My Two Cents Worth

I have just watched the news and discovered that 7bn euros of our hard earned folding has been pledged to ‘developing’ nations to help them tackle climate change.

Whilst I do not deny that mans’ activities has contributed to the acceleration in the heating of the earth’s atmosphere, I am sceptical as to its status as the number one environmental issue.

It is also ironic that had human beings been as technically advanced as we are now a mere 14,000 years earlier at the ending of the last ice age, then the symposium at Copenhagen may have been over how to proliferate the production of carbon rather than reduce it.

Without exception, climate change is universally considered to be a negative phenomenon as far as wildlife and birds are concerned. In the United Kingdom, failing seabird colonies are cited as evidence that warming sea temperatures are to blame for forcing the main prey of sand eels further north into cooler waters resulting in reduced breeding success.

This may very well be the case, but surely the ocean temperatures have been in a constant state of flux for millions of years and in times past the very same species of seabird we have today must have faced similar challenges and survived.

If this is true then surely the birds will just eventually move to a more productive area? It is always worth remembering too in these hysterical times that one bird needs only to reproduce once on average during its life cycle to retain the same level in population – breeding is a capricious occupation.

My feeling is that the real threat to the natural world is man in general. Any one – let alone two or more - from habitat destruction, rampant over-population, the pillaging of the sea and the ecological holocaust that is modern agriculture are far more dangerous to biodiversity than the warming of the earth’s atmosphere will ever be.

Until later.