that the global temperature rise observed already seems to be adequate to cause continuing glacier melting in Greenland. This suggests that even if we are able to stop temperature increase to 1.5 degrees centigrade, the weakening of Gulf Stream may occur. There is no way to know, when we reach the tipping point.

So, if climate deniers tell you after three cold winters that clearly there is no climate change, as we have cold winters, you can answer them: “On the contrary, this shows that climate change has reached another tipping point. The heat transfer from tropics to the north in the form of Gulf Stream has stopped.” The real problem with this, and the weather patterns in general, is that what has happened and is happening is increased unpredictability. That is probably the biggest problem with climate change.

Hiilivero - veropohjan laajennus ja toimi ilmastonmuutosta vastaan

Maanantai 24.7.2023 klo 18:53 - Mikko Nikinmaa

Puhe hiiliverosta on melkein kokonaan ollut negatiivista. On puhuttu tasaverosta, joka entisestään kasvattaisi köyhän kansan kustannuksia. Ilmastonmuutoksen vastaisten toimien hidastamiseen keskittyvä Perussuomalaiset on saanut hiiliveron negatiivisesta käsittelystä yhden keinon kannatuksensa lisäämiseen.

Mutta hiiliverohan voisi sekä olla oikeudenmukainen toimi että laajentaa veropohjaa. Veropohjan laajentaminenhan on nähty tärkeänä hyvinvointiyhteiskunnan säilyttämisen kannalta. Lisäksi on yleisesti hyväksytty se periaate, että haittaverojen osuutta kaikista veroista voisi kasvattaa, kun niitä käyttämällä tekomme ohjautuvat haitattomampaan suuntaan. Lisäksi pohjoismainen hyvinvointivaltio lähtee periaatteesta, että ne, joilla on eniten varaa, maksavat suuremman osan kustannuksista kuin vähävaraiset.

Hiilivero voisi sisältää kaikki yllä mainitut verotuksen näkökohdat. Jo lähtökohtaisestihan se laajentaa veropohjaa, koska se on vero, jota ei ole ollut aiemmin. Toiseksi se on haittavero, koska tuskin kukaan pystyy enää väittämään, ettei ilmastonmuutosta olisi. Perussuomalaiset on vaatinut, etteivät ilmastonmuutoksen vastaiset toimet aiheuttaisi lainkaan kustannuksia ja väittänyt, että koko hiiliverovaatimus on Euroopan Unionin lisätaakka muutenkin kaltoin kohdellulle Suomelle. Tämä ei pidä paikkaansa – täysin ilman kustannuksia ilmastonmuutosta ei voi torjua: EU pyrkii tekemään jotakin nyt, kun kustannukset ovat kestettävissä. Tulevaisuudessa ne vain nousevat. Riippumatta siitä, olisiko Suomi EU:ssa vai ei, jossain vaiheessa hiiliveron kaltainen maksu pitäisi kerätä. Mutta, jotta hiiliveron tuottamat lisäkustannukset kohdistuisivat ennen muuta sellaisiin menoihin, jotka eivät ole välttämättömiä, välttämättömyystuotteiden kuten perusruoka ja paikallisliikenne tulisi olla verovapaita. Sen sijaan ”mukavan elämän” mahdollistavia menoja voisi verottaa ankarastikin. Tuolloin hiilivero kohdistuisi oikeudenmukaisesti siihen kulutukseen, mikä on tarpeetonta, ja niihin kuluttajiin, jotka aiheuttavat eniten hiilidioksidipäästöjä.

Hiilivero voisi siten sekä laajentaa veropohjaa että olla oikeudenmukainen ilmastonmuutoksen vastainen toimi.

Suomalaisetko ympäristöystävällisiä - faktat sanovat muuta

Maanantai 17.7.2023 klo 18:54 - Mikko Nikinmaa

Kun puhutaan ympäristön pilaamisesta, suomalaisten yleinen kommentti on: ”Kyllähän me hoidamme asiat esimerkillisesti, mutta kun eivät ne muut.” Tuo omahyväinen asenne vaatisi faktoja, joiden perusteella väitteen voisi tehdä. Sen vuoksi olen yrittänyt etsiä tekijöitä, jotka tukisivat väitettä. Valitettavasti en ole niitä löytänyt. Paremminkin on niin, että suomalainen ympäristöystävällisyys rajoittuu vain puheisiin. Suomen tilanteen pitää kohtuullisena vain harva asutus, eurooppalaisessa mittakaavassa olemme paljon keskiarvoa huonompia useissa ympäristöasioissa.

Ensimmäisenä voisi ottaa yleisen luonnonvarojen kulutuksen. Siinä Suomi sijoittuu kymmenen eniten henkeä kohden kuluttavan maan joukkoon edellään Euroopassa vain Luxemburg, Belgia ja Tanska. Suomalaiset kuluttavat maapallon luonnonvaroja niin paljon, että meidän viisi miljoonaa asukastamme vastaa yli sataa miljoonaa afrikkalaista.

EU on kieltänyt useiden ympäristöä saastuttavien tuholaismyrkkyjen käytön. Käytölle voidaan kuitenkin saada poikkeuslupia. Suomessa niitä on haettu tänä vuonna toiseksi eniten Euroopassa, 18 kpl. Ero esimerkiksi Ruotsiin on järkyttävän suuri, siellä kun on haettu vai yksi poikkeuslupa myrkkyjen käytölle.

Keksimääräisen suomalaisen hiilijalanjälki on suunnilleen kaksinkertainen verrattuna keskimääräiseen ruotsalaiseen, vaikka ilmasto-olomme ovat melkein samat ja molemmissa on pitkät välimatkat. Niinpä Suomi aiheuttaa yhtä paljon ilmastonmuutosta kuin asukasluvultaan kaksinkertainen Ruotsi.

Suomalaiset tuottavat jätettä henkeä kohti noin 100 kiloa EU:n keskiarvoa enemmän vuodessa. Yli kuudensadan kilon vuotuinen jätekuorma henkeä kohden on Euroopan kuudenneksi suurin. Ero Ruotsiin on jälleen huima. Siellä tuotetun jätteen määrä on noin 200 kg vuodessa Suomea pienempi henkeä kohden.

Kierrätystä suomalaiset ovat pitäneet maassamme hyvin toimivana, kun meillä on tehokas pullonpalautus ja paperia on kerätty ikiajat. Tässäkin täytyy tuottaa kissanhännän nostajille pettymys. Kun Euroopan maissa kierrätetään materiaaleista keskimäärin 49 % on Suomen prosenttiosuus vuonna 2021 ollut vain 39.

Yllä olevat faktat osoittavat aika yksiselitteisesti sen, minkä vuoksi EU:n on aiheellista puuttua Suomen ympäristöpolitiikkaan. Vaikka Suomi on harvaanasuttu ja metsäinen maa, ympäristö otetaan harvoin huomioon muuten kuin puheissa.

Zero-carbon shipping by 2050?

Maanantai 10.7.2023 klo 16:24 - Mikko Nikinmaa

The International Maritime Organization took a huge step forward in the fight against climate change, when it agreed that shipping would become carbon-free by 2050. Earlier, IMO has been quite conservative, and reluctant to take significant steps forward, so the agreement is even more noteworthy.

The reason for a radical change is mainly that many of the island and coastal countries, which naturally have shipping as a major business, are really suffering from climate change. However, also other countries with the notable exception of Russia (they are doing nothing right at the moment) have finally woken up because of heat waves, wildfires, droughts and floods.

The bold agreement is presently only paper, so it must be implemented. Thus, the first question is: is implementation possible? The question is very acute, since the life-length of a ship is up to 60 years. Thus, the ships built today are probably sailing at 2050. The initial reductions in decreasing carbon dioxide emissions are easily done, as the fuel of ships has been the worst source of carbon dioxide of any of the fuels. So, things are getting somewhat better, when the old ships are replaced by new ones using, e.g., liquified natural gas (LNG) as fuel. However, natural gas still produces carbon dioxide, so it cannot be the final solution. One possibility is to mop up the carbon dioxide produced, but that isn’t a real solution, either, as carbon dioxide is still produced, but is filtered away. The sustainable solutions are new motors using ammonia or hydrogen as fuels. Several ship motor industries have done a great deal of work in developing such motors, and it is quite certain that within the near future we hear the news that the first ships without any carbon dioxide production have been launched.

The ammonia and hydrogen need to be produced without fossil fuels, but that has become increasingly possible. What Putin’s Russia has done, when it tried to cut off especially the European energy production, is to speed up the transition to green energy. Putting everything together: reaching zero-carbon shipping by 2050 is difficult but doable.

Miksi vetyauto olisi sähköautoa parempi vaihtoehto tulevaisuudessa?

Maanantai 3.7.2023 klo 14:57 - Mikko Nikinmaa

Kun fossiilisista polttoaineista on päästävä eroon, autoteollisuus on sangen nopeasti siirtynyt sähköautojen valmistukseen, vaikka niihinkin liittyy lukuisa joukko epätoivottavia piirteitä. Nyt kun vetytalous on lähtemässä liikkeelle, onkin mahdollista ruveta miettimään, voisivatko vedyllä käyvät autot olla sähköautoja parempi vaihtoehto varsinkin kylmässä ilmanalassa. Vety polttoaineena edellyttää tietysti, että sen on ”vihreää vetyä” eli että se tuotetaan fossiilivapaalla energialla (tuulivoima, vesivoima, aurinkovoima jne.).

1. Vetyä käyttävät autot ovat kevyempiä kuin sähköautot. Tämä on tärkeää, kun ympäristöön joutuvasta mikromuovista melkein puolet tulee autojen renkaiden kulumisesta ja kun renkaat kuluvat sitä enemmän mitä painavampi auto on.
2. Akkumetallien riittävä saaminen edellyttää sitä, että suuri määrä uusia kaivoksia perustetaan. Tämän seurauksena ympäristö pilaantuu varsinkin, kun akkumetalleja on kaikissa malmioissa sangen vähän. Jos akkumetallikaivoksia ei perusteta esimerkiksi Euroopan alueelle, metalli joudutaan hankkimaan maista, joiden kaivoksissa käytetään lapsityövoimaa ja missä työntekijöiden olot ovat huonot (esim. Kongo). Vaihtoehtoisesti akkumetalli tai jopa akut joudutaan hankkimaan Kiinasta, mikä entisestään lisäisi Euroopan Kiina-riippuvuutta.
3. Vetyauton tankkaaminen sujuu yhtä vaivattomasti kuin perinteisen bensiiniauton. Eli vetyauto on valmiiksi tankattu silloin, kun sähköauto vasta alkaa latautua.
4. Kaikille on varmaan tullut tutuksi, kuinka älypuhelimien akkukesto lyhenee merkittävästi pakkasella. Sama ongelma tulee esiin sähköautoissa. Jos kesällä akku riittää 500 km:n ajoon, talvella ajomatka lyhenee jopa viidennekseen tästä.

Tällä hetkellä suurin ongelma vetyautojen käytölle on polttoaineen täyttöasemien puute. Suomessa toimivia asemia ei taida olla lainkaan. Tilanne tullee kuitenkin muuttumaan. Raskaan liikenteen osalta on jo käymässä ilmeiseksi, että sähkökäyttöiseen kalustoon ei siirrytä vaan tulevaisuuden rekat ovat vetykäyttöisiä. Jos näin on, kuorma-autojen tankkauspisteitä on ilman muuta rakennettava ympäri Suomen. Tällöin myös pienten vetyautojen tankkaus tulee mahdolliseksi.

Voi hyvinkin olla, että jos ympäristötietoinen ihminen ajaa pikkuautoa 30 vuoden päästä, hän on hankkinut vetyauton.

We could easily tolerate a two-degree increase in temperature, but not unpredictability of weather

Torstai 29.6.2023 klo 16:24 - Mikko Nikinmaa

Human civilizations started flourishing about 10000 years ago, and there is a very simple reason for that. The weather conditions around the globe became stable. They were different in different parts of the world, but very predictable. You could count on that rain came at certain times, the dry periods needed for harvesting occurred at the end of the growing season, snows came and melted at predicted time…Agriculture has prospered as a result of predictable weather creating the civilizations which have grown until now. Although food production capacity has been questioned from time to time, and unwanted means to improve it has been used, the total amount of hunger has decreased to 2010’s thanks to weather stability.

During the last 5-10 years, famines have again started to increase!! And the increase is probably due to climate change.

Climate deniers always say that there is clearly no climate change, as there have been frosts in Texas and Spain at times they have earlier not occurred. However, that is actually one consequence of climate change. Upper atmosphere jet streams are important in generating weather patterns, especially influencing temperature. They used to be straight with the direction from southwest to northeast in Europe. The latitude of current shifted northwards during summer and southwards during winter thus favouring warm weather in summer and cold in winter. During the recent past the jet streams appear to have started undulating. Depending on the direction of the undulation the weather can be unusually cold or warm. Because scientists want statistical proof, so far this phenomenon has not been scientifically verified, for that to happen another ten years is required. The jet stream undulations and temperature changes also affect atmospheric pressures, wind strength and direction and rains. Droughts can become common in areas never having them earlier, and rains can become heavy, often occurring without any predictability.

The overall result is that the stability and predictability of weather, which is required for food production, is lost throughout the world. As a result, food production suffers, famines become more common again, and we will be facing a climate refugee wave, if climate change is not stopped, even if two degree temperature increase as such would be no problem.

Covid compared to air pollution

Torstai 22.6.2023 klo 17:57 - Mikko Nikinmaa

The covid pandemic closed the world for the better part of two years. Travel restrictions, mask mandates, chaos in hospitals…So went 2020-2022. And many people’s scare still persists. However, it is now time to relate the threat of covid to other problems we face, largely because the drastic measures most people were ready accept indicates that strong response to imminent crisis is possible.

The covid pandemic came out of nowhere very rapidly. That is the main reason for the strong response. In the beginning we did not know, how the disease would evolve and if the health care systems would be able to respond to the increasing disease pressure. Now, three years later, we are much wiser, vaccines have been developed, treatments are more effective than in the start and the virus has probably evolved so that new mutants cause less serious infection. Thus, life has normalized and coronavirus does not dominate the news. There  have been about 600 000 000 reported cases so far (although the true case load is certainly much higher, maybe 2-3 billion). The reported death toll is approximately 8 000 000, giving 1.3 % mortality.

These numbers are important, as they enable comparisons to deaths caused by air pollution. It is usually said that the reason why government do not respond to pollution as they did to coronavirus is the former being “tomorrow” and the latter “today” problem. Since combatting pollution would mean expenses, economic growth today would be disturbed, thus actions are delayed until there are economic resources to do them. Such “we’ll do things tomorrow” attitude was not possible for covid. However, one must seriously ask, if air pollution is a “tomorrow” problem. Every year it  directly causes 10 000 000 deaths, i.e., clearly more than covid has caused during the pandemic. In addition to direct mortality, indirect deaths occur, and asthma cases increase massively. Thus, air pollution is a “today” problem, and by making actions against it, one would also combat climate change. The economic cost of failing to do actions against air pollution is far greater than the funds needed for mitigating air pollution as a result of sick leaves, needs for hospital beds etc. And here, as in the case of climate change, we already have the technology needed for actions against air pollution.

We only need to accept that we have a “today” problem, which must be solved. Solving it may initially carry economic costs. However, in the long run the costs will most likely be recovered, and they will certainly be much smaller today than in future. Instead of asking: do we have the economic means to stop air pollution, we should ask: can we avoid economic collapse in future, if we do not stop air pollution today.

Greed is the reason for climate change, biodiversity loss and chemical pollution

Torstai 15.6.2023 klo 19:04 - Mikko Nikinmaa

Growth has been the ultimate aim of economies throughout the world. If economic growth of any area is smaller than in other countries, it reaches headline news. If there is no growth at all, media talk about recession and in worst case of doomsday looming. Growth was easy to reach as long as the number of people remained low so that it was impossible to use all the world’s resources and land, and cause significant pollution. However, those days are long past. Since there are now 8 billion of us and many consume the world’s resources excessively, the basic tenet of economic growth, i.e., no need to take environment into account in economic activity, is not possible any more. All today’s major problems, climate change, biodiversity loss and chemical pollution are symptoms of our overuse of the planet.

We have reached the stage in economic activity that any increase in material consumption causes a loss in other countries or environmental deterioration. And one needs to raise a question: what for? Currently used economic theories have two fatal flaws: first, they do not take into account that the planet we live in has limits and, second, they do not consider environment as a decisive component of economy. One still hears politicians and other decision makers saying that one needs to take economic realities into account before one can carry out environmental actions. They have not realized that environment is as much a part of economic realities as employment or industrial production.

So, what is the reason for the need of growth or increase in consumption? I remember times 50 years ago when the level of consumption was only a fraction of what it is today, almost sustainable. One was happy then with a lot fewer material goods than today. In fact, consuming a lot less than today would not decrease the overall quality of life. So why is degrowth such an evil thing? The main reason is probably that it doesn’t fit into the growth-based economic theories. Since economic growth is a necessity for healthy economy, degrowth is necessarily bad. However, economic growth does not take the environment into account. If it was done, old-fashioned economic growth could mean a reduction in the standard of living: if the state of the environment deteriorated as a result of the increased material growth, the quality of life would decrease. This is what is actually happening today.

Thus, because environment is not a part of economic thinking, its deterioration is not considered as an economic loss, although it should be. Since this is the case, greed becomes the major factor in causing all of the environmental problems that we experience today. As maximizing profits (=greed) is an economically acceptable thing, one does not take into account the environment as long as possible. And greed has led to climate change, biodiversity loss and chemical pollution. What is really worrisome is that even today most politicians, decision makers and voters/common people think that greed (=economic growth) should be the primary factor in policy making.

Cattle ranching - taking animal welfare and climate change into account

Lauantai 3.6.2023 klo 15:48 - Mikko Nikinmaa

Industrial cattle rearing got its first dose of negative publicity from the animal welfare people, who pointed out that cows were not able to live a decent life. They were always kept in small unnatural space and could not move freely. Public health experts then warned that since meat production in many countries was maximized by heavy use of antibiotics, steroids and growth hormone the effects could be carried on to human health. For example, the antibiotic resistance of bacteria could increase. Finally, cattle ranching is now considered to worsen climate change, as much of the available agricultural land is going to feeding cattle and because cows produce, in addition to carbon dioxide, methane, a very potent greenhouse gas. Consequently, in instructions for people to combat climate change, it is advised that one should avoid eating beef and using dairy products.

All the concerns are valid for the current industrial cattle ranching, which seeks to maximize milk and meat production. It is completely forgotten that cows are more than just production machines and that they interact with their environment. Cows and their calves are separated as soon as possible, cows cannot roam freely in their pastures, and usually fed commercially bought fodder. Much medication is needed…All in all, the negative opinions about cattle ranching all apply to the industrial beef and dairy production. We are far from the times of family farms in 1960’s: my uncles remembered all their cows’ names and the cows could happily roam around in their pasture.

But we could and actually should make a revolution in cattle ranching. The first thing to get rid of would be the separation of mother cows and their calves almost immediately after birth. This is done in order to increase the amount of milk that can be sold, as the calves drink about 40 % of their mothers’ milk production. The decrease is, however, counteracted by the mothers producing 25 % more milk than cows in industrial dairy farm. The cows and calves graze in natural pastures, which hardly need fertilization, as their clover fixes nitrogen from the air and phosphorus is largely recycled in the faeces. Calves eating natural food wean earlier than the ones eating “commercial” fodder, which in the industrial dairy farm needs to be bought. Altogether this results in the fact that the total milk production decreases only slightly, and the total production costs decrease, as fertilizer, fodder and medication costs decrease. And the cows are happy. It can be seen from the observation that their milk production continues several years longer than that of cows in industrial dairy farms. Upon weaning, male calves can be slaughtered and go in meat production.

The natural pastures, utilized by cows, are a carbon sink. They are covered by green plants throughout the year thus photosynthesizing and mopping up carbon dioxide. Recent studies have shown that increasing root mass functions as an effective carbon store, just like trees. The problem with agriculture is that conventional farming ploughs the fields, and the root-stored carbon is released. The carbon-sink property of the pastures is so great that even with the methane produced by cows, the dairy farming can remain a carbon sink. If the ongoing work, which aims at decreasing the methane production by cows, is successful, the carbon sink property of dairy farming will be increased.

It is thus possible to make beef and dairy production sustainable without virtually any decrease in monetary production. For the sake of climate and animal welfare, it should be done immediately.

Metsien käyttö kestäväksi verotuksen avulla

Torstai 1.6.2023 klo 11:25 - Mikko Nikinmaa

Lauri Mehtätalo Luonnonvarakeskuksesta kirjoitti maanantaina Helsingin Sanomien Vieraskynässä todella järkevän tekstin. Hän ehdotti, että metsämyynnin verotus perustuisi siihen, minkälaista metsää myydään. Verotuksen erojen vaikutuksesta metsänhakkuista saatavat tulot vaihtelisivat merkittävästi ja kun suurin osa omistajista haluaa metsistään parhaan mahdollisen tuoton, saataisiin hakkuut ohjatuksi niin, että metsätalous olisi esimerkiksi hiilinielujen kannalta parasta mahdollista.

Jos järeää tukkipuuta verotettaisiin tuntuvasti vähemmin kuin esimerkiksi kuitupuuta, ohjautuisi metsänhoito järeän tukkipuun kasvatukseen. Tämä maksimoisi hiilinielutkin. Tukkipuiden suosimisen lisäksi voisi olla eroja myös kuitupuiden ja ensiharvennuksen pääasiassa polttopuuksi menevän puuston verotuksen välillä. Jos ensiharvennuspuuston verotus olisi paljon korkeampi kuin muiden puiden, päästäisiin jokseenkin varmasti eroon siitä nykyisestä lieveilmiöstä, että ensiharvennuksessa vähennetään puuta liikaa. Se olisi metsästä saatavan rahallisen tuoton kannalta täysin järjetöntä, ja tällöin jopa sellaiset metsänomistajat, jotka eivät näe puitaan muuna kuin tulonlähteenä, pyrkisivät kasvatuksella maksimoimaan tukkipuiden määrän.  

Metsänkasvatuksen ohjaaminen verotuksen kautta olisi todella yksinkertaista. Kun se lisäksi ei käytännössä puuttuisi lainkaan metsistä saatavaan kokonaistuloon (tai voisi jopa kasvattaa sitä), eivät ohjauskeinoa voisi edes metsäalan taloudelliset edunvalvojat vastustaa.

En ymmärrä

Torstai 25.5.2023 klo 12:18 - Mikko Nikinmaa

Viime aikoina olemme saaneet lehdistä lukea Suomen oloissa ennätysmäisiä ulkomaalaisia investointisuunnitelmia. Ja jokseenkin kaikki perustuvat siihen, että Suomi on sanonut olevansa edelläkävijä vihreässä siirtymässä. Siirtymä näkyy jo siinä, että suomalaisen pörssisähkön hinta on alempi kuin koskaan ja fossiilivapaata sähköä tuotetaan niin paljon, että se rupeaa riittämään paljon sähköenergiaa vaativaan vihreän vedyn ja fossiilivapaan teräksen tuotantoon. Suunnitellut teollisuusinvestoinnit toisivat työtä tuhansille suomalaisille ja avaisivat ison joukon vientimahdollisuuksia. Mutta…Niiden tärkeimpänä edellytyksenä on se, että Suomen ilmastopolitiikka on kunnianhimoista, että maamme on edelläkävijä ilmastomuutoksen torjunnassa eikä vain jää seuraamaan mitä muut tekevät ja tule mukaan jälkijunassa.

Samaan aikaan Säätytalolla käydään hallitusneuvotteluja ja Perussuomalaisten yhtenä kynnyskysymyksenä sanotaan olevan, että turhan kunnianhimoisesta ilmastopolitiikasta pitäisi luopua. Koko Perussuomalaisten vaalikampanjakin perustui maahanmuuton ja ilmastonmuutoksen vastaisten toimien vastustamiseen. Ilmastonmuutos kun on vain ”vihervasemmiston” keksintöä tarkoituksena nostaa tavalliselle suomalaiselle aiheutuvia kustannuksia. Sähkön hinnan nousu on mennyt ilmastonmuutostoimien, vihreän siirtymän, piikkiin, vaikka hinta ei olisi noussut lainkaan, jos sähköntuotanto olisi jo ennen Venäjän hyökkäystä Ukrainaan ollut fossiilisista polttoaineista (joihin kuuluu myös turve) riippumatonta kautta Euroopan. Bensiinin hinta ei tietenkään saa nousta minkään biopolttoaineiden lisäämisen vuoksi, raskas liikenne ja laivat tarvitsevat aina öljypohjaista polttoainetta jne. Kaikki nämä väitteet ja vaatimukset ovat niin mennyttä aikaa; ilman muuta yksi Suomen teollisuuden mahdollisuuksista on tehdä ammoniakki- tai vetymoottoreita laivoihin ja raskaaseen tieliikenteeseen. Sekin on työpaikkoja ja investointeja tuottavaa vihreää siirtymää.

Perussuomalaisten vihersiirtymän vastustus on vastoin kaikkia elinkeinoelämän, työllisyyden ja investointien etuja. Mikäli Perusuomalaisten toiveiden mukaan tehdään, kärsii Suomen kansantalous ja tuloksena on entistä nopeammin näivettyvä yhteiskunta. Siksi…en ymmärrä. 

Russia and environmental protection

Lauantai 20.5.2023 klo 15:21 - Mikko Nikinmaa

Russia has now banned Greenpeace, because it demanded that Russia should take actions to combat environmental pollution, biodiversity loss and climate change. That actually says it all about the environmental policy of the present Russian government. Since Greenpeace dares to say that Russia should do something in terms of environmental protection, it is a hostile entity, and shall be banned. This attitude is typical for the Russian dictatorship. No-one is allowed to say anything that could suggest that Russia is not acting completely right. I suppose that all the talk about environmental pollution and climate change is just Western propaganda and lies. Russia is handling all environmental problems perfectly. To say anything else is hostility against Russia.

It doesn’t matter that Greenpeace is also criticizing environmental actions in Europe and North America. That criticism is founded according to Russian government, since Western countries do not carry out environmental protection admirably as Russia does (according to Russian government). It does not matter that environmental standards of Russian industry are low. It is only Western lies that environmental actions are only done, if a company is acting against agreements it has undersigned. It doesn’t matter that Russia is doing virtually nothing to change from fossil fuel-dependent society to fossil fuel-free one. It doesn’t matter that after Western tankers stopped shipping Russian oil, the standard of tankers has decreased increasing the probability of oil spills in the Baltic Sea.

I am afraid that only a revolution in Russia could change it to a more responsible country. Russian imperialism should end, maybe even the small ethnic areas, which now form Russian federation, should become sovereign nation states to enable fruitful dialogue and actions for environmental protection.