【EDITOR'S CHOICE】
#Invasiveness and impact of invasive species on the #TibetanPlateau are inconsistent
#BiologicalInvasion | #Biogeography | #EcologicalImpact | #ManagingInvasions | #PerCapitaEffect
#EcologicalImpact
'Dark oxygen': a deep-sea discovery that has split scientists
Could lumpy metallic rocks in the deepest, darkest reaches of the ocean be making oxygen in the absence of sunlight?
Some scientists think so, but others have challenged the claim that so-called "dark oxygen" is being produced in the lightless abyss of the seabed.
The discovery—detailed last July in the journal Nature Geoscience—called into question long-held assumptions about the origins of life on Earth, and sparked intense scientific debate.
#darkoxygen #environment #mining #ecologicalimpact
https://phys.org/news/2025-03-dark-oxygen-deep-sea-discovery.html
Let’s Talk About Europe’s Wolf Protection Laws
As you may have heard, the Standing Committee of the Berne Convention (an international legal instrument for nature conservation) decided to lower the protection status of wolves. This opens the way to lower their protection status across the EU through the Habitats Directive.
The move had been on the cards for over a year, and I covered it extensively on my podcast in episode 163 last November. Back then, I spoke to five experts: scientists working in the fields of biology and social sciences, hunters, environmentalists and even a goat breeder, in an attempt to get the full picture of the situation. As it was then, it still is clear to me that a topic so complex and emotional as killing wolves cannot be fully covered with the opinion of only one podcast guest.
However, in light of this recent development and hearing the chorus of voices it provoked, I decided to write this piece to give you my take on this issue. Is it all that terrible for the wolves in Europe? Of course, given how emotive this topic is, I need to be careful with my words here, not to be accused (again) of spreading the ‘strong nothing to worry about’ vibes. Please hear me out.
First and foremost, the potential move of wolves from Annex IV to Annex V of the Habitats Directive would lower their protection status from ‘strictly protected’ to ‘protected’. Let’s be clear: wolves are still protected. It’s not, as some commentators would have us believe, that a wholesale slaughter of wolves in Europe is imminent. The conservation outcome requirements remain unchanged. Member States still need to recover wolf populations and maintain them in a favourable conservation status.
I disagree with the frequently repeated claim that there is no scientific basis for lowering wolf protection status. I take issue with how a complex body of evidence, including data, observations, predictions and modelling, is often presented as a single, easily interpreted result. In most cases, the reality is more nuanced. Everyone acknowledges that wolves have made a remarkable comeback across Europe. It’s a great conservation success story! So you have to ask yourself a question, why do we have this system of annexes in the Habitats Directive? Isn’t it supposed to reflect species’ conservation status? Why does moving a species to another annex to reflect its recovery cause so much fuss? The answer is politics.
While decisions about moving species from one annex to another should be left to scientists, downlisting an animal (as in this case, wolves) involves an unnecessarily bureaucratic process that requires approval from the EU’s heads of state. This not only creates a very static system where species cannot be easily moved up and down, but it also politicises the process, creating fertile ground for politicians to signal to their voters. And I have said it many times before, when conservation gets politicised, nature and wildlife are the losers. The resulting system rigidity is considered a major flaw in the Habitats Directive. It’s in stark contrast with other dynamic processes of conservation status assessment. Take the example of the IUCN Red List system, where conservation status is periodically reviewed based on the best available scientific data on population size and density. Species status changes without political involvement. Similarly, the US Endangered Species Act is more dynamic, with species being uplisted and downlisted as they become threatened or recover.
But is wolf recovery in Europe sufficient to justify downlisting?
You have probably heard one of two main arguments. First, wolves are still missing from the majority of their historic range. I dealt with this argument and the concept of historic range in another article titled ‘The Myth of Historic Range in Wolf Conservation’. So, I’m not going to repeat that here. Second, most populations are still in unfavourable conservation status. This is where things become more interesting.
It is always a question of scale. When you look at the individual populations within countries’ borders they might indeed appear small. However, when we zoom out and look at the population as a whole, then it suddenly becomes quite large. Wolf populations in Europe are mixing in ways that haven’t happened for centuries. For example, wolves from the Baltic states are mixing with wolves heading up from Italy. This constitutes a strong argument that wolf conservation should be considered in the context of a European metapopulation. It shows a more robust picture of wolf conservation status, especially given the much improved connectivity. And as we know in conservation, connectivity is everything.
There is one more scientific argument, this time from the realm of social sciences. As anyone interested in conservation should know, social science is likely the most important part of conservation science. Wolves can be inconvenient neighbours. There is no doubt that the increase in wolf numbers, range and density has resulted in increased human-wildlife conflict. Yes, I am aware of all the arguments about livestock protection measures and the need to learn to coexist with wildlife. They are all valid, though not without its flaws. Yes, killing wolves does not necessarily prevent attacks on livestock, nor is it the most effective way of managing conflict. But it gives people something else, a feeling of agency. I remember a discussion with Helen Arusoo, the leader of Estonia’s National Animal Working Group (the wolf is the national animal of Estonia), who said that when people feel they lack this sense of agency, they will “hate the wolf in their heart”. During that conversation, she made an excellent point that perhaps it would be a good idea for the EU to look, for once, at smaller countries like Estonia, which are running gold-standard wolf conservation programmes, and learn from their experience. I would definitely recommend listening to my conversation with Helen in episode 168.
So is it all good?
Not quite. Even though it is unlikely that downlisting will pose a threat to the wolf population in Europe, many wolves will be killed in the EU as a result. That is, after all, the whole purpose behind the move. I have no doubt that in some regions and cases, the killing will be excessive, resulting in the removal of too many individuals, leading to pack structure disruption and even local extirpation. Furthermore, pack disruption leads to more lone wolves on the landscape through the loss of pack leaders and disruption of social learning. These solitary individuals are more likely to come into conflict with humans, which can create a vicious circle of wolf killing. The wolves will be especially vulnerable in the regions where anti-wolf sentiments have been embraced by politicians who have managed to get into government in recent election cycles.
Controlling wolf numbers based solely on human tolerance rather than their ecological function has serious ecological impacts. Wolves play a key role not only in controlling the numbers and grazing behaviour of ungulates but also in regulating mesopredator populations, such as foxes. It is a well-known fact that current mainstream farming practices are a cause of the overabundance of generalist mesopredators, which leads to various ecosystem imbalances. The precarious state of ground-nesting birds is a good example. To reinforce this point, ground-nesting bird populations are in a much better shape (with less severe decline) in Eastern Europe, where wolves are present in greater numbers and, in some regions, were never extirpated, unlike in Western Europe.
The downlisting of wolves in the EU may also have broader geopolitical implications. It could pave the way for further politically motivated modifications of the Habitats Directive or changes to the protection of other species that are, in one way or another, incompatible with immediate human interests. The downlisting could also send a problematic message to the world. If a rich European society cannot coexist with relatively harmless predators like wolves, how can it expect other, poorer nations to coexist with much more dangerous and problematic animals like lions or elephants (see ‘trophy import ban’)? That is a blatant display of double standards by European politicians.
Finally, and this argument might seem out of place to some, there is the potential negative impact on hunting and hunters. I can already see the public outcry over wolf hunts organised by the ossified, old-school hunting organisations in Europe. Along with thoughtless hunters posting photos of the wolves they killed. This would only further undermine the social acceptance of hunting, giving anti-hunting organisations ammunition to advance their objectives. Hunters and hunting organisations need to be careful not to let their reputation be further tarnished.
Despite the potential for negative outcomes, the optimist in me wants to see the positives that could follow this decision. Primarily, there is potential to depoliticise the Habitats Directive by implementing Article 19, making it a scientific and flexible tool for classifying species conservation status. I also hope that overall, this move will improve the coexistence and acceptance of wolves on Europe’s landscape. The symbolism of wolves’ strictly protected status, especially in the current political climate, has caused wildlife conservation matters to become entangled in both populist right-wing and hard-left politics. And this is more damaging than shooting a few wolves as the price for coexistence.
If you enjoyed this article, please sign up for my newsletter for more: newsletter.tommysoutdoors.com. To listen to exclusive interviews about the proposal to reduce the protection of wolves in the EU, click here.
#bernConvention #conservationPolitics #conservationScience #ecologicalImpact #environmentalPolicy #environmentalProtection #europeanUnion #HabitatsDirective #humanWildlifeConflict #Hunting #predatorConservation #wildlifeConservation #wildlifeManagement #Wolves
Whether it be #SolarEnergy or #WindEnergy or #OceanEnergy (#TidalEnergy - #WaveEnergy) #AtScale; site selection is a critical balance between generating efficiency & capacity vs. #EcologicalImpact. Both must be weighed objectively and a balance struck. #MoneyedInterests will only do this if there is strong #RegulatoryEnforcement from federal gov
https://onexception.dev/news/1079861/domestic-cats-a-hidden-eco-bomb?utm_source=mastodon #ecology #biodiversity #cats #ecologicalimpact
Domestic cats, known for their cuteness, are a major eco-bomb, according to a study published in Nature Communications. With a population of over 200 million in the US alone, these pets and feral cats consume more than 2000 species, including 350 endangered ones. The study highlights the need for effective management of these invasive species to protect biodiv
@arzachel
The #bureaucrats and #policymakers have been trying to decouple #economicGrowth from #ecologicalImpact for years.
Ie. Decouple #GDP from #consumption.
The general consensus was it wasn't possible without gross #financialization and #inequality.
Nothing's changed.
They just using COVID now to achieve an even more pronounced #neoFeudal #corporateState.
If you have symptoms, #JustKeepToYourself.
#covidJobs #uselessJobs #bullshitJobs #covidMarshall #quarantine #hyperAuthoritarianism
The Hidden Costs of NFTs: Ecological Impact and Unpredictable Volatility
If you are reading this, chances are you’re aware of NFTs -- non-fungible tokens that are bought, sold, and traded on a digital ledger known as the blockchain. But what are their costs, risks, and side effects?
For those unfamiliar, make sure to catch up with PetaPixel 's explainer on what NFTs are, and how they are made.
NFTs are one-of-a-kind pieces of digital art and in the last few months have completely taken over the art world. However, NFTs are not new. But their rise in popularity has put increased focus on the environmental toll of a single transaction.
For example, Ethereum, a type of cryptocurrency, consumes roughly 50 TWh (Terawatt-hours) of energy per year, which is equal to the annual carbon footprint of Jordan, according to Digiconomist , which tracks the “unintended consequences of digital trends.”
That’s a lot of energy. And remember: There are over 10,000 different kinds of cryptocurrency, each varying in how much energy they expend. Critics and legislators like Senator Elizabeth Warren want to “crack down” on crypto’s energy consumption, while enthusiasts applaud it for its autonomy and decentralized, peer-to-peer lending system.
So why do NFTs require so much energy? What can be done about it? And, with all things considered, are the cost of NFTs worth the benefits they provide to artists?
PetaPixel spoke with digital artist William Murphy (@wgm_v) and Susanne Köhler, who studies sustainable blockchain technology at Denmark’s Aalborg University, about the relationship between NFTs and the environment.
The Set up VS The Shot
NFT Available here https://t.co/Ga9usMPXoY pic.twitter.com/9NgdFl05kH
-- Michael Shainblum (@shainblum) June 22, 2021
Why Do NFTs Use So Much Energy?
To understand why NFTs consume so much energy, it’s important to understand how the blockchain works. The blockchain, where cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin and Ethereum live, acts as a distributed ledger, which records information, data, and transaction details anyone can see.
The process of validating and verifying the data stored on the blockchain is energy-intensive and generates greenhouse gasses on par with that of small countries and has been blamed for power grid failures across the globe. China plans to dramatically crack down on cryptocurrency trading and mining in the next four years, encouraging the country’s financial institutions to not get involved in the business.
Since NFTs use the blockchain platform to mint, list, and sell digital art, they also contribute to the energy consumption of the system as a whole, according to Köhler.
Read more: How to Mint an NFT: The Photographer’s Guide
“These transactions consume a lot of energy when they are built on proof-of-work (PoW) blockchains,” she said. “PoW is a consensus mechanism that is in place to validate the transactions and secure the blockchain without needing a central authority. PoW is energy-intensive by design as so-called miners compete in a guessing competition of who gets to mine the next block.”
The more miners are involved, the more secure the blockchain is, and the more energy is consumed, Köhler continued.
How Are Carbon Emissions and Energy Consumption Calculated From the Buying and Selling of NFTs?
There are plenty of organizations and individuals keeping track of the carbon emissions and energy consumption associated with cryptocurrencies and NFTs, like Offsetra, Memo Akten, academics, and major financial institutions. Many estimates produce big, scary numbers, but one, which was backed by researchers, equates the listing of a single NFT to driving 500 miles in an average, gasoline-powered car, according to the New York Times.
Deposit Photos
Energy consumption and carbon emissions are not the same.
Energy consumption is easier to decipher and can be estimated by using the “hash rate” -- the power the computers use to mine and process blockchain transactions -- plus the energy use of the hardware doing the computing. Carbon emissions, on the other hand, are difficult to tally for a number of reasons: the main being lack of transparency, the use of fossil fuels, and “different energy mixes.”
“It is difficult to know exactly where miners are located and what kind of energy sources are used,” said Köhler. “More data from the mining industry is needed to make a better assessment and to discuss the energy sources used for mining on a system-wide level and not based on anecdotes as it currently is the case.”
With the environment in mind, some digital artists have migrated over to smaller NFT marketplaces or “side chains” — blockchains that run alongside larger blockchains, which may seem very meta. However, smaller blockchains or more environmentally-conscious NFT marketplaces have switched over to the “proof of stake” model, which requires less computing power and is based on how many coins a person holds.
The Ethereum blockchain has been toying with a transfer from PoW to PoS for quite some time, and if it does end up making the switch, could reduce the energy consumption of the Ethereum blockchain by over 99.9 percent.
The solution to the environmental havoc cryptocurrency wrecks on the environment could be as easy as upgrading the technology to make it more green, and energy-efficient, or disconnecting NFTs from cryptocurrency and crypto-mining entirely. But neither has been done as of yet.
What About Carbon Offsetting?
NFTs have a carbon footprint. For example, say you are interested in an NFT from a popular artist. You want to make a bid on it. But so do thousands of others. The more people place bids on that NFT, the more it is traded, the more mining is required, which means more computing power is used.
Most NFT aficionados are aware of the space’s massive environmental toll and have turned toward carbon offsets as a short-term solution to ward off the excess emissions. This could mean donating part of the sale of an NFT to an environmental advocacy organization, calculating your carbon emissions using tools like Offsetra’s, or as simple as planting a tree.
But, according to Köhler, there is a lot more to be done to combat the environmental damages caused by cryptocurrency than carbon offsetting.
“It’s better to offset than to do nothing,” she said. “But reducing the energy consumption is even better. It would be great if the platforms are transparent, but to my knowledge, there is nothing in place that requires them to be transparent right now.”
Considering the Environmental Cons, What Pros Are There for Artists Interested in NFTs?
For artists like Murphy, NFTs have been a game-changer. It’s been so financially lucrative that since selling his first NFT in March, Murphy has been able to quit his job and work on his art full time, something he has been trying to do for nearly six years.
“NFTs have paid my bills, the majority of my income has come from NFTs,” he said. “It’s had a big impact on my life.”
'vivid' and 'luna' both still currently available and waiting for bids via @withFND https://t.co/lO0wQMdQ4J pic.twitter.com/rvEuLM1x5c
-- wgm v (@wgm_v) June 22, 2021
Murphy uses Offsetra to calculate the carbon emissions from his NFT sales, and said, so far, he’s been able to offset “40 to 50 tons” of carbon, compared to his output of less than a ton, while also putting aside five percent of the sales of his NFTs to additional carbon offsetting measures. (One ton of carbon emissions is equal to the charging of 121,643 cell phones, according to the Environmental Protection Agency.)
Another way Murphy tries to give back is by donating to the Mint Fund, an organization that funds first-time “crypto creators” mint fees. “It’s helping people in other countries or people in countries where they are experiencing hyperinflation and they might not have the opportunity to get into this otherwise,” he said.
In the future, Murphy would like to see more NFT marketplaces integrate a feature where when an NFT is sold, a percentage of the sale would be donated to an environmental charity that provides carbon offsetting measures.
the american southwest pic.twitter.com/W9KJZjkdN8
-- wgm v (@wgm_v) June 22, 2021
And, like other crypto enthusiasts, Murphy is not concerned with the NFT bubble “bursting” anytime soon.
“Since it’s a peer-to-peer connection, meaning if people are still using it, it’s never going to go away,” he said. “Unless the internet was going to go away -- and at this point, I would say that is not very likely.”
What About the Dwindling Value of NFTs?
Earlier this spring, the value of NFTs hit an all-time high, thanks, in part, to renewed media attention and celebrities, big-time artists, and musicians joining the NFT bandwagon.
Just this month, interest has since waned — drastically. According to cryptocurrency news site Protos, the NFT bubble peaked at the beginning of May, and in the last six weeks, NFT sales have dropped by over 90%. The report also noted that “the number of active NFT wallets” dropped by 70%, perhaps signaling that participants may be questioning whether NFTs are actually valuable in the long term.
NFT is not only a digital art, but also a digital identity. And this trend will only accelerate and will not be reversed.#NFT #Blockchain pic.twitter.com/Sw1yqsWihw
-- NFTSCAN (@nftscan_net) June 22, 2021
The reason for the spectacular NFT decline, detailed by charts, graphs, and data by sites like Protos and CoinMarketCap, could be for a myriad of reasons, like Bitcoin’s recent plunge. Or rather it is becoming harder and harder for artists to rationalize the high environmental impact of cryptocurrency with the sector’s varying value volatility, while taking into consideration that NFTs may not have the same worth in, say, five years' time.
It’s possible, though, that cryptocurrency and NFT popularity could reverse yet again, creating a cyclical “boom and bust” scenario. But the unpredictability, coupled with the massive climate cost, may just be enough to scare some folks away for good.
_Editor 's note: This explainer is part three of a three-part original PetaPixel series on NFTs. Part one answers what they are, part two explains how they are created, and part three (above) explains the "cost" of their existence. _
Image credits: Header photo created with images licensed via Depositphotos.
#culture #editorial #guides #technology #climatechange #cryptocurrency #ecologicalimpact #explained #explainer #guide #nft #nfts #nonfungibletoken
Client Info
Server: https://mastodon.social
Version: 2025.04
Repository: https://github.com/cyevgeniy/lmst