Trump calls climate change a 'SCAM' and a 'HOAX'. He cannot be President.

Trump is a person who should NOT be the next President as he would be dangerous to humankind as he does not believe in climate change calling it a 'scam' and a 'hoax' of all things. He is going against hundreds of top scientists.

Here is some detail on why Trump cannot be the next president solely on the basis that he calls climate change a SCAM. The man wants to make lots of money for himself and his country and fixing climate change is hugely expensive and will stunt economic growth potentially. He wants to kick the problem into the long grass at the expense of future generations. He is behaving like the worst politicians: short term thinking and instant popularity while shunning reality.

From the perspective of climate change and its global implications, Donald Trump’s return to the presidency could be dangerous for humankind, especially considering his well-documented dismissal of climate science. By repeatedly calling climate change a "scam" and rolling back crucial environmental regulations during his presidency, Trump demonstrated a disregard for the scientific consensus that climate change is real, primarily human-caused, and a significant threat to the future of the planet.

Here are key reasons why Trump's denial of climate change poses serious risks:

1. Delaying Urgent Climate Action

• Lost time: Climate change requires immediate action to mitigate its worst effects, and Trump's policies during his first term set back progress. His stance, if continued in a second term, would delay essential policies needed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, further narrowing the window for effective action.
• Regulatory rollbacks: Trump’s administration dismantled numerous environmental protections, from emissions standards to limits on pollution, exacerbating environmental damage and making it harder to reverse course.

2. Influencing Millions to Deny Climate Change

• Amplifying denial: As a highly influential figure, Trump’s statements on climate change reinforce misinformation. Millions of Americans—and others around the world—look to him for guidance, and his denial of climate science sows confusion and distrust in factual information.
• Undermining global consensus: In an era where global cooperation on climate change is crucial, Trump’s influence encourages division and skepticism, weakening efforts to build the broad-based support needed for effective climate policies.

3. Weakening Global Climate Leadership

• U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Agreement: Trump’s decision to pull the U.S. out of the Paris Climate Agreement during his presidency sent a signal that the U.S., one of the largest carbon emitters, was stepping back from its leadership role in tackling climate change. This undermined global efforts to reduce emissions and gave cover to other nations considering scaling back their climate commitments.
• Missed opportunities for cooperation: A president who denies climate change cannot effectively collaborate with other countries on climate solutions. This risks not only environmental harm but also damages U.S. diplomatic standing.

4. Promoting Fossil Fuel Dependence

• Fossil fuel focus: Trump’s policies heavily favored the fossil fuel industry, promoting oil, gas, and coal production while undermining renewable energy investments. This approach ignores the long-term economic benefits of transitioning to clean energy and locks the U.S. into outdated, polluting technologies.
• Worsening climate impacts: Continued dependence on fossil fuels would accelerate greenhouse gas emissions, intensifying the effects of climate change—more extreme weather events, rising sea levels, and disruptions to agriculture and water supplies—leading to catastrophic consequences for future generations.

5. Ignoring National Security Threats

• Climate as a "threat multiplier": Trump’s dismissal of climate change overlooks the growing recognition within the U.S. military and intelligence communities that climate change is a major national security threat. Worsening climate conditions are expected to cause resource conflicts, mass migration, and political instability around the world, endangering global security.
• Unpreparedness for disasters: Climate change increases the frequency and severity of natural disasters like hurricanes, wildfires, and droughts. Ignoring climate change means failing to adequately prepare for or mitigate these disasters, putting millions of lives and livelihoods at risk.

6. Economic Risks and Missed Opportunities

• Missed green economy opportunities: The global economy is moving toward renewable energy and sustainable technologies. A president who ignores or downplays climate change could cause the U.S. to fall behind in developing these industries, missing out on job creation and economic growth in the green sector.
• Cost of inaction: The economic costs of inaction on climate change—ranging from damage to infrastructure, agriculture losses, health impacts, and disaster recovery—far outweigh the costs of proactive mitigation. Trump’s policies would likely increase the financial burden on future generations.

7. Endangering Future Generations

• Long-term impacts: Trump’s denial of climate change threatens the future of younger generations. Climate change will affect every aspect of life—access to clean air and water, health, food security, and economic stability. A president who fails to acknowledge this reality risks leaving a damaged planet for future generations to inherit.
• Irreversible tipping points: Climate science warns of tipping points beyond which the effects of global warming could become irreversible. Trump’s policies would likely push us closer to these points, increasing the likelihood of severe and unmanageable climate impacts.

Conclusion: Why Trump Should Not Be the Next President

Given the existential threat that climate change poses to humankind, it is vital that the next president fully acknowledges the reality of the climate crisis and takes decisive action to address it. Trump’s denial of climate change and his policies favoring short-term economic interests over long-term sustainability make him a dangerous choice in this regard.

In a world where immediate, bold action is needed to mitigate the worst effects of climate change, a leader who calls it a "scam" is not only delaying essential progress but actively working against the survival and well-being of future generations. To protect both the U.S. and the global community, it is crucial to have leadership that understands the gravity of the climate crisis and is committed to solutions that prioritize the environment, public health, and long-term sustainability.

Is climate change a scam as Trump says?

No, climate change is not a scam. The overwhelming majority of climate scientists agree that climate change is real, human-caused, and poses a significant threat to the environment, economies, and human health worldwide. This consensus is based on decades of research, data, and observations regarding rising global temperatures, increased greenhouse gas emissions, and the impacts on ecosystems, sea levels, and weather patterns.

Former President Donald Trump has repeatedly expressed skepticism about climate change, often referring to it as a "hoax" or "scam." However, his views are at odds with the scientific consensus. Major organizations, including NASA, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), have all affirmed that human activities, particularly the burning of fossil fuels, are driving global warming.

Here are a few key points:

1. Scientific Consensus: Studies show that over 97% of climate scientists agree that climate change is happening and is driven by human activities. This includes reputable bodies like the IPCC and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS).

2. Rising Temperatures: Data shows that global temperatures have increased by about 1.2°C (2.2°F) since the late 19th century, with the past decade being the warmest on record.

3. Climate Change Impacts: We are already seeing effects such as more extreme weather events, melting polar ice, rising sea levels, and disruptions to ecosystems and agriculture.

4. Economic and Security Risks: Ignoring climate change has economic, geopolitical, and health consequences. Military experts and economists view climate change as a "threat multiplier" due to its potential to exacerbate conflicts over resources and cause large-scale human migrations.

While political opinions on how to address climate change vary, the scientific evidence supporting the reality and seriousness of climate change is robust and clear.

----------------

P.S. please forgive the occasional typo. These articles are written at breakneck speed using Dragon Dictate. I have to prepare them in around 20 mins. Also, sources for news articles are carefully selected but the news is often not independently verified. And, I rely on scientific studies but they are not 100% reliable. Finally, (!) I often express an OPINION on the news. Please share yours in a comment.

Britain temporarily becomes Russia in imprisoning non-violent climate change activist for two years

Phoebe Plummer. Her X image.

NEWS AND COMMENT, UK: Of course this is my opinion. Share yours please. Many will disagree with me and they will be wrong. 😱 Britain has temporarily become Russia under Putin: a repressive state with a mindless, establishment judge hammering a couple of courageous protesters campaigning under the Just Stop Oil banner by imprisoning them for two years in the case of one protester and 18 months for the other for throwing Heinz soup over a Vincent van Gogh sunflower painting protected by glass in the National Gallery.

CLICK THIS FOR MORE ON THIS STORY IF IT INTERESTS YOU.

Remember these two vandals who attacked Van Gogh’s Sunflowers painting back in 2022?

Justice has finally been served.

Phoebe Plummer received a two-year jail term at Southwark Crown Court, while Anna Holland was handed 20 months.pic.twitter.com/jeaVgzmJxO

— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) September 27, 2024

They knew that the painting was protected by glass. The prosecution argument is that the soup MAY have damaged the 17th-century frame. We don't know whether it was or wasn't. I doubt whether it was damaged. We should know. 

So what they did was entirely visual. It was a visual statement and it worked in that sense. It has received lots of publicity but this government wants to stamp on perfectly respectful protests. Protests about climate change, which presents an extensional threat to the planet.

It is the young people of today who are nervous about the future because of climate change and other developments. The two women jailed for this extortionate amount of time for an entirely non-violent protest on a critical matter of importance to the survival of humankind are Phoebe Plummer and Anna Holland. Plummer told the hearing at which she was sentenced to 2 years in prison that she will take the punishment on the chin and smile.

Want to know the real story behind Just Stop Oil and the people who support the campaign? Crowdfunding for Everything Is Fine is now live! Donate here: https://t.co/PT88vg3pNa https://t.co/0wVefZr3Pw

— Phoebe Plummer (@ziggystardyke) March 15, 2024

Given the existential threat of global warming, the actions of the Just Stop Oil protestors can be seen as just and proper, even if they broke the law in doing so. Their protest caused no physical damage, did not lead to disorder, and was motivated by a genuine concern for the future of the planet. Rather than being punished, these activists should be recognized for their role in raising awareness of a global crisis that demands urgent attention. Praising rather than punishing them would not only acknowledge the gravity of the climate crisis, but also send a message that civil disobedience in the name of a just cause is a vital tool for driving social and political change.

Lousy judge

I think she's a wonderful person. As is Anna Holland. The horrible judge, part of the establishment, who I would totally disrespect because of this unwarranted punishment, is Judge Christopher Hehir. He signalled beforehand that he would punish them severely and he has. A ghastly man. He is taking orders from the government, I would allege which is illegal.

He appears to have justified the punishment in saying the following. They crossed the line from "concerned campaigner to fanatic". In addition he said that the "cultural treasure" could have been "seriously damaged or even destroy".

That is entirely incorrect. This judge, I think, is showing his hatred for these protesters. He is allowing his emotions to affect his judgement which should be an objective process, a fair process. Yes, this couple of young women should be punished for causing minor, very minor criminal damage I would argue in the cause of a great protest but it should be a very mild punishment (a small fine) because their cause is critical to the survival of the planet.

The lawyer representing the couple said that they knew there was glass over the painting and therefore the painting would not be damaged. The judge got this entirely wrong.

New copy protest

And remarkably, three new Just Stop Oil protesters have now been arrested on suspicion of criminal damage after they threw some more soup over two versions of Vincent van Gogh's sunflowers at the National Gallery. This is a fresh protest in protest over the overly harsh sentencing of the couple of young women now languishing in jail.

This recent development is a great one. Judges can't go on imprisoning protesters and campaigners against the continued burning of oil and gas, exacerbating climate change, in the UK because firstly there are not enough spaces in prison to imprison these people because of a lack of prison construction over the years.

Madness of imprisonment

And secondly, this government has decided that imprisonment is not a good form of punishment. They recently released over 1,500 prisoners. These were men who committed real crimes. This government is releasing genuine criminals, often harden criminals, who are in and out of jail all the time and imprisoning people who are fighting for the survival of humankind! It is totally bonkers.

This new group of three Just Stop Oil activists been arrested and they made a good point. Their spokesperson, Phil Green, said that the 25 supporters of their group now currently in jail would be regarded by future generations as being "prisoners of conscience" and on the right side of history.

This is a good video. Important:

Tonight at 9pm on @Channel4

Climate breakdown is happening all around us – floods , fires , droughts , crop shortages . . . thousands of people are dying

So I ask a simple question – 'Is It Time to Break the Law to protest for the planet' ?#IrresponsibleAndReckless pic.twitter.com/6wFKW3oRpK

— Chris Packham (@ChrisGPackham) September 20, 2023

In future years we will look back at the imprisonment of these activists has wholly incorrect and unwarranted. We will look back at the madness of it. These people are doing something good. This should be praised. They have been forced into carrying out these dramatic protests in order to get the attention of the media and the government. If the government was doing something about global warming they'd be no protests. Just Stop Oil wouldn't exist if governments worldwide were doing their job and making genuine progress on protecting the planet.

The suffragettes’ struggle is an excellent analogy for today’s climate activism. Like the suffragettes, climate activists are working for a just and necessary cause in the face of institutional inertia and societal resistance. The harsh punishments they face today may one day be seen, as the suffragettes’ punishments are now, as unjust responses to moral bravery. Just as we now honor the suffragettes for their role in advancing human rights, future generations may honor today's environmental activists for their role in protecting the planet.

-------------

P.S. please forgive the occasional typo. These articles are written at breakneck speed using Dragon Dictate. I have to prepare them in around 20 mins. Also, sources for news articles are carefully selected but the news is often not independently verified. And, I rely on scientific studies but they are not 100% reliable. Finally, (!) I often express an OPINION on the news. Please share yours in a comment.

FULL ASSESSMENT showing that electric vehicles are better than petrol vehicles for the environment

Here is a FULL ASSESSMENT showing that electric vehicles are better than petrol vehicles for the environment. The environmental impact of electric vehicles (EVs) versus petrol vehicles (internal combustion engine vehicles, or ICEs) has been a subject of extensive analysis. To fully assess whether EVs are better for the environment, several factors need to be examined, including emissions during use, manufacturing processes, battery production, energy sources, and lifecycle environmental impact.

1. Emissions During Operation

• EVs:
  • EVs have zero tailpipe emissions. They do not emit carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrogen oxides (NOx), or particulate matter during use, which is a key environmental benefit.
  • However, the electricity used to charge EVs can vary in its environmental impact, depending on the energy mix of the grid. In regions where electricity comes primarily from renewable sources (solar, wind, hydro), the emissions during charging are minimal. But in areas where coal or other fossil fuels dominate the energy mix, the charging process does contribute to CO2 emissions.
• Petrol Vehicles:
  • Petrol vehicles emit significant CO2 and other harmful gases during use. For example, a typical gasoline car emits about 4.6 metric tons of CO2 per year, depending on fuel efficiency. This includes NOx and particulate matter, which contribute to air pollution and human health issues.

Key Takeaway: EVs have a clear advantage in terms of emissions during use, especially in regions with cleaner electricity grids. Even in areas with a fossil fuel-heavy energy mix, EVs often result in lower emissions due to the higher efficiency of electric motors compared to internal combustion engines.

2. Manufacturing and Battery Production

• EVs:
  • EV manufacturing, particularly battery production, is energy-intensive. Studies show that producing an EV, especially its lithium-ion battery, can result in higher emissions than manufacturing a petrol car.
  • For instance, manufacturing an EV battery can emit between 50-75% more CO2 than producing a gasoline car. This is due to the mining and processing of raw materials like lithium, cobalt, and nickel, which are used in batteries.
• Petrol Vehicles:
  • Manufacturing petrol vehicles also requires substantial energy, but their engines are generally less complex to produce compared to EV batteries. As a result, initial manufacturing emissions are lower.
• Improvement in Battery Technology:
  • The environmental cost of battery production is decreasing as technologies improve and cleaner energy is used in manufacturing processes. Recycling initiatives are also being developed to reuse materials from old batteries, reducing the need for raw material extraction.
  • For example, second-life applications for EV batteries in energy storage systems are gaining popularity.

Key Takeaway: While EV manufacturing, particularly battery production, has higher emissions upfront, these are often offset over the vehicle's lifetime through reduced operational emissions. As battery technology improves and recycling grows, this gap is expected to narrow further.

3. Energy Source for Charging

• The environmental advantage of EVs depends largely on the energy mix used to generate electricity.
• Regions with Cleaner Grids:
  • In countries like Norway, where the majority of electricity comes from hydropower, EVs have almost no associated CO2 emissions during operation.
• Regions with Fossil Fuel Grids:
  • In places where coal or natural gas is dominant (e.g., parts of China and India), the advantage of EVs is reduced, although they still tend to have lower emissions over their lifetime compared to petrol vehicles.
• Global Trends:
  • As more countries transition to renewable energy sources (solar, wind, hydro), the carbon footprint of charging EVs will decrease. Governments are also offering incentives to speed up this energy transition, which directly benefits the sustainability of EVs.

Key Takeaway: The environmental performance of EVs improves dramatically as the electricity grid becomes greener. In the long term, with global moves toward renewable energy, EVs are positioned to become even more environmentally friendly.

4. Lifecycle Analysis (LCA)

A full lifecycle analysis includes emissions from the extraction of raw materials, vehicle production, vehicle use, and end-of-life disposal.

• EVs:
  • Several studies show that, over their entire lifecycle, EVs tend to have lower total CO2 emissions compared to petrol vehicles. A study by the European Environment Agency (EEA) found that, even considering battery production, an EV emits about 17-30% less CO2 over its entire lifecycle than a comparable petrol vehicle.
  • As battery recycling and production processes improve, this figure is expected to increase.
• Petrol Vehicles:
  • Petrol vehicles have lower manufacturing emissions but much higher operational emissions. Over a vehicle’s typical lifespan, these higher emissions outweigh the manufacturing benefits.

Key Takeaway: EVs have a lower overall environmental impact over their lifecycle compared to petrol vehicles, especially as grid energy mixes become cleaner and battery recycling advances.

5. Resource Extraction and Environmental Impact

• EV Batteries:
  • The extraction of lithium, cobalt, and nickel for EV batteries has significant environmental and social implications. Mining activities can lead to habitat destruction, water use, and pollution. Moreover, cobalt mining in particular has been associated with unethical labor practices.
  • However, there are efforts to develop alternatives to these materials, such as solid-state batteries, and to improve mining practices to reduce their environmental and social costs.
• Oil Extraction:
  • The extraction, refining, and transportation of oil for petrol vehicles also has severe environmental impacts, including oil spills, habitat destruction, and significant emissions during refining and transportation.

Key Takeaway: Both EVs and petrol vehicles are associated with environmental harm related to resource extraction. However, innovations in battery recycling and a move towards sustainable mining practices are improving the environmental impact of EVs, whereas oil extraction remains environmentally damaging.

6. Recycling and End-of-Life Disposal

• EVs:
  • EV battery recycling is still in its early stages, but progress is being made. Companies like Tesla and Redwood Materials are developing processes to recover valuable materials from old batteries, which can be reused in new ones.
  • This is crucial for reducing the need for new raw material extraction.
• Petrol Vehicles:
  • Petrol vehicles also have recyclable parts, but end-of-life disposal often results in waste, especially for non-metallic components like plastics.

Key Takeaway: EV recycling is improving and has significant potential to reduce the environmental impact of battery production, while recycling of petrol vehicles is more established but doesn’t address the fundamental emissions problem.

---

Conclusion

Based on the full assessment of available statistics and facts, electric vehicles are better for the environment than petrol vehicles, especially in regions with cleaner electricity grids. Key points include:

1. Lower operational emissions: EVs produce no tailpipe emissions and generally have lower lifetime CO2 emissions, even when accounting for electricity generation and battery production.
2. Lifecycle advantages: Despite the higher emissions from manufacturing, particularly related to battery production, EVs offer lower overall emissions over their lifespan due to zero emissions during operation and the shift towards renewable energy.
3. Battery technology advancements: Improvements in battery efficiency, production, and recycling are expected to make EVs even more environmentally friendly in the future.
4. Energy grid decarbonization: As more electricity grids shift to renewable energy sources, the environmental benefits of EVs will increase further.

While there are challenges related to raw material extraction and initial manufacturing, these are being mitigated by ongoing improvements in technology, making EVs a more sustainable long-term solution compared to petrol vehicles.

Source: ChatGPT. This AI bot has been programmed with tons of information from the internet which is an issue for website owners but it does mean that the information is pretty reliable notwithstanding that this is a complicated topic.

Putin is good at 2 things: warming the planet and making devastating weapons

This is a quick note because this news has got my goat! I have decided that Putin is good at three things: producing oil and gas and manufacturing devastating weapons. The oil and gas significantly contribute to global warming which is an existential threat to humankind while the devastating weapons he produces kills, maims thousands of people including children and destroys their homes and vital infrastructure including hospitals, schools and libraries et cetera.

So, Putin is good at making things which destroy humankind, damage humankind, damage the planet and therefore he is an incredibly negative presence on the planet. He is a menace to humankind, world peace and stability. He needs to be stopped as soon as possible.

The world in general is too tolerant of him. We simply react to what he does by for example helping Ukraine defend themselves against his illegal invasion of their country to try and annex it to Russia.

But why does humankind tolerate this man? In fact some countries support him like China, North Korea and India. This is highly immoral behaviour. It is a behaviour which damages the prospects of our very existence.

Today, in my newspaper, there is the story of Vladimir Putin visiting the leader of Mongolia which might strike some people as very strange because Mongolia is a signed up member to the International Criminal Court. The International Criminal Court (ICC) has issued an arrest warrant for Putin for the forced deportation of Ukrainian kids. And yet, the leader of Mongolia has failed to ensure that Putin is arrested under that arrest warrant. And therefore Mongolia is supporting Putin's criminality. How does the world view that?

By newspaper also tells me that Ukrainian officials, human rights groups and Russian opposition figures have all urged Mongolia to honour its legal obligations and arrest Putin during his two-day visit. But he was greeted by the Mongolian Foreign Minister before walking down a red carpet flanked by guards. There was a guard of honour to welcome him and shepherd him through the main square for his meeting with the president. The Kremlin had earlier brushed away any speculation that Mongolia could detain him. Putin's spokesman said that there "are no worries. We have a great dialogue with our friends from Mongolia".

As I said, too many leaders in this world are supportive of Putin despite the fact that he is a persistent and serial murderer and criminal of the highest order. He needs to be stopped as stated. It appears to me that the world simply lacks enough integrity to do what is right and necessary. Mongolia's behavior also fatally undermines the ICC.

In the newspapers today, to make a point, there is the story that Russia is developing a nuclear powered, nuclear-armed cruise missile, that could, in theory, circle the earth for an indefinite period of time. It has been nicknamed "the flying Chernobyl". No doubt he is very proud of it. Another armament which threatens humanity. How can you be proud of that?

The weapon is apparently stored in a bunker in Vologda about 295 miles north of Moscow. He wants to develop invincible weapons and the most devastating weapons possible. He's constantly pronouncing to the world in shocking declarations that he will push the nuclear button if the West threatens Russia beyond a certain threshold.

These are idle threats but they are unpleasant threats. And they are getting worse. He has changed the nuclear policy of Russia. It is more likely he'll use them because he perceives a threat from the West. He is inherently hostile to the West. He can't see straight. His deeply ingrained hatred and disdain of Western values colours his thinking and behaviour.

And he's used illegal armaments against Ukraine. He has killed children in their hundreds. He is killed hundreds of thousands of animals and left many more homeless. He's killed grandmothers in their beds. He's done the most horrifically objectionable things and yet we tolerate him. 

He is a threat to humanity and he must be stopped. It needs courage and bold behaviour from the West to do this. Let's see it.

-------------

P.S. please forgive the occasional typo. These articles are written at breakneck speed using Dragon Dictate. I have to prepare them in around 20 mins. Also: sources for news articles are carefully selected but the news is often not independently verified. Also, I rely on scientific studies but they are not 100% reliable.

Judges jailing Just Stop Oil protesters are reactionary establishment figures

British judges are currently jailing Just Stop Oil protesters. Quite severe punishments. Sometimes utterly unreasonable punishments for peaceful protests. I wrote about that recently when Hallam, an organiser was jailed for five years and a couple of charming young ladies were jailed for four years each for chucking Heinz tomato soup on the frame of van Gogh's 'Wildflowers'. Yes, they were jailed for four years for chucking some Heinz tomato soup on a picture frame in a gallery.

So why are they doing this? It's because they are reactionary. Nearly all British judges come from the middle, middle/upper, upper classes in the UK. They are excellently educated. They go to the best schools and they go to Eton or Harrow after which they go to Oxford or Cambridge.

They become very successful barristers and KCs. They earn lots of money but if they want to become a judge they will have to accept less money but they enjoy the status of becoming a High Court judge or better. They receive a knighthood when they become a High Court judge.

They have high status. But they are part of the establishment. They are firmly part of the British establishment. And I believe a lot of them do not actually believe in climate change. A lot of people in the establishment in Britain don't firmly believe in climate change. They don't want their way of life altered which helps them to not believe in climate change. Their life is too good. They don't want anything upsetting them or their lifestyle. Climate change does negatively impact their lifestyle or will do for future generations.

And so because they want things to remain as they are, they don't like protesters who upset their way of life and tell them that things are going to get worse unless strong action is taken. And if they do have the temerity to upset their way of life in protesting they hammer them as hard as they can and issue overly zealous prison sentences for peaceful protests.

Another judge has done the same thing. He is judge Shane Collery KC (Kings Counsel). He sentenced George Simonson and Theresa Higginson to 2 years in jail apiece. Other protesters he's jailed for 22 months and 20 months. They pleaded guilty at an earlier hearing to causing a public nuisance after they caused mass destruction by climbing gantries on the M25 motorway on November 9, 2022.

The judge said that the protesters were blasé about what they did. He thought the protests were a "curious way of seeking to influence the public opinion."

He added that "[You] considered you knew better than everyone else". Well, I'm gonna say that they do know better than everybody else and they have the courage to scream it from the rooftops. And it is judges like Shane Collery KC who don't understand what's going on. And if we could look back retrospectively in 50 years time at this judgement I think we would all agree that he was terribly wrong. 

That's because in 50 years time time global warming will be impacting the planet far worse than it is now and people at that future time will understand how brave these protesters were in providing the public with a warning for the catastrophe to come.

----------

P.S. please forgive the occasional typo. These articles are written at breakneck speed using Dragon Dictate. I have to prepare them in around 20 mins.

Scientists want frozen samples of animal species stored on the moon (infographic)

This is a cross-post. I think it is very interesting but I am quite scientific. One reason why it is interesting is because the scientists who dreamt up this plan are concerned about the vulnerability of a storage vault on the Earth because of global warming and nuclear war. 

And they are genuinely concerned about ensuring that the planet's precious animal species are preserved for future generations if everything goes pear shaped and the Earth collapses with the loss of all life or the majority of animal species. They see the real prospect of this.

There is already a plant species vault in Norway - the Svalbard seed vault. This stores seeds of vital crops. And there is the UK's Frozen Ark project which has stored more than 48,000 samples of genetic material from about 5,500 species of endangered animal. The problem as stated is that it could all be lost in a nuclear war or through catastrophic global warming.

Here is the infographic explaining the concept.

The report is called: Safeguarding Earth's biodiversity by creating a lunar biorepository. Link: https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biae058

Scientists want frozen samples of animal species stored on the moon by Michael Broad

----------

P.S. please forgive the occasional typo. These articles are written at breakneck speed using Dragon Dictate. I have to prepare them in around 20 mins.

Why are two girls going to prison for putting some soup on a picture frame?

Personally, I thoroughly admire the couple of young ladies, Phoebe Plummer and Anna Holland who threw tomato soup over Vincent van Gogh's painting "Sunflowers". They are brave. They going to go to prison for putting a bit of tomato soup over the frame to this painting. Yes, the frame might be quite valuable but £10,000? That's what we have heard it's going to cost to repair it. I think that's highly inflated.

We're not criminals by Michael Broad

--------------------

And the reason why this particular painting is so valuable - worth hundreds of millions of pounds probably - is because billionaire investors invest in paintings. The day it was painted it was pretty well valueless. The only reason why iconic paintings have very high value is because they are effective investments and the only people who can invest in them are billionaires. Not great, is it?

They don't have an inherent value other than there are nice pictures to entertain us. This couple of young ladies don't think that they are criminals. I agree with them. What they've done is to highlight climate change which people like to shove under the carpet and forget about. They want to shock people into thinking about climate change and be shocked by it.

Why are we fretting about the frame to a painting? What's the big deal? Even if the painting was damaged which it hasn't been it still wouldn't be a big issue because we are talking about an existential threat to the planet about which the politicians are still arguing 30 years after the COP meetings began. It's all talk and no walk.

It's no wonder you get intelligent ladies like these who want to actually kickstart politicians into doing something. I can add a further quotes from Phoebe Plummer.

"That painting was protected by glass. But the fact is millions of people in the global south aren't protected. As young people our own futures aren't protected. That shocked reaction is because it is something beautiful, and you have that feeling of wanting to protect something beautiful, something valuable, of not wanting to see it be destroyed. Where is that sentiment when it's our planet? When it's our environment? When it's people whose lives are being destroyed?"

They chose this particular painting for the shock value. They needed to get into people's heads; to create some anger and to engage people.

The judge said that they "came within the width of a pane of glass of destroying one of the most valuable artworks in the world". That statement is pointless. It's stating the obvious. We know the painting was protected by glass. These girls knew that. The painting wasn't damaged. I don't see the issue. I just think the whole thing's been overhyped and it's been reactionary by the establishment.

And the establishment is failing people. The establishment is failing young people particularly because they have to live with climate change. Most of the establishment is older people who probably won't suffer from climate change that much. Certainly far less than young people and the children of young people today. It's about the future. It's about protecting the future.

The problem is that the establishment like short-term fixes. They cannot get their heads around long-term policies and long-term problem solving. Perhaps it's because it's not politically expedient. It's not politically effective to think long term. And therefore they brush the problem under the carpet. And there's far too much self interest between countries. The whole thing is bogged down in human deficiencies and stupidity. That's why I support these ladies. They have got people talking and that's their objective. Don't punish them for that. Praise them.

And what about cats? Well, what about us? What about cat caregivers? If climate change is an existential threat to the planet it is an existential threat to nature and the wildlife that lives within nature. It's a threat to all of us including our companion animals. It's the single most important topic to discuss on the planet today but it is not happening enough.

"The world’s climate, particularly in Africa, has changed substantially during the past few decades, contributed by several human activities. Africa is one of the continents that is most vulnerable to climate change globally. Since the beginning of 2022, extreme weather events in Africa have affected about 19 million people and killed at least 4,000 individuals. Cyclones, floods, heatwaves, wildfires, droughts, and famine were among the severe weather occurrences. Natural disasters and extreme weather events brought on by climate change may compromise access to clean water, sanitation systems, and healthcare facilities, making people more vulnerable to a number of illnesses. Floods and drought can lead to both communicable and non-communicable diseases. The African population is more likely to experience more mental health disorders than before because of natural disasters, which result in the loss of property and sometimes loss of lives more frequently. We, therefore, call for an improved implementation of strategies to prevent the health effects of climate change so that the health of the people in Africa can be maintained." - Health effects of climate change in Africa: A call for an improved implementation of prevention measures.

-------

P.S. please forgive the occasional typo. These articles are written at breakneck speed using Dragon Dictate. I have to prepare them in around 20 mins.

Unrelentingly kind, Oxford-educated mum got four years' jail because she rented a safe house to Just Stop Oil

OPINION: Louise Lancaster is described by Theo, her son, as "unrelentingly kind". He added that, "In almost any situation she will put others first." Louise Lancaster is the kind of person who is the backbone of  Britain.

She studied maths at Oxford. She is smart and decent and normal and is the kind of person that Britain should be proud of and protect. But she was jailed for four years because she rented a safe house for Just Stop Oil, the group campaigning against the government's inactivity to deal with climate change properly.

Louise Lancaster and family in a selfie. Image: Louise Lancaster on the left.

Other protesters were jailed for four years and the organiser, Roger Hallam, was jailed for five years. This was a peaceful protest. It is unheard of to be jailed for five or four years for a peaceful protest. Her ex-husband, Tim, said that she expected to be convicted and jailed and was prepared for it emotionally. And she prepared her family for it as well. Because she was thinking of others again.

Just Stop Oil protesters storm 18th green at Travelers Golf Championship (72nd hole)

Nevertheless the family was shocked at the sentence. Tim said: "To get a sentence that is way longer than you would get for violent crime [the average UK sentence for violent crime is 21.6 months]. It feels terribly unjust."

Destruction of democracy in the UK in silencing climate change campaigners

The sentencing took place under the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 which was amended to allow for harsher punishments to these sorts of protesters. For people like me, the increased power to judges to hand out more severe punishments for peace protests is almost a fascist act. It's drifting towards a Russia-like situation. It's entirely unacceptable.

It did not come naturally for Louise Lancaster to be involved in a Just Stop Oil protest campaign. She just felt something had to be done about the lack of activity in dealing with global warming. She must have given it a hell of a lot of thought. Initially both Louise and her husband joined marches and signed petitions and wrote to their MP.

They thought people were noticing but they decided that they weren't and at one stage, Louise said to her husband: "Look, we did all of that and nothing changed. We have to do something else."

About 2020 she started to see non-violent direct action as a way of getting the government's attention. And so she became involved in Just Stop Oil's activities. It led to 4 years in jail which I would think will be commuted to 2 years or even less. She is quite happy to be in jail actually and has got her vegan diet organised in prison at last.

She has reassured her kids and has a smile on her face. When her kids saw her off when she went to prison they gave her a hug. Verity, her daughter, burst into tears while "Mum broke into a massive smile".

She told Verity that she was going to be fine and that she will be helping other women in prison fill out forms and would do some online courses and work on her pullups!

She is a lovely woman and this horrendous judge, Judge Christopher Hehir, did the government's bidding and put her in prison for four years because she rented a safe house for the campaigners. She also organised some climbing equipment. She was behind the scenes. She's now front and centre in the mainstream news.

And everything she's done and the punishment she received SCREAMS injustice. Britain has become an unjust place riddled with petty crime. The police don't tackle any shoplifting and they hardly tackle burglaries. Theft, fraud and even large-scale crime is rampant in the UK and it is undermining society. Almost none of it goes punished but Louise Lancaster was severely punished for trying to tell the government to do something about global warming. It is turning justice on its head.

-------

P.S. please forgive the occasional typo. These articles are written at breakneck speed using Dragon Dictate. I have to prepare them in around 20 mins.

Female eco-activists win human rights fight over global warming

For me, this is a great story. It is a momentous story but it's got somewhat hidden within the news media, today. I'll briefly discuss what happened.

And I'm thankful by the way to The Times newspaper for this. It takes place in Switzerland. A group of 2000 women have won a climate change case against Switzerland at the European Court of Human Rights. The ruling has been described as "monumental" by experts.

The group who describe themselves as Senior Women for Climate Protection convinced the judges at the court that the Swiss government's failures to tackle carbon emissions had breached their duty to protect citizens from the adverse effects of a rapidly warming world.

It's a first for the court as well as for the world. The ruling was described as a landmark by Joana Setzer, an expert on environmental litigation and an associate Professor at the London School of economics. She added that "The significance of the victory in the KlimaSeniorinnen [Senior Women for Climate Protection] case is monumental."

Campaigners against climate change have turned to the courts. Their intention: to push governments to act faster. In Holland, Shell was in court defending themselves against their failure to improve on their carbon targets.

The women referred to won under article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. This article covers governments' duty to protect people from the impact of climate change.

They decided that Switzerland had critical gaps in its plans for cutting greenhouse gases and that the country had failed to meet their earlier goals.

"The Swiss authorities had not acted in time and in an appropriate way to devise and implement the relevant legislation" as was stated in the judgement.

The senior attorney at the Centre for International Environmental Law said that this ruling "leaves no doubt: the climate crisis is a human rights crisis".

Greta Thunberg is a member of the above-mentioned Senior Women for Climate Protection group.

------------

P.S. please forgive the occasional typo. These articles are written at breakneck speed using Dragon Dictate. I have to prepare them in around 20 mins.

Richest 1% cause 16% of carbon emissions. Time for greater equality.

Did you realise that the richest 1% of the world's population are responsible for as much carbon dioxide being emitted as the poorest 66% according to Oxfam.

The rich of the world have carbon-heavy lifestyles. This elite, rich 1% of the world's population emit the same amount of carbon dioxide as the poorest 5 billion people on the planet according to Oxfam's 2019 study which is based on research with the Stockholm Environment Institute.

"It would take about 1,500 years for someone in the bottom 99% to produce as much carbon as the richest billionaires do in a year. Governments [must] tackle the twin crises of inequality and climate change, by targeting the excessive emissions of the super-rich by taxing them more. This could raise much needed revenue that could be directed to a range of vital social spending needs, including a fair switch to clean, renewable energy as well as fulfilling our international commitments to support communities who are already bearing the brunt of the climate crisis"- Chiara Liguori, the senior climate justice policy adviser for Oxfam

-----------

P.S. please forgive the occasional typo. These articles are written at breakneck speed using Dragon Dictate. I have to prepare them in around 20 mins.

Is the Iberian lynx further endangered by the devastating Algarve wildfires of 2023?

Iberian lynx in the wild. Highly endangered. Image: Pinterest.

No one has mentioned this but it seems to me that the highly endangered Iberian lynx - perhaps the world's most endangered cat species - is now under further threat to its survival in the wild: the massive wildfires in the Algarve region of Portugal which is exactly were the Iberian lynx lives!

RELATED: Climate change and illegal water extraction add to threats against Iberian lynx

Even without the fires, the temperatures have been so high in the Algarve and other parts of Portugal and Spain that they present a threat alone it would seem to me. What about water courses drying up and the lynx failing to get enough water or its prey animals such as hares and rabbits dying because of the temperatures and drought? The temperatures have been hitting the mid-to-high 40 degrees Celsius in parts.

RELATED: Iberian lynx – comprehensive treatise focusing on conservation 2022

I have two maps: one of the area of distribution of the Iberian lynx and one of the area of extreme temperature and danger to wildfires as published on Phys.org. The lynx distribution map is by me.

The Iberian lynx distribution

Marked Area	What It Means
Green Line	This encloses the wider area that contains fragmented habitat where this wild cat is believed to be extinct. You can zoom back to see the big picture
Red Line	This contains the wider area around the Parque Nacional de Doñana. The park is a place where the Iberian lynx is known to be found and the wider area where they are also found.
Blue Areas (2)	These are the areas where this wild cat is known to live. The population in the park is estimated at 24-33 and in the eastern Sierra Morena (the “stronghold”) 60-110 (2009). Please note that the effective population size (breeding adults) is much less at about 50 in the Sierra Morena.

Where the wildfires are

As you can see the distribution of the Iberian lynx very much overlaps with the fire zone. And the high temperatures are much wider.

Surely this of concern to the wildlife conservationists?

Humankind is doomed as the world can't kick its fossil fuel habit!

You can discuss cat behaviour and wildcat conservation all you want but at the end of the day it might be pointless because the world struggles to kick its addiction to fossil fuels. It isn't just the fact that the development of renewable energy is not proceeding fast enough and it isn't the fact that oil, gas and coal together accounted for almost 82% of global primary energy consumption last year, it is also the fact that the EV market (electric vehicles) is stalling in the UK because of various factors and also the vegan food marketplace is being consistently damaged by the manufacturers who insist on adding salt and other unhealthy ingredients to make it more palatable. Humankind is also addicted to salt and processed foods.

Image: DALLE-E.

Veganism is one route to put a break on climate change because it means we less meat and meat comes from cows and cows produce methane and methane warms up the atmosphere. The EV marketplace is stalling because the infrastructure is not being built fast enough and the government in the UK is not encouraging the purchase of EVs with tax breaks et cetera. Also, the battery market is volatile. Lithium-ion batteries are being supplanted by more efficient batteries. The tech is fast moving.

And the UK government is going to have to tax owners of electric vehicles by charging them by the mile. This is to make up for the reduction in the tax that they obtain through VAT on petrol (gas in the USA).

I am painting a very bleak picture and I'll continue. As mentioned above fossil fuel energy sources accounted for 82% of primary energy consumption which was barely any less from the previous year.

And solar energy accounted for a mere 2.1% and wind 2.3% of total global energy usage. This includes not only power generation but also energy used in transport, heating and other applications.

The Energy Institute's Statistical Review of World Energy tells us that renewables including hydro accounted for about 14% of global energy consumption.

They present a bleak picture of progress towards renewable energy which is too slow. The decarbonisation of global energy is too slow. We are not meeting the Paris climate warming goals.

Energy-related carbon dioxide emissions achieved a new peak in 2022. This is because output from coal and gas-fired power plants hit record highs. While consumption continued to rebound to near pre-Covid levels. The demand for power grew by a little over 2% to a new high. The vast majority of that growth being met by renewables, however.

Record amounts of solar and wind projects started producing electricity during 2022.

However, this still resulted in solar accounting for only 4.5% of global power generation. Wind accounted for 7.2% of global power generation.

Nick Wayth, the Institute's chief executive said:

"At a global scale, renewables are not yet eating into coal and gas-fired generation and in fact both coal and gas recorded record highs in terms of generation in 2022."

Nuclear power output fell by 4%.

Wyath said that the global primary energy mix has shown very little change over the year. Coal remained at 27% of consumption for the sixth consecutive year. Oil increased slightly to 32%. The gas market share fell slightly because of lower use for heating and transport.

So, the conclusion is that despite some growth in renewables the share of world energy is still coming from fossil fuels and that percentage is stuck at 82%. This is after many years of talking at heads of state conferences about pledges and about their commitment to take real action to tackle global warming when actually it's all talk and no action. Well, there has been some action but it is nowhere near enough. 

The promises made by our leaders are hollow. Many people believe that humankind is sleepwalking into a major catastrophe. We just can't kick the habit of burning fossil fuels. We will have to see it much worse than it is before we change our ways. There are still very many people who don't believe that climate change is real.

Juliet Davenport, president of the Institute, said:

"Overall global energy-related greenhouse gas emissions increased again. We are still heading in the opposite direction to that required by the Paris agreement."

As I said at the beginning unless humankind does more and commits to changing their deeply ingrained habits using fossil fuels, we are heading into a hostile world which will be uninhabitable over large areas. It will massively increase migration from equatorial countries to the north.

These are much bigger issues, to be frank, than discussing feline behaviour and whether a certain cat breed is more friendly than another which is a rather pointless discussion in any case.

The protesters in the UK who disrupt people's lives such as the campaign group Just Stop Oil, are, in my opinion, courageous although they are vilified by many news media outlets and millions of people. They do what is necessary to try and force people to change their ways. Humankind needs them in my view. We shouldn't be vilifying them. It is the mainstream right wingers who do this in their blind addiction to fossil fuels.

Source: The Times and myself.

Carbon footprint equivalent (CO2e) of a pet cat and dog

We should all at least be interested in global warming. Better still be concerned if not greatly concerned - as many youngsters are as they'll be facing the consequences in years to come.

In that vein, it is useful to look at the carbon footprint of pets. They do contribute to global warming just like humans as the food they eat and the products that we buy for them have an underlying carbon footprint.

Overall, the carbon footprint of pets is enormous.

UCLA researchers calculated that meat-eating by dogs and cats creates the equivalent of about 64 million tons of carbon dioxide a year, which has about the same climate impact as a year’s worth of driving from 13.6 million cars. - Zero Smart

Here is an infographic on the topic:

Carbon footprint equivalent (CO2e) of a pet cat and dog. Infographic by MikeB

Suppressing our carbon footprint

What can we do to contribute to suppressing global warming as pet owners? We can buy pet products which are not made from plastic which is made from petroleum.  There is an added benefit in not buying plastic toys for cats. Cats can't destroy plastic toys that are meant to substitute prey animals. This leads to boredom. Environmentally beneficial cat toys made from sustainable materials will normally be more prey-like as they can be damaged. This might be more engaging for the domestic cat.

Carbon offset is one thing we can do such as doing other things which minimises our carbon footprint. You can plant a tree in your backyard for instance. If you have a backyard.

Get rid of the car! If you live in the UK, the government wants us to dump our cars because of extensive 20 mph speed limits. Use Uber instead or bike to the shops or get a bus. That would be a form of carbon offset to counteract your pets contribution to global warming.

It is hard to reduce a pet's carbon footprint in terms of food, I feel. There is one controversial thing: buy vegan cat food. Sounds mad but it works. DON'T FEED YOUR CAT VEGAN FOOD! But commercially made dry, vegan cat food contains all the nutrients needed. Plant protein substitutes animal protein. Nutrients are added in.  That would reduce a pet's carbon footprint. Check it out.

A vegetarian cat? No. But manufactured vegetarian cat food containing all the necessary nutrients. Yes.

Carbon dioxide equivalent - CO2e

CO2e stands for carbon dioxide equivalent. It is a metric used to measure the global warming potential (GWP) of different greenhouse gases relative to carbon dioxide (CO2). The concept of CO2e allows for the comparison of the warming effects of various greenhouse gases based on their ability to trap heat in the Earth's atmosphere over a specific time frame, typically over 100 years.

Different greenhouse gases have different heat-trapping abilities and lifetimes in the atmosphere. For instance, methane (CH4) is a potent greenhouse gas that has a higher heat-trapping capacity than carbon dioxide but has a shorter lifespan. CO2e provides a standardized measure that converts the warming potential of all greenhouse gases into the equivalent amount of carbon dioxide that would have the same warming effect over a given period.

By expressing emissions in CO2e, it becomes easier to compare and aggregate the total greenhouse gas emissions from different sources, such as carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and others. This metric is commonly used in climate change research, environmental assessments, and carbon footprint calculations to quantify and manage greenhouse gas emissions.

The Age of Stupid

This is a film on Amazon Prime about the stupidity of humankind in allowing global warming to take place. It is hosted by Pete Postlethwaite.

And here is Pete on making the film. He was a great actor. Much admired.

Good man turns on public water fountain for thirsty cat

This is Israel and it must be damned hot in Israel in this year of more clear signs of global warming and extreme temperatures. Although the video was made about five years ago. But the message is there: the summers are getting hotter and the record temperatures higher. The high temperature in the UK today was a record for the country at 40.3 Celsius. The previous record was 38.7 Celsius. That's a 1.6 increase. Wildfires broke out in East London in a field which spread to 7 houses and burnt them to the ground. In the UK we see pictures of California's wildfires and think never here. We think that it is something that never happens in Britain but now it does.

To play the video you may have to click the play button twice! Good fun. High tech.

I am going to guess and say that the cat was stretched out on the water fountain to keep cool. It is made of a large slab of stone which is going to feel cool as it was probably cooled down by the water flowing over it when along came a good guy who with foresight decided that this stray cat probably needed water and as it was to hand, he obliged.

Can you feel that the world is going wrong?

Are you like me, can you feel that the world is going wrong or to put it another way becoming destabilised? I think a lot of people feel this way. I also believe that a major factor in this destabilisation is global warming. I'll explain my thinking.

Everybody is predisposed to fear. I think most people are frightened to varying degrees a lot of the time. Sometimes fear is subdued to the point where it is almost invisible but it is always there. So, bearing in mind that background fear in humankind, people have become particularly fearful now that they realise that they are destroying their planet, their home, through global warming. Climate change is potentially incredibly serious. It is the destruction of humankind in the worst-case scenario.

"We now have no alternative – we have to do all we possibly can in the short time left to us to avoid the enormous climate catastrophe that has already begun to show its face in the most terrifying ways, most recently in the Mediterranean,” - Prince Charles (Daily Mail). 

Note the use of the word 'terrifying'. Climate change is making people fearful.

Can you feel that the world is going wrong?

People can foresee the possible destruction of humankind through their careless behaviour. That is a powerful feeling which is bound to impact behaviour. And I think it is, right now. It is making people more desperate and more selfish. Selfishness or self-interest is a destabiliser in any case. It breaks cohesion. If one country is acting very selfishly while disregarding the interests of other nations, and the planet as a whole, it destabilises the world. I'm talking about China predominantly.

I believe that when people foresee the possible end of humankind through climate change it insidiously gets into their heads and affects their emotional state. As mentioned, I think it makes people more selfish. It makes people spend more and become more reckless. It is living for the moment which is also destabilising.

And in the UK, the police have lost control. This too is destabilising. UK citizens are on their own when it comes to protecting their property and finding justice. The lack of law enforcement is certainly a factor in feeding fear in individuals. Law enforcement the world over is generally poor. In the US the police have become SWAT teams. Or they are bent. They nearly always get away with criminal behavior. Poor law enforcement leads citizens into believing that they are alone; another destabilising emotional state.

Climate change is feeding into mass emigration. As the hot countries become hotter, they become less tolerable. People move to northern countries. 

And as people have more fear it is more likely that there will be conflict which also feeds into mass emigration because in countries where there is conflict life is intolerable. And so, people move to countries where there is more stability.

But mass emigration which is often illegal, but accepted because they are deemed to be refugees, also destabilises the world. It would be far better if the countries from which people emigrated were improved in terms of standard of living, the quality of governments et cetera. Far better for people to stay where they live and improve the country rather than run to other countries. The whole process is destabilising.

And China is going its own way and in doing so disregarding international opinion which is heading towards conflict. The thought of a large conflict in the not-too-distant future is also destabilising.

The Afghanistan problem which the world is currently going through is another destabilising influence. It shows a failure in the West. Perhaps some countries look to America to stabilise the world but they've failed. They can't do it anymore. They can't be relied upon anymore.

At the root of all these issues is the mentality of humankind and if that becomes more fragile and more fearful it feeds into destabilising behaviour and the world goes wrong. 

What has this got to do with cats? What affects us affects our cats. Everything to do with cat welfare becomes irrelevant if the planet can no longer support life.

Almost perfect 28,000-year-old lion cub found in thawing Siberian permafrost

The best-preserved Ice Age lion cub dated to around 28,000 years ago has been found in Siberia's thawing permafrost due to climate change. Sparta is the younger of two lion cubs found in the permafrost. The other has been named Boris and he is dated to 43,448 years ago. They believe that both clubs died when they were a couple of months of age perhaps due to a landslide or falling through a permafrost crack in the ground.

Almost perfect 28,000-year-old lion cub found in thawing Siberian permafrost. Photo: Centre for Palaeogenetics

Sparta is very well preserved with grey to light brown fur. Her whiskers were also preserved. She is largely undamaged. They were unearthed in 2017 and 2018 by hunters of mammoths in the Semyuelyakh River, Yakutia, in what is now eastern Russia.

Location of lion cub finds. Source: the study mentioned below.

The Independent newspaper tells us that only four Ice Age lion cubs have been discovered. They referred to a scientific study called The Preliminary Analysis of Cave Lion Cubs Panthera spelaea (Goldfuss, 1810) from the Permafrost of Siberia. The summary of the study states:

"A preliminary description is presented of the well-preserved frozen mummies of two cubs of the extinct cave lion Panthera spelaea (finds of 2017–2018, Semyuelyakh River, Yakutia, eastern Siberia, Russia). The fossil lion cubs were found in close proximity, but they do not belong to the same litter, since their radiocarbon ages differ: the female (named ‘Sparta’) was dated to 27,962 ± 109 uncal years BP, and the male (named ‘Boris’) was dated to 43,448 ± 389 uncal years BP."

They state that the cubs were 1-2 months old. They both lived in a cave. They are called cave lions and they believe that the light coloration of the fur was an adaptation for Northern snow-covered landscapes.

A well-preserved cave lion cub found in Siberia's permafrost is 28,000 years old, according to researchers. The Siberian Simba, nicknamed Sparta, was one of two baby cave lions found in 2017 and 2018 by mammoth tusk hunters. https://t.co/gCw5WB4P0N pic.twitter.com/j7lEXpW2Vd

— CNN (@CNN) August 6, 2021

The melting permafrost due to global warming has created a 'a large mammoth-tusk hunting industry'. The temperatures in Siberia have been amazing; up in the 30s Celsius. There have been extensive forest fires too. If anyone still doubts that climate change is happening, think again. The scientists have brought forward the date at which it will be irreversible unless profound changes are made to humankind's lifestyle.

Click here for a page on the history of the big cats.