A heat wave causes a long-lasting population decline in a marine bird

Tiistai 17.12.2024 klo 15.17 - Mikko Nikinmaa

It feels like many birds have become rare during the recent past. As a common reason for the diminishing populations climate change has been brought forward. However, conclusive evidence of this has been hard to find. Many people maintain that the temperature changes thus far observed cannot be causing diminishing bird populations. A recent study in Science (Renner et al., Science 386, 1272–1276 (2024) 13 December 2024) shows that marine heat wave of 2014-2016 in (Northern) Pacific caused the decline of Alaska’s common murre population to less than a half of what it was before the heat wave. What is almost more worrisome is that the populations have not shown any recovery in the years after the heat wave.

An important question thus rises. The year 2024 has exceeded all the temperature records – the 2014-2016 heat wave is small potatoes as compared to last year. Does this mean that the bird populations which have not recovered from the earlier heat wave will suffer another beating. If so, will the beating be serious enough to cause extinction of murre from many localities? That will be known in a couple of years.

The possibility that a heat wave causes significant excess mortality from which the populations do not recover even in more benign conditions is alarming. If that is the case, the local extinctions can occur already in conditions, where critical temperatures only occur sporadically. On the basis of the recently reported data this possibility must be taken seriously, further adding to the urgency of shifting away from fossil fuels.

Energy storage - the key in transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources

Tiistai 3.12.2024 klo 16.04 - Mikko Nikinmaa

To combat climate change, it is necessary to stop the use of fossil fuels. This is a simple fact. But in addition to the necessity climatewise, the shift also means the stop of reliance to foreign powers, which are often using oil, natural gas and coal to pressurize states to carry out their wishes. Because of this, it is quite ridiculous that often the circles, who claim that they are nationalistic, support the use of fossil fuels and are strongly against, e.g., wind power. These circles for independence thus rather see us relying on Arab states and Russia than completely domestic energy production.

As the major reason for not shifting to renewable wind and solar production their inherent variability in production is brought forward. The variability is, indeed, a valid argument. Thus, energy production must be supported by energy storage so that the days of overproduction can get us through the times when there is no wind. Luckily there are already several alternatives which could be used, if facilities were constructed. And the sums of money needed could actually be found in subsidies to the use of fossil fuels. What would be required is a shift thinking. The most important ways of energy storage would be the following:

1. Reservoirs. When the energy production is plentiful, water could be pumped upstream to reservoirs from which hydro energy would then be produced when needed by letting water stream downhill.
2. Batteries. At present the most effective batteries are lithium ones, but for large scale storage the need for lithium mining may not be environmentally sustainable. Instead, future large scale energy storage could be done using sodium chloride batteries with anodes made of lignin, a hitherto unused component of wood.
3. Hydrogen and ammonia. When excess energy is produced, it could be used to produce hydrogen or ammonia, both of which are very good fuels. In fact, the pipelines, which have been generated for transport of natural gas, could be refurbished for hydrogen and ammonia transport, whereby the energy production somewhere in Europe could fuel industries throughout the continent. Also, hydrogen and ammonia would be good fuels for heavy traffic, agricultural machines, ships and airplanes. There are already motors in production, which would allow shift from diesel to hydrogen/ammonia.

Since the shift from reliance to unstable oil producers to completely domestic energy production could already be done, I cannot see why it is not done. Both the environment and our independence would thank.

After net zero carbon dioxide emissions are reached, we must continue to remove carbon dioxide

Sunnuntai 24.11.2024 klo 14.46 - Mikko Nikinmaa

It has recently been modelled that even after net zero carbon dioxide emissions are reached, temperatures continue to increase, largely because the seawater continues to warm up deeper and deeper. This will then cause a net increase in atmospheric temperatures. Simultaneously, the increases in ocean temperature will cause large changes in the species distributions of both plants and animals with high certainty of extinction of many cold-water species. The duration and extent of temperature increase depends on when net zero is reached: the later that happens, the longer the duration of temperature increase and greater its extent. (King et al in Earth System Dynamics DOI: 10.5194/esd-15-1353-2024)

Consequently, the modelling adds to the urgency of climate action – essentially stopping the use of fossil fuels. And here is the big problem: although the renewable energy production increases very fast, its increase has not been fast enough with the result that world fossil fuel consumption is still increasing (although its proportion of the total energy production already decreases). Further, and this was the major setback of COP29 in Baku, the oil-producing countries try their best to downplay the role of fossil fuels in causing climate change.

Since carbon dioxide level continues to increase, and since temperature continues to increase even after no change in carbon dioxide level occurs, we must aim not only to net zero, but to a decrease in carbon dioxide to be able to keep temperature changes tolerable. Technical solutions “to plug the pipes” are planned, but at the moment most of the solutions are not feasible at the moment. Also, presently the removal of carbon dioxide by adding forests is not functioning. Rather, wood cutting, intentional forest fires and wildfires are causing the forest sector to be a net source rather than a net sink of carbon dioxide.

A feasible way of removing carbon dioxide would be to utilize seaweed, as suggested by Rowan Hooper in New Scientist (November 6, 2024). Algal growth removes carbon dioxide. If the algae are then harvested, and the harvest sunk to the bottom of the oceans, the carbon will be removed from circulation for hundreds or even thousands of years. The use of algae in carbon dioxide removal could involve either mechanical harvesters or genetically modified sea weed, which would sink to the bottom of the ocean after death.

Climate hoax?

Sunnuntai 3.11.2024 klo 11.12 - Mikko Nikinmaa

The most devastating hurricanes ever in Florida and neighbouring states. The strongest typhoons ever in East Asia. Fourteen hottest months in recorded history. The devastating flash floods in Spain. La Nina has not appeared in Pacific when expected. Floods in South-East Europe. It appears that the jet stream affecting weather in Northern Hemisphere has generally moved northward, causing high temperatures in the Arctic. There are signs of increasing undulations of the jet stream, pushing cold Arctic weather further south than earlier. Atlantic oscillations may be weakening because of Greenland ice melting, as a consequence the mild weather of Western and Northern Europe can be changing to one like that in Siberia and Yukon.

The climate hoax is manifesting in various forms throughout the world. It is already apparent that the costs of weather-related catastrophes are exceeding the costs of really starting to combat climate change. The conservatives are always saying that we cannot leave the monetary debt to future generations. However, monetary debt is only numbers whereas healthy environment is needed for future generations to be able to live.

The 2024 state of the climate report: Perilous times on planet Earth

Keskiviikko 9.10.2024 klo 14.08 - Mikko Nikinmaa

William J. Ripple et al. have published the above report in Bioscience , (https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biae087). I place its conclusions below.

Despite six IPCC reports, 28 COP meetings, hundreds of other reports, and tens of thousands of scientific papers, the world has made only very minor headway on climate change, in part because of stiff resistance from those benefiting financially from the current fossil-fuel based system. We are currently going in the wrong direction, and our increasing fossil fuel consumption and rising greenhouse gas emissions are driving us toward a climate catastrophe. We fear the danger of climate breakdown. The evidence we observe is both alarming and undeniable, but it is this very shock that drives us to action. We recognize the profound urgency of addressing this global challenge, especially the horrific outlook for the world's poor. We feel the courage and determination to seek transformative science-based solutions across all aspects of society. Our goal is to provide clear, evidence-based insights that inspire informed and bold responses from citizens to researchers and world leaders.

Rapidly phasing down fossil fuel use should be a top priority. This might be accomplished partly through a sufficiently high global carbon price that could restrain emissions by the wealthy while potentially providing funding for much-needed climate mitigation and adaptation programs. In addition, pricing and reducing methane emissions is critical for effectively mitigating climate change. Methane is a potent greenhouse gas, and unlike carbon dioxide, which persists in the atmosphere for centuries, methane has a relatively short atmospheric lifetime, making reductions impactful in the short term (Shindell et al. 2024). Drastically cutting methane emissions can slow the near-term rate of global warming, helping to avoid tipping points and extreme climate impacts.

In a world with finite resources, unlimited growth is a perilous illusion. We need bold, transformative change: drastically reducing overconsumption and waste, especially by the affluent, stabilizing and gradually reducing the human population through empowering education and rights for girls and women, reforming food production systems to support more plant-based eating, and adopting an ecological and post-growth economics framework that ensures social justice (Table S4). Climate change instruction should be integrated into secondary and higher education core curriculums worldwide to raise awareness, improve climate literacy, and empower learners to take action. We also need more immediate efforts to protect, restore, or rewild ecosystems.

The surge in yearly climate disasters shows we are in a major crisis with worse to come if we continue with business as usual. Today, more than ever, our actions matter for the stable climate system that has supported us for thousands of years. Humanity's future depends on our creativity, moral fiber, and perseverance. We must urgently reduce ecological overshoot and pursue immediate large-scale climate change mitigation and adaptation to limit near-term damage. Only through decisive action can we safeguard the natural world, avert profound human suffering, and ensure that future generations inherit the livable world they deserve. The future of humanity hangs in the balance.

Global temperature has always varied...

Maanantai 23.9.2024 klo 18.43 - Mikko Nikinmaa

Climate change deniers (I use that term for people who maintain that human actions are not affecting climate) invariably state that global surface temperatures of the earth have varied markedly throughout the geological history. This is, indeed, true. A thorough study about temperature variations on earth was recently published by Judd et al. in Science (Science 385 eadk 3705; Sept 20, 2024). Indeed, the study clearly shows that the global surface temperature has varied markedly during the past 500 000 000 years. Furthermore, the present temperature is at the lower end of the temperature variations. So, the climate change deniers can be happy, it is more likely that global temperatures increase than anything else. Or can they?

I would say not. One can now place the extinction waves in the temperature diagram. Before the present, there has been five massive extinction events in the earth’s history. Four out of five have occurred when the surface temperature has increased markedly and only one can be associated with temperature decrease. Why is a temperature increase more fatal to life than temperature decrease? One explanation is seen already when temperature tolerance of animals is estimated. They can survive long periods of time at temperatures much below optimal, but succumb rapidly at temperatures only a few degrees above optimal. Indeed, high activity cannot be achieved at high temperatures as the heat produced by the activity cannot be dissipated, but causes structural damage to proteins rendering them inactive. Thus, it is likely that if we now are faced with a temperature increase, another extinction event is likely to occur.

The study by Judd et al. clearly shows that temperature variations are much more tightly associated with carbon dioxide level than earlier estimated: increased carbon dioxide necessarily causes temperature increase and decreased carbon dioxide temperature decrease. This being the case, it is clear that the human-induced increase in carbon dioxide level will cause temperature increase. Since, further, the increase in carbon dioxide level has been thousands of times faster than the earlier changes, it is likely that the effects on extinctions are more pronounced than in earlier geological times.

Thus, although Judd et al. study clearly shows the global surface temperature has been higher than presently many times in geological history without human influence, the changes of the past  indicate the need for preventing carbon dioxide increase.

Clouds and climate models

Perjantai 13.9.2024 klo 15.31 - Mikko Nikinmaa

I have had heated discussions with climate change deniers, them saying that climate change is a hoax, since climate models do not take cloud effects properly into consideration. According to them, it is clear that clouds cause cooling, and if they were included, the models would not predict global warming. As evidence for their claim, they give the cooling caused by clouds formed by volcanic eruptions, and the decrease in temperature when the sunshiny day turns into cloudy one. Further, they maintain that whenever temperature increases, clouds will be formed causing cooling.

Climate models include clouds, but  because different cloud types, their stability and distribution affect climate in different ways, the uncertainties of the models are markedly increased by them. Further, contrary to what climate change deniers say, temperature increase is not associated with cloudiness and consecutive cooling. In fact, it appears that warming causes changes in clouds and cloudiness, which further increase temperature.

The effects of clouds on climate models are difficult to estimate, because cloud altitude, the thickness of cloud, and the nature of the small particles (aerosols) gathering the moisture needed to form clouds all affect the temperature effects of clouds. For example, low-lying clouds can actually increase temperature, as they trap the heat, and prevent it from escaping; this is best seen in cloudy nights, which are much warmer than clear nights. In contrast, clouds at high altitudes have little heat-trapping capacity but, depending on the nature of particles in the cloud, effectively reflect sunlight thereby effectively cooling the atmosphere below. The particles in the clouds can be either reflective or absorptive, and cloud formation and dissolution give additional problems for climate models.

Consecutively, clouds are presently the largest uncertainty of climate models. However, regardless of the cloud input, the models show that climate change is occurring. Furthermore, the models have improved considerably in the recent past, as both the cloud behaviour is understood better and the computing power has increased. The uncertainties of climate models caused by clouds can further decrease as a result of theoretical and experimental studies on them.

Forests have role as methane sinks in addition to carbon dioxide sinks

Maanantai 5.8.2024 klo 19.54 - Mikko Nikinmaa

Methane is a very powerful greenhouse gas – nearly a hundred times more serious than carbon dioxide. It is presently estimated to cause 20-30 % of the global warming. The good thing with methane is that its half-life is much shorter than that of carbon dioxide. About 60 % of the methane production is the result of human actions, and the rest has natural causes. Leakages in fossil fuel production and use are currently probably the most important current source followed by agriculture. The agricultural methane production is almost completely caused by cattle and other ruminants. The rest of agricultural production accounts for less than 10 % of the total. Another anthropogenic methane source is (anaerobic) decomposition of landfill leachates. Naturally methane is produced especially in anaerobic wetlands by bacteria. Such wetland production is the ultimate reason for the methane “pockets” underneath the permafrost, which may be liberated to the atmosphere as permafrost melts owing to climate change. Methane-producing bacteria have been associated with trees growing in wetlands close to the moist surface.

However, it has recently been reported that trees can also consume methane – or rather bacteria living in bark. Gauce et al. report in a recent Nature article (https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-024-07592-w) that such a methane-consuming feature of trees should be taken into account in estimating the methane equilibria. It may have significant consequences on the role of forests in climate change mitigation.

Cooling Towns Down: Green Areas around Cities

Lauantai 27.7.2024 klo 15.24 - Mikko Nikinmaa

Already in 1960’s Lovin’ Spoonful sang “…hot town, summer in the city.” Indeed, towns are much hotter than the countryside around. Asphalt and concrete, streets and buildings without trees and green areas form heat domes where temperatures increase whenever sun shines. Since an increasing percentage of people live in cities, increasing temperatures have become a major health issue with climate change.

A within town solution to decrease temperatures in the cities is to plant trees to line streets and include a lot of parks in the areas. The effects of trees on the street temperatures has been estimated, and the difference between “bare” and tree-lined streets can be 5-10 degrees centigrade. Another way of decreasing city temperature is to use reflective materials/paints on rooftops. Any colours used should be light to reflect as much solar radiation as possible.

Although the above ways can decrease city temperatures to some degree, the presence of many streets and buildings necessarily increases city temperatures above those of woodlands. However, if a city is surrounded by woodlands, the following occurs:

1. Since the city temperature increases, the warm air tends to rise upwards generating a low-pressure zone in the city.
2. The cooler air flows from the surrounding woodlands to the city, whereby the measured temperature decreases and, further, the moving air, i.e. wind, makes the temperature feel more tolerable than without wind.

The influence of green areas surrounding towns on their temperatures has been reported by Yang et al in Nature Cities (2024; https://doi.org/10.1038/s44284-024-00091-z).

Just Climate Fees

Tiistai 25.6.2024 klo 19.06 - Mikko Nikinmaa

A common complaint against the high and progressive taxation in Finland and other Nordic countries is that it punishes people, who are diligent and favours the lazy ones. While this may be true for direct work taxation, people with high incomes and companies are able to carry out tax planning, which effectively reduces taxes to much less than 10 %. In my opinion the progressive work taxation is not a problem, but what is, is the much lower taxation of capital income than work income. Another major problem is that the carbon footprint of people with high incomes is much larger than that of low-income citizens.

The European Union has successfully introduced emissions trading system, which is used to combat climate change. It was originally not accepted by many “experts”, but has now been shown to be quite effective. One problem the European Union has is that it has no other income but the membership fees. There has been talk about EU starting to collect taxes, taking common loans etc. The nationalistic circles everywhere are strongly against such ideas. However, in terms of climate actions, something universal, or minimally EU-wide, is necessary. A very useful way for funding EU-wide climate action would be to start collecting climate fee, which would be progressive, and without the possibility of “tax planning”. Consequently, the greater your income (both capital and work), the bigger percentage of the income would go to European Climate Fund, which would support climate actions without national borders.

Green Ammonia - A Climate-Friendly Fuel and Fertilizer

Keskiviikko 12.6.2024 klo 19.05 - Mikko Nikinmaa

Out of the world’s carbon dioxide footprint 3 % is due to shipping. The use of diesel oil can be discontinued when motors with green ammonia as a fuel are taken into use. One can estimate that such motors make up the majority of ship motors by 2050. When ammonia is produced using renewable energy sources, the carbon dioxide footprint becomes virtually zero. The ammonia-fuelled motors need to have catalytic converters so that no N₂O, which is a powerful greenhouse gas, is emitted. With catalytic converters the end products of ammonia as a fuel are nitrogen and water.  Although ammonia as a fuel is likely to be more expensive than diesel oil for a short transition period, the position as a front runner will soon favour ammonia-based shipping. Further, the companies making ammonia-fuelled motors, have significant competitive advantage.

Currently, 80 % of global ammonia use is in fertilizers. Mostly the fertilizer production uses minerals and fossil fuels in production. However, also in this case green ammonia could phase out the current ammonia fertilizers completely. In addition to being sustainable and climate-friendly, the production of green ammonia for fertilizer would diminish the dependence on Russian fertilizer import.

Ammonia-fuelled motors for ships and green ammonia for fertilizers are examples of how climate actions can be of a significant economic advantage to societies which start producing them first. It is important not to think of today’s expenses but of tomorrow’s profits. And for all climate and nature actions, the expenses are smaller, if things ore done today than if they are delayed.

Climate models give too small temperature increase if decreased air pollution is not included

Maanantai 13.5.2024 klo 12.04 - Mikko Nikinmaa

Air pollution has decreased significantly during the past fifty years in Europe. I remember how in my youth the air in all the densely populated areas was often smoggy, and the sun was always seen through the haze. Air pollution has decreased largely as a result of decreasing number of small particles being emitted in the air. This is mainly due to collecting them in the chimneys and exhaust fumes. Since air pollution is causing millions of deaths per year globally, one would expect that this is unequivocally a good thing.

However, clearer sky also lets solar radiation to pass through more efficiently than during the dirty olden days. Sunshine in summer is associated with heat spells. And the length and severity of those has increased markedly throughout the last decades. In Europe the temperatures have increased much, about one degree, more than the used climate models predict. So, climate change appears to be worse than expected. This appears to be mainly due to the fact that the climate models used to predict climate change have not included decreasing air pollution and consequent increase in solar radiation.

So, combatting air pollution makes climate change worse? Not really, what is seen is the effect of inadequate inputs for mathematical modelling. This means that temperature increases are more drastic for the predicted fossil fuel usage and consequent carbon dioxide load. In other words, we have underestimated the severity of climate change because of inadequate models. However, to a large part, the improvements of air quality can be associated with the decrease in fossil fuel burning, although there have been measures dissociating the two (like catalytic converters). Thus, in the long run, decreased air pollution is the result of discontinued use of fossil fuels, and no disparity between predicted and measured temperatures occurs.

World Population Is Predicted to Start Decreasing during This Century

Torstai 21.3.2024 klo 18.54 - Mikko Nikinmaa

When the news is flooded with bad news about climate change, biodiversity loss, overuse of natural resources, environmental pollution etc., good news often go unnoticed. And the true good news has in the past years been that the world population is predicted to start decreasing before the end of this century. It will then continue to decline so that in about 300-500 years the population is back to around 2 billion – a marked decrease from the present 8 billion. This change will mean that all the environmental problems mentioned above are easier to tackle. One must notice, though, that the population decrease does not mean that we need not to change our ways of life to be environmentally sustainable. Otherwise the population decrease will only mean that environmental collapse takes place later than it would happen if human population continued to increase.

However, when the population starts to decrease, one needs to develop completely new economic principles. Today, a decrease of population is seen as a problem. Politics and governance have population growth as a wanted phenomenon. In the present-day thinking, only population growth enables the existence of welfare society. The wellbeing of societies is dependent of economic growth. This idea must change. Instead of aiming at getting more and more, societies should be satisfied with things being adequate.

In terms of climate change and other environmental actions, immediate responses are required. Their effectiveness is helped first by diminishing population growth and then by population decline. On the other hand, the principles for economics and politics, developed for declining population, need to be established in about fifty years. I hope there are scientists who are presently developing ideas for economics beyond year 2100.

Another recordhot month - February 2024

Torstai 14.3.2024 klo 18.17 - Mikko Nikinmaa

February was 1.77^oC warmer globally than the preindustrial average for the month. It is now the ninth month in a row with highest measured average global temperature. For me this can hardly be happening without climate change contribution. Yet, US Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump says “drill, drill, drill” and right wing populists throughout Europe ask for lower petrol prices. No doubt that they will saying that there is no climate change if and when the temperature decreases next year. A decrease in global average monthly temperatures is expected to happen next year when the cooler La Nina weather pattern will replace the hot El Nino weather pattern in Pacific Ocean.

The February temperature was particularly high in Europe, 3.3^oC above preindustrial average. Anybody with alpine skiing as a hobby certainly noticed this. Most ski resorts had only snow in some of the slopes, and offpist was out of the question because of the lack of snow.

Ice is melting in Greenland - so what, it is far away from Europe

Lauantai 2.3.2024 klo 15.06 - Mikko Nikinmaa

Heat waves, drought, heavy rain, floods, no snow in winter, extreme cold – weather in Europe has been extreme for many years now. And the weather pattern differs markedly spatially. When the British Isles had very warm November 2023, Scandinavia was freezing. Major things affecting weather are the location, direction and strength of tropospheric jet streams. Knowing how the jet streams are what they are would significantly help in predicting weather effects of climate change.

Oltmanns et al. (Weather and Climate Dynamics 5, 109-132, 2024) have now evaluated what changes in the melting of Greenland’s glaciers does to summer weather in Europe in the following years. They evaluated statistically what the relationship between freshwater flow to the Arctic sea and distinct aspects of weather, like temperature and rain, is. The links between freshwater flow to ocean and European weather were statistically significant for several years, and showed that significant spatial variation will also occur.

Why would there be a significant effect of melting water in East coast of North America? The reason appears to be that the cold meltwater increases the temperature difference between the subpolar and subtropical ocean water. The latitudinal boundary between the southern warm and northern cold water depends on the amount of melted water. This affects where the jet stream is located and if cold or hot air will be moving in the stream. Consequently, the temperature in European continent will be affected. The changes of freshwater melt have been such that heat waves in Europe have been favoured in summer, and the increase of summer temperatures has been greater than expected.

The article elegantly describes why and how the overall climate change can influence weather, often in conflicting ways. If I have read the figures right, the data used also show that ice-melt can cause the observed cold spells in Scandinavia, or, in any case, that weather variability increases. That is bad news for agriculture.

Review of Hannah Ritchie's book "Not the End of the World"

Keskiviikko 31.1.2024 klo 14.14 - Mikko Nikinmaa

Environmental headlines have recently almost invariably been doomsday prophecies. Billions of people living on the coasts will die in climate change-induced floods. Deforestation accelerates temperature increase. Insect pollinators disappear with devastating effects on vegetable food production. Fishes are soon becoming extinct in many parts of the world. Often people reading such headlines start thinking that since catastrophe is coming anyway, it doesn’t pay to try to fight environmental destruction. Instead, they think that they can live as comfortably as possible today since the end of the world is coming tomorrow anyway.

Instead of only doomsday prophecies, true environmentalists should bring forward possible solutions to environmental problems. Based on her strong knowledge of environmental data, this is what Hannah Ritchie does in her book. Or, actually she presents data indicating that many things are not changing towards ultimate doomsday. She argues that we can make choices which make sustainable life for humankind possible. Often the things to be done, based on their environmental impact, differ from what the preconceived ideas of important environmental actions are. Further, focussing on only a couple of the most important changes can make the goal of sustainability feasible.

The two things that will change virtually everything are drastically decreasing the use of fossil fuels and minimizing the use of beef. One thing I noted when reading the book was that Hannah Ritchie virtually never said that one should stop doing something completely. Instead, she advocates marked reductions in the most harmful practices. With regard to energy (heating and electricity) production, fossil-free alternatives have already become cheaper than coal and oil. Thus, global efforts can be directed towards making energy production fossil-free. If burning can be stopped, also air pollution, presently killing millions of people especially in developing countries, will diminish markedly. While electrifying car transport appears to be quite good, the use of biofuels is not advocated by Hannah Ritchie, mainly because then agricultural land is used for cars instead of food production.

Cattle ranching is using up a large part of land and most of the agricultural crops go to animal feed. Thus, if the overall beef eating decreased by three quarters, so much agricultural land would be freed up that deforestation could be stopped completely, and consequently biodiversity loss would largely disappear. This is just one example of how environmental problems and their solutions are intertwined.

It is clearly possible to get us through the population peak, probably occurring in the latter part of this century. However, personally I think that we should aim to a total human population of 3-4 billion at equilibrium. This will probably be the end result after advances in (especially women’s) education. Such lowered human population is needed, as many of the natural resources are overused, and may become limiting in 100-200 years. (Overuse of mineral resources was not included in the book.) Also, I cannot share Hannah Ritchie’s optimistic view about pesticides – they and other pollutants will pose a problem, if we cannot get the equilibrium population down. However, a transition period of 100-200 years with higher population will most likely be feasible, whereafter we can truly reach sustainable state. And as Hannah Ritchie points out, many of the solutions require governmental actions. We, as individuals, must pressurize governments and companies to carry out such actions in order for them to remain successful.  

Biofuels are not ecologically or climate-wise friendly

Keskiviikko 24.1.2024 klo 13.39 - Mikko Nikinmaa

Burning causes carbon dioxide emissions. In the case of biofuels, the amount of carbon dioxide produced is actually higher than for fossil fuels. The claim that biofuels are climate-friendly is based on thinking that the produced carbon dioxide is taken up relatively rapidly by the plants used for further production of biofuels, i.e. the net emission of carbon dioxide can be zero, if the plants grown for  biofuels consume use up the carbon dioxide for oxygen production at the same rate as it is produced. However, this misses the point that burning causes carbon dioxide emissions, and any such emissions contribute to climate change. One could, and in my opinion should, decouple the plant growth, which is a carbon sink, and burning of plant products such as biofuels, which is a carbon dioxide emitter. One can grow plants without burning them.

Biofuels are produced especially using oil plants such as oil palm. Also other plants, such as maize and sugar cane are important sources of biofuels. Typically biofuels are produced by rich countries, often from plants grown in poor areas instead of food crops needed for the local population. This is true, e.g., for oil palm, which has got a really bad reputation. However, the bad reputation should not be warranted, if the palm oil were not used for biofuels but only for food oil. This would markedly reduce the need of agricultural land for oil plants, since oil palms produce at least 5-10 the amount of oil per unit area as other oil plants. Thus, if food oil production worldwide changed towards palm oil, decreased area of agricultural land were needed and more (tropical) forests could be saved (as soybean is one of the most important oil plants in use). So, ecologically, the important thing would not be to stop growing oil palms but stop producing biofuels made using them.

In addition to plants, food waste is a major source of biofuels. In my opinion, food and other wastes are good materials for thermal power plants, as then all the produced small particles and even carbon dioxide can be taken up by collectors inserted in chimneys. However, the carbon dioxide in car, truck, ship and plane exhausts will inevitably contribute to world’s carbon dioxide load. Further, in the case of food waste-based biofuel the link between carbon sink and source is more difficult to establish than for plant-based biofuel. In this case only the carbon dioxide produced in the burning process can reliably be established.

In conclusion, I do not think that biofuels are either ecologically or climatewise a sustainable solution. Instead, we should use cars and planes less, use e-meetings when we find them useful. Doing this we could easily diminish our need for biofuels for the short transition period from petrol- or diesel oil-using engines to more sustainable ones.

Better times ahead - hopefully

Tiistai 2.1.2024 klo 12.55 - Mikko Nikinmaa

Another year has gone, and 2024 has just begun. There have been worrying news about the state of environment and climate throughout last year: the biodiversity loss and the highest global temperatures ever, droughts, floods and storms. With doomsday predictions about the state of our planet, many people are suffering from eco-anxiety, others deny that anything at all is happening.

Eco-anxiety is a big problem, since it stems from having no hope. When one feels that there is no hope, one easily stops from trying to make future better. In view of this, it is important that people are given visions of possibilities that may bring about a better future. Although both climate change and biodiversity loss have become more serious every year, data indicate that especially during the past ten years improvements have been achieved. They are the topic of the book by Hannah Ritchie, published on January 11, titled Not the End of the World. Since she is a data scientist at the University of Oxford, handling environmental data, she is in a good position to evaluate what is happening.

The simplified conclusion is that although the present problems are alarming, we have technical capabilities to prevent further environmental deterioration, if people work for prevention with all their capabilities. Thus, one should step from eco-anxiety to true eco-activity. Further, in deciding which activities to do, we all should think in conflicting situations, which of our activities will have the most environmental impact. As Hannah Ritchie said in an interview: “Everyone focuses on the plastic bag, when what they should be focusing on is what they are putting in the bag. Most of your environmental impacts come from the food you eat not the plastic bag that you take to the shop.”

In the brink of extinction - many freshwater fish

Tiistai 12.12.2023 klo 17.23 - Mikko Nikinmaa

When I did my Ph.D. thesis 40-45 years ago, the topic: effects of temperature and hypoxia on respiration of rainbow trout, was hardly noticed by the general public. In 1976 we, biology students arranged a theme evening about the pollution of the Baltic  Sea and invited media. Nobody came, and when I asked a newspaper reporter why that was the case, he answered that the topic had no general interest. I wish the situation were the same today: fish would not suffer from pollution, increased temperature and decreased oxygen level. Unfortunately that is wishful thinking.

IUCN (International Union for the Conservation of Nature) has recently updated its Red List with very worrying information of fish, particularly freshwater fish. A quarter of the freshwater species is in immediate danger of extinction. The most important proximate cause is pollution, but toxicant effects cannot be separated from temperature increases and eutrophication, which causes oxygen lack. All of the previous problems increase parasite loads and cause fish diseases. In addition, overfishing and building of waterways, which has destroyed spawning sites or made it impossible to reach them, decreases fish populations.

Below I give a couple of examples of how all of the above cause the disappearance of specific species. First, eels are critically endangered species, which are characterized by their catadromous way of life and long spawning migrations. They grow and reach maturity in freshwater. Their migration from sea to freshwater feeding sites is critically dependent on smell sensing, which is dramatically disturbed by pesticides and metals. Consequently, those types of pollution may be an important cause of declining eel populations. Second, burbot is a coldwater fish. It spawns in the middle of winter, and it is ice-fished in January-February to get the fish and its eggs for soup. Now that the temperature is increasing, burbot is already living at the high end of its temperature tolerance, and may soon become extinct. Another group of coldwater fish is salmon and its relatives. In addition, it requires clear water with high oxygen content. Since both an increase in temperature and eutrophication decrease the oxygen level, salmon and its relatives may become extinct. Lampreys have succeeded in temperate waters for 500 000 000 years. Many of the species live in sea as adults, but spawn in rivers. Because of building of waterways, e.g. hydroelectric power plants, their long saga may be coming to the end. Finally, aquarium hobby is very popular throughout the world. Many of the ornamental fish do not reproduce in captivity, and are thus fished wild. This has made many species endangered because of overfishing.

 

Climate summit in United Arab Emirates (or is it really an oil lobby)

Keskiviikko 29.11.2023 klo 17.43 - Mikko Nikinmaa

News is dreary. First, it is estimated that climate change already causes more than 6 % decrease in global GNP. No wonder, as climate-related phenomena have diminished crops, caused wildfires and flooding, etc. Many insurance companies have incredibly high fees for house insurance policies in areas, where the likelihood of storms has increased radically in recent past. And GNP (Gross National Product) does not take the environment into account. The indexes which do this had their highest values in rich countries in 1990’s. Also, coal and oil pollution cause millions of deaths yearly, many more than the Covid pandemic. So, climate change is here, and decreases the quality of life more than any other single event.

Although wind and solar energy production has increased markedly during recent past so that clearly more than half of the new global electricity production is fossil-free, about 60 % of world’s energy consumption is still dependent on oil and coal. And, actually, the amount of energy produced using fossil fuels is still increasing although its percentage is decreasing. This apparent contradiction is due to the fact that the global energy consumption still increases markedly.

The above notions should be important to take into account now that world leaders again gather to Climate Summit, this time in United Arab Emirates (UAE). Already the place of the meeting generates suspicion, as UAE has gained its wealth with oil, and continues to do so. Further, the Persian Gulf nations are known for sports washing – World Cup of Soccer in Quatar, Incredible transfer fees of footballers in Saudi Arabia, the number of Kenian athletes now competing under Quatar flag. One can suspect that the Climate Summit is the start of climate washing with oil lobby doing its best to decrease climate actions. This conclusion has become quite credible after a document has leaked, which advises the UEC delegation to lobby oil and gas exports. Further, the president of the summit is also the head of Abu Dhabi National Oil Company, and has suggested an approach, where renewable energy sources complement rather than replace oil.

Is this the way to combat climate change, which already causes significant damage?