Daily Advocate -July 1, 2023
By Johnna Siegrist
Darke County Parks
Moths are often overlooked. Although viewed as pests,
these insects actually serve a vital purpose in many ecosystems.
Moths outnumber butterflies by more than 10 to 1. In the United States, there are approximately 12,000 species of moths, compared to only 750 species of butterflies.
Ohio alone has recorded around 3,000 species of moths and 140 butterflies.
Moths can be as small as a pencil tip, to as large as a songbird.
The Stigmella maya is the smallest moth in the world that is found in Yucatan, Mexico, measuring only 1.2 millimeters (0.05 inches) in size. The Atlas Moth, with a wingspan of 27 centimeters (10.6 inches), is the largest moth in the world and can be found in the Eastern Hemisphere.
What is the difference between moths and butterflies? Most butterflies are diurnal
(active during the day), while most moths are nocturnal (active during the night).
However, some species of moths are diurnal, like the hummingbird clearwing moth,
which can be found in Ohio. There are also physical features that separate moths from butterflies. Moths tend to have thicker bodies that are covered in hair-like scales that give them a fluffy or furry appearance.
Butterflies, on the other hand, often have slender and sleeker bodies that are less furry in appearance. When they are at rest, moths will rest their wings horizontally on their body, while butterflies will hold their wings upright in the air. Another difference between butterflies and moths is the shape of their antennae. Moths will have feathered or saw-edged antennae, while butterflies’ antennae are slender with bulbs at the tips.
What do moths eat?
Well, it depends on the current life stage of the moth. Moth larvae, or caterpillars, are herbivores, consuming mostly plant leaves. They are known as shredders since they can break down organic matter, which releases carbon into the atmosphere. They also enrich the soil by turning plant parts into humus, which allows small detritivores to break down the humus, returning nutrients into the soil. Moth caterpillars are often regarded as pests due to their destructive feeding habits.
There are only a few species of moths that will consume cotton in their larvae phase, and they have been declining in number. Adult moths will feed on sap or nectar. Some species are carnivorous and will consume small insects or snails in their adult or larvae phase. Some adult moths do not have mouthparts, so they cannot eat at all. Species without mouthparts live long enough to reproduce over a few days to a week.
Moths play an important role in pollinating numerous plants because they consume nectar. They are not specifically designed for pollination, but will pick up pollen on their legs and bodies and transfer it from flower to flower when they are feeding. They are not very efficient pollinators, but due to the number of flowers that they visit in a single night (or day), they can pollinate a large number of flowers.
Some recent studies have shown that nighttime moths may be more efficient pollinators than bees. Some plants rely on moths solely for pollination. Since many moths are active during the night, they are vital to the survival of many plants that open their flowers at dusk or during the night. These flowers are typically lighter in color and are very fragrant.
The lighter-colored petals reflect the moonlight better, making its visibility to moths much better. The strong fragrance of the flowers also helps attract moths since they have a keen sense of smell. Moths do not have noses, so they use their antennae to detect odor molecules in the air. Their antennae are so powerful that males can detect a female
from 7 miles away.
Moths have declined in population 33 percent since 1968. Over 20 species have
become extinct since the start of the 2oth century. The Garden Tiger and its Woolly Bear Caterpillar (brown and black fuzzy caterpillars in the Farmer’s Almanac used to determine winter climate) have declined 90 percent since 1968. You can help moths by growing a diverse selection of shrubs, plants, and trees. There are certain plants that moths need for egg-laying and ones that provide nectar for adults. Planting these plants will help the species of moths that are declining.
Try to avoid bug zappers.
These devices often harm and kill more than just mosquitoes; moths often fall victim to them as well. Keep old leaves, branches, and tree stumps to provide habitats for moths and other animals. Covert dead zones into areas with native plants, trees, and shrubs. Reducing light pollution helps protect moths from the concept of “like a moth to a flame”. If lights are needed, use yellow-colored bulbs instead of white ones. Leave caterpillars be. Understand that they provide a food source to over 115 Ohio songbirds and that they will transform into a butterfly or a moth someday.
For information about upcoming programs and events, visit www.darkecountyparks.org
or call the Nature Center at 937-548-0165
There is more to bee population loss than colony collapse disorder.
What’s Killing The Bee Population – Bing video
Despite their many impressive skills and tight social cohesion, honeybees are under threat. In many parts of the world, large numbers of colonies have been lost, a syndrome some have referred to as colony collapse disorder (CCD). The cause or causes of this phenomenon—where the majority of worker bees in a colony disappear, leaving behind plenty of food and a few nurse bees to care for the queen and the remaining infant bees—are not fully understood. It’s a big problem. In the United States, an estimated 10 million beehives had been wiped out by 2013, worth around $2 billion dollars, in the six years since bee colonies first began experiencing declines.
Scientists initially assumed a single cause of CCD, but most now conclude that there is a long list of factors that combine to trigger colony collapses. Although the term CCD gained traction in the media over several years, CCD is still not fully defined. There is now some agreement among scientists to move away from the term because it basically refers to only a mass loss event.
Entire hives of bees have been collapsing, but it isn’t all due to colony collapse disorder. Image adapted from: Hayes Valley Farm; CC BY-NC-SA 2.0What Did Einstein’s Theories Say About the Illusion of Time? (msn.com)
Irrespective of the term that is used to refer to large scale losses of honeybee colonies, research is focusing on identifying the various factors involved. In 2016, the first global assessment of the state of the world’s pollinators was released by an international team
of 77 experts. They drew their results from the findings of approximately 3000 scientific papers, and also incorporated indigenous and local knowledge from over 60 locations around the globe. The report noted that the experts were concerned by declines, and summarised the numerous factors responsible. These included land-use change, intensive agricultural management, pesticide use, environmental pollution, invasive alien species and climate change. As if this list wasn’t long enough, honeybees can host a large number of different parasites, such as mites, viruses, bacteria and fungi, and their vulnerability may be increased by over-work and poor bee-keeping practices.
There is still some hope for the humble bee. With the increased media attention and a dollar value placed on their pollination services over the past decade, governments and the wider public are now beginning to understand some of the issues affecting bees and why it is so important to restore bee health across the planet.
This article was adapted from Academy website content reviewed by the following expert: Professor Boris Baer Professor for Pollinator Health, Centre for Integrative Bee Research, Department of Entomology, University of California More Canadian Wildfire Smoke Is Headed South Next Week.
Here’s How This Setup Will Be Different. (msn.com)
Is Climate Change Happening | Cancer Quick Facts (solitarius.org)
Thinking Smartly About Climate Change – Bing images
Bjorn Lomborg @ Copenhagen Consensus Center
The following is adapted from a speech delivered at a Hillsdale College National Leadership Seminar on April 24, 2023, in Irving, Texas. – Bing video
Thinking Smartly About Climate Change – Hillsdale College Podcast Network
Listen to the Seminar: The Climate Change Panic: Myths and Costs | Hillsdale College Freedom Library
In a recent survey of Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development countries—i.e., all the rich countries in the world—about 60 percent of respondents said they believe that global warming will likely or very likely lead to the end of mankind.
This is the result of the fact that a lot of the conversation around global warming is vastly exaggerated. Let me add at the outset that I am a social scientist focused on the economics of this issue, not a scientist.
There is scientific dispute over the extent to which global warming is manmade.
I will not weigh in on that controversy, except to concede that global warming is real,
to some large extent manmade, and a serious problem.
The degree of seriousness is obviously important to address.
If it is true that mankind is facing imminent destruction, we should do everything in our power to deal with it. If the world will end in twelve years if we don’t address climate change, as U.S. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez claimed in 2019, she was then justified in demanding that we should spend whatever it takes to prevent that from happening.
If you think the world is ending—that climate change is the equivalent of a giant meteor hurtling towards Earth—political rhetoric of that sort makes sense. But I think it can be easily demonstrated that climate change, however serious, is not an incoming giant meteor.
U.N. Secretary General António Guterres and many Western leaders, including the current administration in the U.S., tend toward the end-of-the-world point of view: “The world is facing a grave climate emergency. . . . Every week brings new climate-related devastation. Floods. Drought. Heatwaves. Wildfires. Superstorms. . . . We are in a battle for our lives. . . . Climate change is the biggest threat to the global economy.” These claims are echoed endlessly in the media. But are they true?
Consider the supposed rise in “superstorms” such as stronger hurricanes. What do we actually know? The annual number of hurricanes that make landfall in the U.S. since 1900 is slightly declining, not increasing. The same is true for major hurricanes (category three and above) hitting the U.S. We see the same thing if we look at world data for total hurricane energy in the satellite era, 1980-2022. In fact, 2022 was the second lowest recorded year. Did you hear that reported anywhere? No, because it doesn’t fit the dominant narrative.
What about the supposed increase in wildfires due to climate change?
A typical example was the media coverage of the forest fires in Australia in 2019 and 2020, which left readers and viewers with the impression that almost all of Australia was burning. Looking at the satellite imagery, however, it was clear that although there were a lot of fires close to where the news crews lived in Sydney and Melbourne, it was one of the lowest levels of burning due to fire on record for Australia as a whole.
As for the amount of burned area due to fire on a global level, satellite data shows a dramatic decline over the past 25 years. Journals like Science and Nature have covered this story, but it’s not what you see on television or read in newspapers. Perhaps the implementation of a strong climate policy might reduce instances of fire, but even if we do nothing, the number of fires will almost certainly continue to decline. In other words, the world is not going to go up in flames, contrary to what you hear from politicians or read in The New York Times.
One of the reasons it is so difficult to have a sensible conversation about the climate is because we tend only to talk about what the climate will do, not what humans will do. Sticking with the example of fires, fires are declining because human beings are intelligent and actively try to suppress fires. Humans have a wonderful ability to adapt to circumstances, and we should include that fact in the climate conversation.
How many people die overall as a result of climate, i.e., because of floods, droughts, storms, wildfires, and extreme temperatures? In the 1920s, about 500,000 people died each year, on average, due to climate. Looking at the averages in subsequent decades—the number fluctuates quite a bit from year to year—there has been a dramatic decline. In the 2010s, the average number of people dying each year as a result of climate change was 18,000, and in 2022, that number dropped to about 11,000. This downward trend doesn’t fit the alarmist narrative, so of course we never hear about it.
Why has this number dropped so dramatically?
A big reason fewer people have been dying is that over the past century we have become wealthier. Because of that, we have the resources to develop better technology, which enables better predictive capabilities. This has nothing to do with climate and everything to do with human beings’ ability to adapt. The lesson to be drawn from this is that if a country wants to reduce the number of its citizens dying as a result of climate, it should pursue economic and technological development.
Also as a result of human beings’ ability to adapt, the global cost of climate damage as a percentage of GDP has been declining since 1990. The reason to measure this cost in terms of GDP is because, for example, if you have twice as many houses in an area that floods, the damage is going to be twice as much. This is a consequence not of the climate but of the fact that the people living in that area are much richer.
***
Once we realize that human beings are quite smart in terms of their ability to adapt,
we can begin to see why so many of the current climate policies are so ill-conceived.
Many people say they are very worried about sea levels rising. That would be a real outcome of global warming, given the fact that water expands as temperatures rise.
So it is something we should be concerned about. It is also, however, a problem we know how to address. Humans are not going to stand around on beaches for 80 years watching the water rise until they drown. We will adapt to our changing circumstances, as we have in the past.
Take the example of Holland, which is below sea level and famous for its system of dikes that keep it from being flooded. Schiphol airport in Amsterdam, the 14th largest airport in the world, stands on dry land that was also once the site of a major naval battle, the Battle of Schiphol. In other words, the adaptive Dutch implemented a policy that worked.
There are lots of current policies, on the other hand, that don’t work.
Many people today have a very unrealistic expectation regarding renewable energy. In 1800, it is estimated that renewable sources produced 94 percent of the world’s energy. One exception to this was Britain, which was beginning its industrial revolution and was turning to coal for its energy. For the following two centuries, most countries transitioned away from renewables. Why? Because renewables are hard to predict, difficult to harness, and produce a relatively small amount of power.
Around 1970, renewable energy production worldwide bottomed out at 13 or 14 percent, and it remained there until 2015 or so. Most of that 13-14 percent was located in poor countries that were still burning dung, cardboard, and wood to produce energy. And since then, despite all of the government action on climate change—including trillions of dollars in spending—renewable energy production only increased to nearly 16 percent in 2021. Even in the unlikely event that every nation joins in this effort—not just the U.S. and the countries of Western Europe, but China, India, and the countries of Africa—we will likely increase this number to at most 30 percent by 2050.
The claim is often made that it is possible to reach 100 percent or “net-zero” by 2050, but that’s highly unlikely, mainly because of the incredible cost and the economic damage it would do.
According to a recent study in Nature, to achieve a 20 percent emission reduction by 2050 would cost each American $75 per person, per year—and the costs rise exponentially from there. A 40 percent reduction would cost about $500 per person, per year; 60 percent would cost $2,000 per person, per year; and 80 percent would cost $5,000 per person, per year. Most people would be either unable or unwilling to spend that amount of money—not to mention unlikely to vote for those who advocate these policies.
In fact, even the most draconian measures couldn’t get us to net-zero by 2050, the purported aim of the Biden administration and many other Western governments. The most optimistic models suggest we could get to 95 percent, but that would cost more than $11,000 per person, per year.
***
To begin to think smartly about climate change, we have to understand climate-related economics. There are costly damages associated with climate change. But there are also costly damages associated with climate policies. Too many politicians and the media focus only on the former. They are constantly telling us that we have costly climate problems, and that is true. But they don’t tell us about or report the fact that the policies we enact also have costs.
Since we must bear the costs of the policies as well as the costs of climate change, we and our policymakers should take both into account. This is a point made by Yale University climate economist William Nordhaus. He argues that the higher the global temperature, the greater the negative economic impact as a percentage of global GDP. For example, a zero-degree Fahrenheit increase in temperature has a zero percent impact on global GDP. But if the temperature rises by 7.4 degrees Fahrenheit by the year 2100—which is the approximate worst-case scenario if we do nothing about climate change—there would be a four percent decline in global GDP.
I hasten to add that the UN, the OECD, the World Bank, and several other organizations predict that the average person in the world will be 450 percent as rich in 2100 than he or she is today. So if Nordhaus is correct about the cost of doing nothing about climate change, we will each still be 434 percent as rich by the end of the century—far from the end-of-the-world scenario predicted by climate alarmists.
But returning to Nordhaus’s argument about the cost of global warming, he estimates that if we do nothing, the total cost of climate change between now and 2100 will be $140 trillion. If we reduce the rise in temperature from 7.4 to 6.75 degrees Fahrenheit, the economic damages would be slightly lower, only $110 trillion. In other words, the more we reduce the temperature rise, the less cost we will have to bear.
That is the side of the story we hear constantly from the media: the warmer it gets, the worse off we are—so anything we can do to reduce warming is better.
But there is another side of the story—the economic cost of climate policy. The policy cost of no climate policy is of course zero. But what would be the cost of reducing the temperature rise from 7.4 to 6.75 degrees Fahrenheit? Even assuming that China, India, and Africa all participate, a very big assumption, the realistic cost is about $20 trillion.
To reduce it slightly more, to 5.3 degrees Fahrenheit, would cost five times that amount—about $100 trillion. And so on: with every degree reduction in temperature, the costs scale up very rapidly.
In 2018, Nordhaus received the Nobel Prize in economics for his studies showing we should shoot for the temperature change that minimizes the sum of the cost of climate change and the cost of climate policy, which is 6.75 degrees Fahrenheit (see chart below). Unfortunately, most politicians are not heeding this advice, instead pushing policies that aim at lowering temperatures as much as possible.
Understanding this, what are the smart ways to tackle climate change?
At the Copenhagen Consensus Center, we assembled over 50 of the world’s top climate economists, including three Nobel laureates, with the goal of trying to figure out how to get the best return on each dollar spent on the climate. Needless to say, we discovered that some of the typical solutions Western countries have embraced have a very poor impact.
One of those was the European Union’s 2020 policy, which included a goal to reduce CO2 by 20 percent and increase the use of renewable energy to 20 percent of total energy consumption by 2020. That policy had a huge cost while failing to cut very much CO2.
The net economic result was that every dollar the EU spent on climate led to a reduction of three cents in worldwide climate damages. If the EU would simply have given the dollar away, it could have done 97 cents more good.
Another example is the Paris Agreement, also known as the Paris Climate Accords. This agreement was slightly less dumb than the EU 2020 policy due to the fact that several less developed countries such as China and India signed on. But even so, and assuming that all parties to the Agreement do as they promised—again, an unlikely prospect—it will only deliver about eleven cents of climate benefit for every dollar spent. That’s a bad way to spend money.
Of course, climate economics cuts both ways. Many on the left won’t like that the Paris Agreement is shown to be bad. Many on the right won’t like that by the same economic methodology, a smartly-conceived carbon tax is shown capable of delivering as much as two dollars in climate change benefits for each dollar in climate policy costs.
But note I said “smartly-conceived.” That means these taxes have to be affordable, have to be implemented across all emissions, within all countries, including China and India, and at the same time all other subsidies, like solar and wind, will have to go. This will be highly challenging, but certainly some sort of carbon tax is something to discuss. But by far the best investment governments can make is in something that is not new, but is in fact quite old: innovation. That’s how human beings have solved problems around the world throughout history.
In the 1850s, for instance, most residents of North America and Western Europe used oil derived from whale blubber to light their homes, and whales were being hunted almost to extinction. What saved the whales was not a ban on the burning of whale oil, but the discovery of oil in Pennsylvania. It was a lot cheaper and easier to drill in Pennsylvania than to sail ships around the world killing whales.
More recently, consider the awful air pollution or smog that plagued Los Angeles in the 1950s. It was a result of the city’s peculiar topography combined with the large number of cars on the city’s streets and highways. The standard environmentalist response would be to tell the city’s residents to stop driving, which would have been neither realistic nor helpful. What did help was the invention of the catalytic converter, an inexpensive technology that removed most of the air pollution from car exhaust.
In other words, technological innovation is the main reason why Los Angeles is not nearly as polluted today. Likewise, when it comes to climate change, our focus should not be on policies that cost a lot, deliver little, and in the end likely don’t even work.
Rather, we should focus our efforts on developing new technology and encouraging innovation that will lead to the production of affordable and dependable green energy.
It is possible for us to have a sensible climate policy without breaking the bank and without sacrificing the amazing opportunities delivered by cheap and abundant energy.
Generative AI — which some fear could contribute to the end of humanity — will be a $1.3 trillion market within a decade, new research says (msn.com)
Scientists strike massive breakthrough that allows us to extract solar energy from space: ‘No one has ever [done this]’ (msn.com)
I flew on 2 international flights: one in premium plus and another in economy. The $400 upgrade wasn’t worth the cost. (msn.com)
Harvard nutritionist: 4 toxic food ingredients that ‘actually make you hungrier’ and ‘hijack the brain’—eat this instead (msn.com)
This Genetically-Modified Bacteria Could Be The Next Breakthrough In Cancer Treatment.
The Most Beautiful Places to Visit in Each of the 50 U.S. States, According to Travelers.
Bucket List Destinations That Everyone Needs To Experience At Least Once (msn.com)
A New Study Says Time Used to Run Five Times Slower (msn.com)
You May Think These Habits Are Healthy, But They Could Actually Be Hurting You.
Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels saw another steep jump in 2023 (msn.com)
LARRY KUDLOW: The Green New Deal II is galloping socialism (msn.com)
Climate change is already making parts of America uninsurable (msn.com)
Add These 50 Underrated U.S. Cities to Your Must-Visit List (msn.com)
1200 Earthquakes are setting off the volcanoes – Search (bing.com)
Important Things Many Doctors Don’t Tell Their Patients (msn.com)
35 Super Foods That Can Naturally Help Your Liver (msn.com)
Bone cancer, the symptoms that should alarm you (msn.com)
14 Cities With the Most Polluted Air in America (msn.com)
6 Celebrity Diet Trends Backed by Science (msn.com)
7 Daily Habits That Could Extend Your Life (msn.com)
8 Signs You Are Wasting Away Your Life (msn.com)
A healthy diet can reduce brain aging (msn.com)