I mean c’mon you’re the CEH! You famously study things that are naturally messy and green and blue! Why opt for…. black with very hard lines?!

so pleased everyone is choosing such unique and distinctive typefaces

Finally, the scientific models used by agencies to model nutrient pollution are _remarkably_ opaque and under scrutinised given their ubiquitous importance (as I have written about previously: alexlipp.github.io/posts/2024/0...)

also the population change assumes (iirc) its all *new* population into catchment, rather than say residents moving *within* catchment (=no net increase). so, population density increasing due to limited supply would be a “win” for nutrient neutrality…

you’re right on the gist (nutrient neutrality is mad) but actually population growth *is* linear with nutrient outflow (ie it’s not a capacity thing). Problem is builders can’t pay to increase treatment efficiency at existing plants (!?) even though that can work…

The perfect conditions continue 😎 🌞!

… and blessed with some Aurora Borealis too! #studygeologyandseethenorthernlights

Focus on "universities" raising fees misses the point that the real injustice is the interest rates & repayment thresholds on student debt which I suspect plays greater role in determining how much is paid over a lifetime than the initial "up-front" fees...

...

Thanks! The art of the backronym…

grass fed “sustainable” rewilding cattle ultimately false solution. Yes, it’s good for climate… but hopelessly not scaleable. Only works if we each only eat one steak every couple of years! So, basically, are vegetarian!

1) methane (CH4) has greater greenhouse effect than CO2 so grass fed cattle is partly turning CO2 to CH4 and 2) probably greater effect is opportunity cost of land use. grass fed cattle needs LOADS of grassland which would otherwise be (for instance) forest, wetlands etc… much better for climate

So, whilst a laudable aim on paper im not sure how it’s really enforceable or even if it’s ‘fair’ to enforce it (assuming I have understood it)

…and selecting one year as your baseline is very silly. Last year was very very wet and this year is very very dry. So, 2025 has already seen less than half the amount of spills than 2024 but purely out of changes in the weather.

“From 2021 levels” I predict will result in future confusion. We only have had consistent sewer overflow monitoring data since *2023*… 2021 data is only partial. Not a good thing to use as a benchmark (imo)

hope you used bog butter for them!