By Annette J Beveridge

Scientists are calling for an in-depth global assessment of the risks associated with climate change, warning that governments lack a clear understanding of the dangers.

An international team of researchers has argued that although significant progress has been made in understanding the causes of climate change as well as reducing greenhouse gas emissions, much less is being done to assess the risks facing society systematically.

A comprehensive global assessment of risks would ascertain a clearer picture of how communities, infrastructure, economies and ecosystems could be impacted over the next few decades. Without this, scientists have warned that governments could underestimate emerging threats and be unprepared for the severe impacts.

Extreme weather events are already becoming more frequent and intense.

Wildfires across Europe, as well as heat waves, fires, and droughts in the UK, can only place increased pressure on the production of food, supplies of fresh water, infrastructure and health and biodiversity.

Scientists believe that a global climate risk assessment could help leaders identify vulnerabilities while also strengthening long-term planning. It would also act as a guide for investment when it comes to adaptation measures.

In recent years, there have been record-breaking temperatures, destructive flooding and wildfires, droughts and threats to wildlife and natural habitats, all of which are also under increasing risk.

According to the scientists who presented this call for action, climate change is a present-day risk on a global level. The question is, will governments ignore the call to action?

by Annette J Beveridge

‘Save the bees’ is a common call from British people as we are aware of their importance as pollinators. But if we truly care, why is the British Government still approving a pesticide that impacts bumblebee reproduction?

Seems stupid, right?

A dangerous insecticide

A recent study by scientists at the Georgia Institute of Technology revealed that the genes involved with reproduction in bumblebees was changed by exposure to an insecticide used to control aphids, psyllids and whiteflies. The dangerous insecticide is called sulfoxaflor.

Researchers state that the changes could be detrimental and lead to long-term declines.

The reality is that there are increasing pressures on our pollinators already. Climate change, habitat loss, intensive farming and disease so rather than protecting them, this insecticide reduces reproductive success.

Sulfoxaflor

Sulfoxaflor is a systemic insecticide. This means it is sprayed on crops. The substance is absorbed into the plants tissues. Any insect feeding on the plant will also ingest the harmful chemical. The effects are stark.

The insect’s nervous system is disrupted and it leads to paralysis and destruction. Sulfoxaflor does not belong to the neonicotinoids chemical family although it targets the same nerve receptors and it is this that has made scientisits concerned that it could harm beneficial insects.

Despite the concerns, here in Great Britain, it remains an approved substance. It has to be authorised before use by the Health and Sadety Executive (HSE) but can be used on fruit, vegetables, some cereals, and horticultural crops.

The research

Worker bumblebees were exposed to concentrations of sulfoxaflor - similar to those levels which could be encountered when in agricultural landscapes.

The study researched any changes in the RNA molecules to determine which genes might be switched off within the cells. They discovered the most changes occurred in ovarian tissue. So bees might not die but there could be a reduced number of healthy offspring.

While on a scientific level, the findings are important, the realities of this toxic compound does not seem to have the urgency it should have.

Lead author Dr Sarah Orr, said: “Pesticides remain essential for controlling crop pests, but understanding their unintended effects is equally important if farming is to remain sustainable.”

To use this insecticide, farmers have to follow strict instructions so that there is minimal risk to pollinators.

Does it matter?

Bumblebees are one of the most effective pollinators in the UK helping to fertilise our crops. In fact, around one in every three mouthfuls of food depends on animal pollination.

Greater scrutiny needed

Environmental organisations have long argued that pesticides acting on insect nervous systems should be subject to greater scrutiny because of their potential impact on pollinators.

Regulators assess pesticides using extensive laboratory and field data before products are approved and can impose restrictions where necessary.

The HSE states that an active substance being approved does not mean it will be permitted for use and that every product undergoes its own safety assessment before authorisation.

Why it matters

If we want to protect food, we should regulate pesticides but we must also improve farming practices overall, reduce fragmented habitat and restore wildflower habitats.

The new study does not state that sukfoxaflor is responsible for all the declines in bees but we do know that evidence is mounting that exposure to low levels of pesticides could impact reproduction in bumblebees but also, affect pollinators in ways we don’t understand yet.

Share

This study was published in Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety.

Subscribe now

Welcome to this first issue of The Nature Frontline. I’m Annette J Beveridge, a conservationist, and journalist and I wanted to take a look at the real environmental news stories affecting the UK and beyond - which is in contrast with my Go Wild With Annette nature substack.

We should be living alongside nature and appreciating all wildlife while protecting our wild spaces, but sadly, greed through financial gain often takes precedence.

All too often I come across important news stories that need to be published. So it made perfect sense to me to set up The Green Newsroom and this newsletter, The Nature Frontline.

I hope you will enjoy it.

The website is almost in place and I am looking forward to tackling some of the serious environmental issues affecting the UK.

Annette J Beveridge

Jackdaw Gas Fields: Are We Being Misled?

There is a lot of misleading information about our reliance on fossil fuels in the UK with campaigners on both sides pushing for a decision. The pressure is only growing and the costs are huge.

The US President, Donald Trump, is calling for ‘drill baby drill’ irrespective of the environmental harms hoping that our new Prime Minister, Andy Burnham will give drilling the green light.

But the newly-promoted Secretary of State for Energy, Miatta Fahnbulleh, has not made a decision about the Rosebank or Jackdaw oil and gas fields.

Some of the MPs vying for more drilling are typically from Reform UK and The Conservatives. They state it will be cheaper and there will be numerous jobs.

New figures show that the economic case for the Jackdaw gas field in the North Sea is unlikely to rise to the claims.

The figures from Adura’s Environmental Impact Assessment stated that there would be approximately 300 jobs - in association with the Shearwater platform which included 273 operational roles (already in place) plus new jobs.

According to a press release by Greenpeace, there is the suggestion of just 27 new full-time jobs for Jackdaw. Which would mean that the numbers of new long-term positions as a result of the gas field is minimal.

There is no doubt that many of the supporters of Jackdaw have been highlighting the economic benefits and even company statements and documentation has referred to hundreds of jobs.

In fact, Adura had said previously that Jackdaw and the Rosebank oil field together would support approximately 3,500 jobs - this is during peak construction and about 880 jobs through production and it would mean billions of pounds to the UK economy. A big claim.

Greenpeace has recently stated that the figure combines existing jobs, indirect employment along with a small number of new roles which would be created specifically for Jackdaw.

A political campaigner at Greenpeace UK, Angharad Hopkinson, said ‘the developer’s own figures undermine claims that projects such as Jackdaw are essential for protecting jobs.’

She argued that ‘the principal beneficiaries of new fossil fuel developments are energy companies and their shareholders rather than workers, and said future employment opportunities should instead focus on expanding the clean energy economy.’

Share

So if there is only limited employment prospects - approximately 27 new jobs, but many negative environmental implications, what is the point?

Subscribe now