Energy pricing is no longer fit for purpose (1)
As you note, the underlying reason for energy bill spikes in renewables-dominated markets is mainly down to the pricing mechanism, which sets it according to the most expensive generator in the mix, usually gas. It is a relic of a time when renewables were a small proportion of the total, and was created to incentivise them to grow (1 February, p 11).
Now, it provides a perverse incentive not to increase such generation and storage capacity enough to eliminate gas from the mix. Not all European markets suffer from this, with the price of electricity in some much lower than in the UK. There is no reason for the current pricing mechanism to continue.
Energy pricing is no longer fit for purpose (2)
Energy markets aren’t natural phenomena; they are devised by governments and regulators to meet certain objectives and if they don’t do so, they can be changed. This isn’t happening because governments still see renewables as nice extras. They need to make them the main sources of power and design electricity markets and infrastructure to make this work for consumers and the planet.
Lynx rewilding: If others can do it, so can the UK (1)
I was disappointed to read such a downbeat assessment of the chances for a successful Scottish lynx reintroduction. Of course, it is neither simple nor impossible, merely difficult, but you should rest assured that many dedicated people are working hard to overcome remaining barriers (1 February, p 22).
Rather than write off Scotland’s hopes of restoring its missing lynx just because reintroductions of apex predators are difficult, we should ask whether potential conflicts could be successfully and fairly managed within the sort of wildlife management schemes common in other countries. If not, then why is it that other countries, some with more people and fewer resources than Scotland, can somehow manage to live with much more challenging species like elephants and tigers, but the UK still can’t co-exist with lynx?
Lynx rewilding: If others can do it, so can the UK (2)
I was struck by the irony of one of the obstacles to reintroducing lynx being the game bird shooting industry’s worries about them eating its stock. These are people who have no qualms about making money by pandering to entitled people whose idea of fun is blowing away animals deliberately bred to be too slow and stupid to require much skill do to so. The sooner that “industry” goes the way of badger baiting, cockfighting and fox hunting, the better.
Caring for the flock may be a moral imperative
You reviewed a book arguing that animals should be treated as though they are conscious, with care and consideration. And yet in the same edition (p 22), there is an argument for the reintroduction of predators such as the European lynx and Tasmanian tiger, saying sheep farmers can be compensated when their animals are killed. But maybe the farmers have care and consideration for their sheep? And shouldn’t we also have pity on the deer and the capercaillies that lynx would kill? It isn’t pleasant to be killed by a lynx, or a Tasmanian tiger, for that matter (1 February, p 26).
Fighting fire with fire didn't really work here
You report research showing that controlled burns could cut smoke and land area affected by wildfires in California. By and large, that hasn’t worked in Australia. In an , three University of Melbourne academics stated: “Our research has shown controlled burning was likely to have reduced the area later burnt by bushfires in only four of 30 regions examined…(1 February, p 12)”
The ultimate way to simulate future threats
Our ability to imagine possible futures probably evolved in large part to simulate threats. In The Time Machine, H.G. Wells didn’t so much predict a dystopian future as highlight a path to help avoid it. As for tech barons who see stark, dichotomous futures, it is useful to remember that we live in a fractal universe where things are rarely black or white (11 January, p 22).
On the mystery of wider effects of weight-loss drugs
Ozempic and Wegovy appear to be good for us in a variety of ways and scientists don’t fully know why. Are they missing a simple answer? These drugs are based on a natural hormone: GLP-1. Could it be that some people produce more of this, and are therefore less likely to become ill from a variety of diseases? Perhaps we should be looking at how levels of GLP-1 vary naturally between people and how this affects their health(1 February, p 16)?
Neanderthals endured cold periods before
While the Neanderthals died out around 40,000 years ago, when the climate was colder than today, I doubt this was to do with poor clothing. They survived the even colder penultimate glacial maximum 140,000 years ago (1 February, p 34).
Whatever you do, don't breathe in moon dust
When it comes to moon dust, there is an even more significant risk to astronauts 鈥� specifically, to their lungs. Since the 18th and 19th centuries, many countries have tackled lung conditions on Earth emanating from industries such as mining, for example those caused by breathing in dust particles such as silica. Regolith contains a lot of silica. Without proper attention to such threats, long-term human presence on the moon risks such conditions (25 January, p 41).
Why would aliens want to visit Earth, anyway?
Tony Milligan decries belief in alien visitations. He needn’t worry. They visited once, but didn’t stay long. There is now a beacon in space with the message: “Don’t bother visiting. Top (ha!) life form controlled by idiots. Spend time arguing, killing each other and destroying a quite pretty planet (8 February, p 21).”