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.

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.

Destruction of democracy in the UK in silencing climate change campaigners

A shocking threat to rights of free speech in the UK has just occurred. This is not just about the right of free speech, it also about climate change in how governments deal with it. 

The UK is edging towards a fascist state as far as I'm concerned. This latest criminal court judgement supports my thinking.  Please read Hallam's enormous tweet which is at the end of this article. You get first hand reporting. The judge was arrogant and wrong. Very wrong.

I can't find the judge's reasoning. I think he referred to the campaigners as 'fanatics'. I also think he was very biased against them and it would not surprise me if he did not believe that climate change exists and drives an enormous SUV. Yes, I am pissed off with this judge. It is not just me.

The former lord chancellor, Lord Falconer of Thoroton said that he was 'uncomfortable' with the sentences although Sir Robert Buckland said they were justified.

This judge handed down a 5 year jail sentence to a peaceful protestor in the UK who campaigns for action against global warming by Michael Broad

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

A record five-year jail term has been handed out to Roger Hallam, 58, for coordinating the climate change protests under the Just Stop Oil banner which disrupted the M25 in London over four days in 2022. 

45 protesters climbed gantries on the motorway, forcing police to stop the traffic. Four others, campaigners in the Just Stop Oil organisation, were each jailed for four years. They were found guilty of conspiring to cause a public nuisance under a new draconian law which curbs free-speech and peaceful protest.

This is controversial legislation introduced by the previous government to get tough on disruptive tactics used by environmental protesters. They were charged under the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022.

There is shock over this sentence which is a record for a person engaged in peaceful protest. Yes, I will capitalise that: PEACEFUL PROTEST.

What do the public think about the record jail sentences for Just Stop Oil activists?

Our nationally representative poll found 61% of people in Britain think the sentences were too harsh. Only 12% felt they were too lenient. Read more here: https://t.co/InHH5BAAjf https://t.co/CNkpeXtAEY pic.twitter.com/4fiIucxfQG

— Social Change Lab (@SocChangeLab) July 19, 2024

The previous Conservative government got their knickers in a twist over these Just Stop Oil protests because they were very disruptive. That made them effective. These campaigners felt that they had to be disruptive in order to make their statement clear to everybody. That's the nature of a peaceful protest. But the right wing government now ousted by Labour, decided to clampdown on them and at the same time clampdown on free speech. And also at the same time to ignore climate change.

It's utterly shocking to people like me. And to Chris Packham, the naturalist and broadcaster. He said that the sentence of five years handed down to Roger Hallam, was a threat to free speech and he has called for a meeting with Richard Hermer KC, the attorney general, "as rapidly as possible so that we could address this grotesque miscarriage of justice".

He also said that we need to be "clear, be very very clear this is not just about climate activism. The laws that have been drafted, the injustices that are being wrought, threaten all rights of free speech. We stand here today because our future security may be compromised by the reckless and irresponsible erosion of human rights, of our fundamental freedoms. I stand here because I believe this represents the direct theft of our freedom, the destruction of our democracy, the deliberate and calculated intimidation of our protesters, and that, unless we resist this, the very real danger is our species will destroy life on earth will stop"

He's of course referring to climate change which really concerns him as it should concern all of us. He is a conservationist. He was to protect wildlife which is increasingly under dire threat across the globe because of global warming.

The sentencing is particularly grotesque as this government has decided to release criminals after 40% of their sentence. The country is releasing genuine criminals early in order to make room in overcrowded prisons while at the same time clearly, over-punishing genuine people who are concerned about the future of humankind on this planet. It is BONKERS.

There have been calls to repeal the above-mentioned act. The sentence was also criticised by Tom Southerden, Amnesty International UK's law and human rights adviser. He wants the act repealed. He said that "These lengthy jail sentences for people seeking climate justice should increase the alarm over the ongoing crackdown against peaceful protest in this country, which violates all our human rights. With our overcrowded prison system already described as a ticking timebomb by the new Lord Chancellor these jail terms are all the more indefensible."

The judge who handed down this grotesque sentence is Judge Christopher Hehir. Shame on him. He is not worthy to be a judge.

Update:

Hallam said this (and a lot more - see his tweet below):

The crime? 

Giving a talk on civil disobedience as an effective, evidence-based method for stopping the elite from putting enough carbon in the atmosphere to send us to extinction. I have given hundreds of similar speeches encouraging nonviolent action and have never been arrested for it. This time I was an advisor to the M25 motorway disruption, recommending the action to go ahead to wake up the British public to societal collapse.

His tweet:

I've just been sentenced to 5 years in prison.

The longest ever for nonviolent action.

The 'crime'?

Giving a talk on civil disobedience as an effective, evidence-based method for stopping the elite from putting enough carbon in the atmosphere to send us to extinction.

I have… pic.twitter.com/U2dHaDQkGf

— Roger Hallam (@RogerHallamCS21) July 18, 2024

From Just Stop Oil:

Professor McGuire, Emeritus Professor of Geophysical & Climate Hazards at University College London, said:

“The trial and verdict were a farce. They mark a low point in British justice and they were an assault on free speech. The judge’s characterisation of climate breakdown as a matter of opinion and belief is completely nonsensical and demonstrates extraordinary ignorance. Similarly to suggest that the climate emergency is irrelevant in relation to whether the defendants had a reasonable case for action is crass stupidity.” 

Sir David King, the government’s former Chief Scientific Adviser, said:

“This is so disgraceful. We are all hoping that the change in UK Govt will also change the situation in our courts.”

As mentioned, this legislation is controversial. It provides for stiffer sentences for protesters who block roads. It was backed by the current Prime Minister. But it has been condemned by the United Nations human rights Commissioner as "deeply troubling" and "disproportionate".

In sentencing, Judge Christopher Hehir, told the activists: 

"The plain fact is that each of you some time ago has crossed the line from concerned campaigner to fanatic. You have appointed yourselves as sole arbiters of what should be done about climate change."

Comment: it appears to me that he is introducing his personal opinion about these campaigners. It seems to me to be biased to describe the most fanatics.

Hallam described the criminal court that he attended as a "kangaroo court".

The trial was criticised by the UN's Special Rapporteur for Environmental Defenders, Michel Forst, who described the threat of a long sentence against Daniel Shaw [one of the defendants sentenced to 4 years] as potentially unlawful. Speaking on the eve of the first day of the trial, he warned: "The imposition of such a sanction is not only appalling but may also violate the United Kingdom's obligations under international law."

The danger is that the harsh sentences will fire up the campaigners to do more. It will be a catalyst for more extreme action against climate change inertia.

The next day

The next day, in The Times, there's a long list of celebrities and well-known people who have written about the injustice of these prison sentences. In fact, more than 1100 lawyers, academics, artists and celebrities have called for an urgent meeting with the attorney general to address the injustice of the sentences given to 5 environmental activists according to a report by the Times.

It is notable that the jail terms exceed those given to Just Stop Oil activists who scaled the Queen Elizabeth II Bridge Dartford Crossing in October 2022. It is also longer than many far more serious crimes such as a police officer attempting rape as I understand it. I think you'll find that rapist in the UK get prison terms of around five years sometimes.

The Prime Minister has faced calls to intervene in this case. In addition, the UN Human Rights Commissioner described the sentences as deeply troubling and disproportionate.

The millionaire Labour donor, Dale Vince, has called for a meeting with the attorney general, Richard Hermer KC.

In their letter of 1100 signatories, they echoed the call by Dale Vince and Chris Packham. Those who signed it include Lord Williams of Oystermouth, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, Sir Geoffrey Bindman KC, one of the country's most distinguished human rights lawyers and the artist Dame Tracey Emin. Sir David King, the former chief scientific adviser to the government also signed the letter. There are many others including Toby Jones, the star of Mr Bates vs The Post Office and Danny Boyle, the director of the film Trainspotting.

The general consensus is that "With prisons a breaking point how can these sentences be seen as anything other than insanity".

Further update The Times Wednesday, August 14, 2024: the protesters who were jailed for four years and Hallam the leader, who was jailed for five years are appealing against their record sentences claiming that the terms breached international law and are longer than those handed to rioters. It has transpired that the judge refused the opportunity of the protesters to explain their motivations for taking such action. And they were barred from producing evidence of the immediate threat posed by climate change. That would seem to be a serious omission and a bias by the judge.

A petition has been started in America by an American-based campaign group which has condemned the "gagging and jailing of peaceful climate protesters in UK courts." The petition argues that the laws are repressive and they have called on PM Starmer to repeal them. It has garnered 20,000 signatures to date.

The activists are arguing that the sentences were manifestly excessive and that the judge "appears to have punished the defendants for disobeying his orders not to explain their motivations for taking such actions."

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

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.

More turbulence than normal for cats in aircraft cabins

Climate change is leading to increased turbulence on flights. A tragic incident occurred on a Singapore Airlines Boeing flight where one person lost their life and over 30 passengers were injured due to severe turbulence. The plane dramatically dropped 6,000 feet and had to make an emergency landing on Tuesday (May 21), as reported by the New York Post.

The gentleman who died of a suspected heart attack was Geoffrey Kitchen, 73. He was a retired insurance worker and a musical director living near Bristol. Six other passengers were in a critical condition last night in hospital.

He was with his wife Linda. He was on a holiday of a lifetime travelling to Singapore, the first leg of their trip to Indonesia and Australia.

A further 47 passengers were taken to hospital. Witnesses said that just seconds after the seatbelt sign was turned on the aircraft plummeted thousands of feet. Passengers were thrown into the air with their belongings. The pilots declared a medical emergency and diverted to Thailand. One passenger said that wherever you looked there was another injury.

Cat in aircraft cabin. Note: the carrier is the wrong type. Should be a soft one. And it is too large! 😻😹 AI created it.

Many airlines do allow cats to travel in the cabin, provided they meet certain requirements. Here are some airlines that warmly welcome cats on board. For example, American Airlines: Allows cats in the cabin, but check their specific policies.

What are the requirements for flying with a cat? 

When flying with your feline friend, here are some general requirements:

1. Carrier: Use an airline-approved cat carrier that fits under the seat in front of you. Soft-sided carriers are often preferred.
2. Health Certificate: Obtain a recent health certificate from your veterinarian, confirming your cat’s good health.
3. Vaccinations: Ensure your cat is up-to-date on vaccinations.
4. Reservations: Book your cat’s spot in advance, as airlines limit the number of pets per flight.
5. Age: Most airlines require cats to be at least 8 weeks old.
6. Weight Limit: Check the weight limit for in-cabin travel (usually around 9 kg, including the carrier).
7. Documentation: Carry necessary paperwork, including vaccination records and microchip details.

Remember to check specific airline policies, as they may vary. Safe travels for you and your furry companion!

And remember that there is more chance of encountering turbulence when flying nowadays thanks to global warming. The effect on the domestic cat in their carrier under the seat needs to be factored in.

While it’s rare, cats can occasionally escape carriers inside the cabin of an aircraft. To prevent this, follow these tips:

1. Secure Carrier: Ensure the carrier is securely closed and zipped.
2. Comfort: Make the carrier comfortable to reduce stress.
3. Stay Calm: If your cat gets out, stay calm and gently coax them back in.
4. Alert Crew: Inform the flight attendants immediately if your cat escapes.

Remember, most cats remain calm during flights, but it’s essential to be prepared.

Increased turbulence

Clear air turbulence (CAT) is caused by vertical wind shear, which are sharp variations in wind speed or direction with altitude. This type of turbulence is invisible, lacking any visual indicators such as clouds, and often arises when a large moving air mass encounters another at a different speed, such as when jet streams meet slower-moving air. 

Jet streams are rapid air currents that travel from west to east high above certain regions, like from the US to Europe. The jet stream's strong winds are driven by the temperature disparity between the Earth's polar areas and the equator. Many aircraft take advantage of the jet stream when flying across the Atlantic, allowing them to reach Europe more quickly and with less fuel.

Climate change doesn't cause uniform warming across the globe, and this uneven warming significantly influences CAT. Near the poles, warming is more intense at the surface, while at lower latitudes, it's stronger at higher altitudes. This is because there's more water vapor in the atmosphere over the equator. Water vapor, a greenhouse gas, leads to further warming, enabling the air to retain even more water, thus continuing the warming cycle. Consequently, there's a greater temperature disparity across the jet stream, resulting in faster wind speeds, increased shear at the boundaries, and heightened turbulence.-------------

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.

British power plant burns old growth Canadian forest destroying wildlife habitat

The Drax power plant near Selby, North Yorkshire, UK has been receiving a couple of sets of government subsidies worth £6bn because it is claimed that the electricity produced by this powerplant comes from burning plant biomass - trees from ecologically unimportant areas in Canada. 

In this instance, biomass is renewable organic material from trees. It should also be carbon neutral with the carbon produced from burning wood being cancelled out by the carbon absorbed by trees growing.

But the problem with this process is that Drax is receiving subsidies in order to burn wood from old-growth forests which provide a unique habitat for ecosystems in Canada. It's probable, that these forests provide a habitat for the Canada lynx which is my connection to the cat in this article.

In the UK, in 2017, in a sustainability report, Drax promised not to take timber from no-go areas which means protected forests, primary forests, old-growth forests and forests classified as having a high biodiversity value.

Government support for Drax can only be justified because the wood that they use for their power stations has been sourced sustainably and I presume in compliance with good carbon neutral policies. And in compliance with wildlife conservation. That's not mentioned in The Times article: Power plant burns rare forest wood.

The wood comes from primary forests as mentioned and therefore Drax should not receive government subsidies which have amounted to £6 billion as I understand it in the past.

In a letter to The Times British Members of Parliament have said the following: 

"Continued wood burning biomass harms forests, communities and contributes huge amounts of carbon emissions to the atmosphere."

In response, Drax did not deny clearing old-growth forests for its power stations. However Drax said that its 2017 report was "not a policy and is now obsolete." It's been superseded by 2019 document they say. A spokesperson for Drax said: "We are confident our biomass is sustainable and legally harvest and meet the requirement of our 2019 sourcing policy."

Comment: the company is wriggling out of their responsibilities. Sorry by entirely typical of big business.

Secondly, it seems extraordinary to me that Drax and the UK government can even contemplate chopping down forests and burning them in power stations in the UK. How can that be a good policy? 

That would seem to go totally against the fundamental principles of being carbon neutral. In preserving nature. In preserving habitat for wildlife. In doing the right thing. In protecting the planet. How does this Drax policy in partnership with the UK possibly enhance sustainability, nature, and protect the planet?

The UK government should be as ashamed as Drax. Typical of double talking big business in league with unethical British politicians. I hate them all.

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

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.

Retired lawyer and professor shoots dead two environmental campaigners on a highway in Panama in front of video cameras

NEWS AND COMMENT: This is an extraordinary story of a man who appears to have completely lost rational thought because he will surely live the rest of his days in prison. In front of cameras operated by the news media, he shot dead a couple of environmental protesters who were campaigning about the destruction of rainforest in Panama to make way for mining for the next 20-40 years. 

The contract had been organised by the government and clearly some citizens of Panama strongly objected to it for environmental reasons and in terms of climate change.

The exact moment when Darlington shot dead one of the protesters. You can see the smoke coming out of the barrel of the gun. He looks calm and in control of himself. His life as he knows it has ended because he will surely be convicted of the murder of two men. He shot them because they had barricaded the highway and he wanted to get through. The photograph comes from the Daily Mail newspaper

This man, Kenneth Darlington, 77, was blocked on the Pan-American highway in the Chame district about 50 miles from Panama City, by the protesters. He went to clear away the barriers, and approached two protesters one of whom challenged him to shoot as by this time Darlington had raised his handgun and pointed it at them.

Clearly, the campaigners thought that Darlington was simply trying to intimidate them and would not shoot as that would be the end of his life as he knew it. Remarkably, Darlington did shoot both of the men dead. Clearly planet Earth is becoming a very stressful place on which to live.

The first man, a teacher, dropped to the ground and died at the scene. His name is Abdiel Diaz. The other man, Ivan Rodriguez, died in hospital a little while later having been shot in the shoulder apparently.

The Times reports that last week another demonstrator had been run over and killed in a separate incident.

The protests have changed the Panamanian government's opinion about granting licences to mining companies causing the destruction of forests. They have suspended these contracts indefinitely.

The existing contract is said to be worth $375 million annually to Panama. Panama is the 14th largest copper-producing country in the world and copper is required in EVs - electric vehicles. 

As you can imagine, there is a big demand for precious metals and metal such as copper to make electric vehicles. There is a shortage of some of these precious metals and therefore the prices are going up rapidly. 

That apparently is the case with copper as well. It's obvious a very profitable mining operation but then again mass deforestation is today, a highly sensitive topic because of global warming which is becoming more and more pressing as governments refuse to curb carbon dioxide and methane emissions.

For example, in the UK, Rishi Sunak, the Prime Minister, has decided to issue licences to extract oil and gas from the North Sea where once these areas had remained dormant because it was too expensive to extract. Now apparently it isn't and he's doing it against public opinion which is arguably in favour of vigorously dealing with climate change rather than going into reverse and ignoring what appears to be a catastrophic future for the youngsters of this world.

----------

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.

Vegans have just 30% of the dietary environmental impact of high-meat eaters.

This is about cat owners becoming vegans as they should because they love cats and should love animals and if you love animals, you should love nature and if you want to protect nature and the animals that live in it you should do you bit to stop global warming!! Phew.

Vegans harm the planet a lot less than meat-eaters. No surprise, I guess. Here are some details from an Oxford University study: Low meat diets reduce environmental harm from food production.

• Vegans have just 30% of the dietary environmental impact of high-meat eaters;
• Vegans also had just 25% of the dietary impact for land use;
• Vegans have just 46% of the dietary impact for water use;
• Vegans have just 27% of the dietary impact for water pollution;
• Vegans have just 34% of the dietary impact for biodiversity (i.e. detriments to biodiversity).

The study concluded “that even the least sustainable vegan diet was still more environmentally-friendly than the most sustainable meat eater’s diet.” And that doesn’t include the abuse and killing of animals.

Deforestation for cattle farming. Image in public domain.

The researchers took information from over 55,000 individuals. The scientists are from the Livestock, Environment and People project at the University of Oxford. The participants classified themselves as vegan, vegetarian, pescatarian or meat eaters.

Data on the environmental impact of their diets was assessed in relation to biodiversity loss, water pollution risk, water use, land use, and greenhouse gas emissions.

It took into account how and where the food was produced. There were substantial variations according to where and how the food was produced. But the relationship between environmental impact and animal-based food consumption is clear they said.

They want action to reduce production and consumption of meat. The report on the project is published in Nature Food.

RELATED: Be a better cat caregiver by being healthier in consuming olive oil and going vegetarian for 6 months.

The global food system as they called it is responsible for 70% of the world's freshwater. They also reported that around 75% of the land area of the planet excluding those areas covered by ice have been affected by human use primarily for agriculture and land use change such as deforestation causing biodiversity loss.

The lead author is Prof Peter Scarborough of the Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences at the University.

He said:

Our dietary choices have a big impact on the planet. Cherry-picking data on high impact plant-based food or low impact meat can obscure the clear relationship between animal-based foods and the environment. Our results, which use data from over 38,000 farms in over 100 countries, show that high meat diets have the biggest impact for many important environmental indicators, including climate change and biodiversity loss. Cutting down the amount of meat and dairy in your diet can make a big difference to your dietary footprint.”

Past research would support this research and that plant-based diets have a much lower impact on greenhouse gas emissions, land use and water use and also reducing meat intake tends to be healthier.

2 indications that the world is conservatively not ready for the woke movement or tackling global warming

NEWS AND VIEWS: There are two diverse reasons why, I believe, that the world is not ready to deal adequately with the concept of inclusivity which is under the umbrella of the woke movement. And the world is not yet ready either to deal properly with global warming as indicated by another development which is entirely separate.

Sales blow to Bud Light

Yes, this is about beer. The manufacturer of Bud Light beer, Anheuser-Busch, employed Dylan Mulvaney, a transgender influencer, as Audrey Hepburn in its promotion of their beer. They wanted to show off their inclusivity which is trendy these days. 

It is companies jumping onto the woke bandwagon, in this instance, to try and improve their sales. But it backfired. Their partnership with Dylan Mulvaney did not pan out as they had thought. It sparked a boycott in parts of Conservative America where revenues dropped 10.5% in April to June compared to 2022.

A little 'c' conservative world is scared of change

The majority of the world is conservative at least with a little 'c'. They don't want to change. They want to maintain the status quo because it is calming to keep things as they are. Change is frightening to a lot of people. And so the little 'c' conservatives of the world don't accept a company promoting their product with the assistance of a transgender influencer.

World should be more enlightened about the spectrum of gender identities

That's one example of how the world is not ready as a unit to accept the idea of the woke movement and transgender people. It's a shame, because personally I am all in favour of inclusivity and the acceptance of transgender people and all people of all genders. There is a wide range of genders I believe although biologically there are only two types of human: males and females!

Ethical funds suffer backlash with £1 billion retreat

Entirely separately, British investors have pulled money out of funds in the sustainable or ethical marketplace. These are investment products weighted towards companies that trumpet environmental, social or governance credentials.

It seems that mainstream investors have rejected the idea of putting money into environmental projects partly because they've lost enthusiasm for them because of scepticism and accusations of green washing. They don't believe that companies that profess to be green are actually green. These companies are using the concept of being environmentally friendly to boost their profits.

Lack of genuine commitment to tackling climate change

And, personally, I believe that a lot of people including investors are retreating from making big efforts to curb climate change. There is a weakening of commitment towards efforts to stop global warming. The basis is probably because it is too expensive and people are yet to see the real dangers inherent with climate change. We see weather changes i.e. extreme weather but humankind needs more than that to commit trillions of dollars and burden the taxpayer to tackling climate change with real commitment.

Conclusion

These indicators of the mentality of mainstream life in both the USA and UK and I was would suggest in the wider Western world indicates a deep conservatism and the reluctance to change which is why global warming will get worse for a long time to come in my view and that affects us all including our cat companions!

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.

Global warming news - having three dogs is as bad for the environment as taking a private jet

Everybody should be as aware as possible about their contribution to global warming because it will affect both us and more importantly our children and generations to come. Companion dogs and cats (as do other pets) contribute to global warming. They don't directly contribute to it. They might in a very small way such as flatulence (carbon dioxide, hydrogen, and methane)! But this is a reference to the food and products we give them.

Global warming news - having three dogs is as bad for the environment as taking a private jet. Image: MikeB

Farming beef is bad for the environment. Pet food contains meats from livestock albeit wasted livestock that would not be used to feed humans. And as wet cat food contains more protein i.e. more meat than dry cat food it is said to have seven times the carbon emissions of dry food.

We know that private jets contribute to global warming. There is a backlash against their use by people who are concerned about climate change. There are protests at airports for example.

New Scientist:

"An assessment of almost 940 kinds of Brazilian cat and dog food has found that producing wet food creates 690 per cent more greenhouse gas emissions than making dry food"

Patrick Hansen

Patrick Hansen, the boss of Luxaviation has claimed that animals are as polluting as private jets. He is defending his industry. He was speaking at a Financial Times summit.

He claimed that one of his customers' jets emits just 2.1 tons of carbon dioxide a year which is about the same as the emissions of three pet dogs.

As mentioned, he is referring to the carbon footprint of pet food. He took his information, I believe, from consultant and writer Mike Berners-Lee who said that a Labrador has an annual carbon footprint of around 770 kg.

The major carbon footprint factor of keeping a dog or cat comes from their food but there are other aspects which contribute such as buying plastic toys and of course cat litter damages the environment.

Vegan pet food

Some climate change campaigners advocate that pet owners use vegan foods for their cats and dogs. This is a controversial area. For example, your average cat owner insists that their cat eats meat because they are obligate carnivores and therefore, they cannot be vegan.

However, there is a commercial vegan cat food manufacturer on the market right now doing quite well. They make it work by adding supplements to their food which ensures that it is balanced. Plants contain proteins therefore cats and dogs can obtain their protein requirement through plant-based foods to which you can add the required other nutrients to make the food balanced in terms of a domestic cat's nutritional requirements.

People who are anti-vegan cat food are not, in my opinion, thinking through the issue properly. Although, I don't feed my cat vegan cat food because I believe my cat needs wet cat food primarily with some dry. I also don't like the standard dry cat food because the pellets are too small. I always buy dental care dry cat food which is made up of much larger pellets.

Increase in dry foods?

The situation is a little bit worrying because dry cat food is popular as it's convenient. The general consensus is that it is not as good as wet cat food everything else being equal. It contains too many carbohydrates in order to make it. It's too unnatural. it is argued that it leaves cats permanently dehydrated. But global warming may drive people to purchasing it and the vegan pet food market is predicted to rise nearly 7% over the next decade according to consultancy Future Market Insights.

FYI - Joaquin Phoenix feeds his dogs a vegan diet because he is a staunch animal welfare advocate for which I admire him.

Wet food is worse for global warming than dry cat food?

The production and distribution of pet food, like any other food, can have an environmental impact. Factors such as ingredient sourcing, processing methods, packaging, and transportation contribute to the overall carbon emissions associated with pet food production.

Wet pet food generally contains a higher water content compared to dry food, which means it requires more resources for production and transportation. The manufacturing process of wet food involves additional energy for cooking, canning, and packaging. On the other hand, dry pet food generally has a longer shelf life and requires less packaging.

While it's difficult to determine an exact figure of how much more carbon emissions wet pet food has compared to dry food, it is plausible that wet food could have a higher carbon footprint due to the factors mentioned above. However, it's worth noting that individual brands and manufacturing processes can vary significantly, so it's essential to consider specific products and their environmental claims when making comparisons.

If you're concerned about the environmental impact of your pet's food, you can look for pet food brands that prioritize sustainability. Some companies strive to use responsibly sourced ingredients, implement eco-friendly packaging, or invest in renewable energy to reduce their carbon footprint. Additionally, considering alternative diets, such as homemade or raw diets, may also be an option for reducing the environmental impact, although it's essential to consult with a veterinarian to ensure your pet's nutritional needs are met.

For up-to-date and detailed information on the specific carbon emissions of different pet food types, I would recommend referring to scientific studies, industry reports, or consulting with experts in the field of pet food production and sustainability. - Source: Chat GPT.

For pets, a wearable fan made in Japan

NEWS AND COMMENT: Cats and dogs in Japan can now wear a wearable fan to cope with the modern-day high temperatures caused, it is believed, by global warming. The picture looks extraordinary. This is a battery-operated, 80 g (3 ounce) fan which is attached to a mesh outfit and which blows air around the cat or dog's body. It all looks a bit over-engineered and contrived to me with the decoration as well. Or perhaps that was added by the dogs' owner.

Wearable fan for pets. Image in public domain.

Veterinarians teamed up with a Tokyo clothing manufacturer to make this clothing accessory. It does point to a new problem however. With these extraordinary temperatures, cats and dogs with long or dense fur find themselves in an environment which is unsuited to their anatomy.

Wearable fan for pets. Image in public domain.

The president of maternity clothing maker Sweet Mommy, Rei Uzawa, was inspired to make the device/clothing when she saw her own chihuahua exhausted after a walk in scorching summer weather.

As is the case with the UK, there's been no rain and in Japan the hot weather came early. She believes that they have the right product for the market.

In Japan the rainy season ended in late June and they have suffered the longest heatwave on record with temperatures up to 35°C for nine days. This is very similar to the UK which is going through an extraordinary heatwave and drought.

Mami Kumamoto,48, said that she normally uses dry ice packs to cool down her dog but believes that the fan makes the task easier. She lives with a miniature poodle whose name is Pudding and a terrier named Maco.

It costs around ¥9000 in Japan which is about £55 in the UK and $68 in America.

Think of the companion animals killed by the floods in Germany

I feel compelled to write a quick note about the dramatic floods in Germany (and surrounding nations) which have killed around 160 people but the numbers will climb. And a shocking 1,300 are missing. They've put the floods down to climate change and a 1 in 1,000-year event. There are fears that there will be more of these events. Climate change or global warming is presenting as extreme weather not just a warmer planet.

Horrendous floods in Germany and Netherlands. A damaged road after flooding in Bad Münstereifel, Germany. Photograph: Sascha Steinbach/EPA.

Because about 160 people have been killed by these dramatic and devastating floods, it is a foregone conclusion that many companion animals have also been killed. News media is not talking about them because they talk about people first which I suppose is understandable. Update: 18th July: no news yet of companion animal rescue.

I have searched various news media outlets looking for stories about cats and dogs who have been rescued from these floods. I have not found any stories. I would like to remember those animals. Of course, I'm concerned about people and their relatives but I am equally concerned about companion animals. And, indeed, any animals including farm animals.

Pony rescued from the floods. I don't have details of the photographer. Sorry. There is more talk about the animals about 4 days after the floods but still very little.

If these floods are due to climate change, they've been caused by the behaviour of people. The companion animals are innocent victims of human behaviour. You might argue that people are the authors of their own suffering as a consequence of these climatic catastrophes. But the same argument does not apply to animals.

Note: This is a video from another website. Sometimes they are deleted at source which stops them working on this site. If that has happened, I apologise but I have no control over it.

It would be another failure of the human-to-cat and dog relationship if these floods are due to excessive amounts of carbon dioxide and other global warming gases being expelled into the atmosphere.

Here is an addition to the page. A couple of guys in flood water with cat carriers and their cats inside. This is the first photographic evidence that I have seen of cat rescue in the floods. These guys are in Belgium which was also badly affected.

A couple of guys in flood water with cat carriers; the first photographic evidence that I have seen of cat rescue in the floods. This is in Belgium which was also affected. Photo: AFP/Getty.

And here are two dogs in Belgium waiting to be rescued. The photo is from AFP/Getty:

In Belgium a database of dog and cat owners has been made available to the emergency services who are operating in regions where there was heavy flooding. This will enable rescue workers to reunite animals with their owners. They will use the online dog ID and cat ID database systems but of course the animals concerned would have to be micro-chipped. The database became anonymized because of the European GDPR regulations, which is why they have to be formally opened to the rescue services. Apparently, in Belgium, rescue workers found numerous lost pets who had been dragged away by the force of the floods. We don't know whether these pets had been killed or were alive.

One problem with the floods is that in Germany there was insufficient warning. This was a major factor in the loss of life because both homeowner or home occupier and their companion animals were unable to get out of the way of the flood waters.

We've all heard about California and the near 50°C temperatures that they have been suffering. These temperatures were also felt in British Columbia just north of California. Let's think of the animals in that state and province. Let's pray that they've got air-conditioning but air-conditioning contributes to global warming because you burn fossil fuels to run the air conditioning machines.

I will update the page if the news media report on any animal rescues and the meantime I would like to express my concern that as many dogs and cats survive as possible.

Cat food made with 92% sustainable insect protein

About one year ago I wrote about my desire to see cat food made with insects. There are at least two compelling reasons why this is a good idea. Firstly, domestic cats eat insects naturally. Insects are on their list of prey items.  We've all seem them hunt and devour insects.

Catit stand at an exhibition. Photo: Catit on Facebook.

Dry cat food made with insects. Photo: Catit.

They make plant-based cat litter too:

Catit plant-based cat litter. Image: their Facebook page.

Secondly the environmental benefits of farming insects to make cat food are well known. It is time to move away from conventional processes. Cat food is made from raw materials that are unsuitable for humans such as diseased or contaminated livestock, roadkill and I would argue also from euthanized companion animals at shelters. That last point is not in any way advertised or discussed but, years ago, I confirmed that this happens.

YOU CAN READ MORE ON THIS PRODUCT BY CLICKING THIS LINK.

You want to avoid all those things. We want to reduce the production of beef because it has a harmful effect upon the environment causing global warming through the methane emitted by cows. That's just one aspect of the process which is unsuitable in the modern world. Another is that forests are being cut down to farm beef (Brazil). That is a double whammy of negatives with respect to the environment and global warming.

I think we could all agree that cat food made from insects is a good idea and the sooner we can get there the better. Well, a Canadian company, Catit, has taken that step and on a publicity website it is announced that "Catit introduces cat food made with 92% sustainable insect protein!"

They want to reduce the ecological paw print. And domestic cats have quite a big paw print because there are around, it is believed, 500 million on the planet if you include all types i.e. feral, stray and domestic. And I like the way they are using sustainable insect protein. The product is Catit Nuna. They say that it is extremely palatable and easily digestible. The food is complete and balanced and they set "a new standard in premium cat food".

Their whole grubs contain protein, vitamins, omega 6, calcium, phosphorus, zinc and minerals. The grubs are dried and ground into a fine nutritious flour and then mixed with other ingredients to make the recipe. It looks like regular kibble.

Catit also make a line of plant-based cat litters: Catit Go Natural. There is no doubt that there will be many more businesses getting into the production of cat products, such as food and litter, which are environmentally friendly. There is a massive amount of pressure on businesses nowadays, thanks in part to the coronavirus pandemic, to become more conscious of the environment. Global warming is becoming quite a central part of humankind's thinking. It should be at the heart of business decisions, all business decisions.