Execution Follow up

Following on from my 5th January post, the New Scientist in no. 2943 reports that an execution in Florida last year, using midazolam and two other drugs resulted in the convicted man enduring "a longer death than is usual". It was also reported that he moved more requently than usual.

Then, just yesterday, I noticed AOL reporting that a man in Ohio took 25 minutes to die after "an experimental combination of drugs" was used.

You will have gathered that I find the concept of capital punishment at the best of times abhorrent but the above I really do think is beyond the pale.

What I really found upsetting, though, were the many nasty and vituperative comments left on AOL. I normally don't read comments posted to news items like this because I know what to expect. This time, however, I stupidly did so. I hope that these comments represent the views of just a small minority because, if not, the world is a worse place than I thought.

Greatest Public Interest - Who Decides?

Chris Paton picked up an interesting Grauniad article in his blog yesterday. This notes that a number of historians are considering taking the FCO to court to force them, under the Public Records Act, to release into the public domain thousands of files dating back to the 1840s still held by the department. What caught my eye was the promise from the Government that the records "of the greatest public interest" will be handed over to the National Archives over the next six years. That rather begs the question of who decides what is "of the greatest public interest". Given that one collection is entitled "Birth, death and marriage resisters" one wonders whether genealogy studies feature in the criteria.

Opportunities from Shell Sell-off

The Daily Telegraph today reports that Shell may well be selling-off a stack of North Sea assets. Regular readers of this blog will know that a year or so ago I was peripherally involved in a (sadly failed) bid into the government's CCS competition. The long-term vision of that bid was to dispose of CO2 by using it for enhanced oil recovery from depleted NS fields. One of the key requirements to make the scheme really work was to be able to tap a series of assets in order to be able to maintain a plateau volume of CO2 disposal. (CO2 is "recycled" in the process so the profile going into any single field can be a declining one). So, don't be surprised if a few small, agile down-stream players snap up the Shell assets with a view to an EOR future.

Congratulations to my Next Door Neighbour

Slightly late in the day - many congratulations to Harriet on being awarded an MBE.

Licence to Trash

There is a short article in the recent BRE "Building4Change" (still hate the title) by Prof Robert Tregay with a very important message. Essentially Tregay is warning that simplistic biodiversity offsetting systems risk becoming "licences to trash" - a particular instance being replacement of ancient woodland by modern planting. Tregay points out that the value of ancient woodlands lies as much in their history as in a simplistic tree count; and their complex ecological systems, including hardly visible soil organisms cannot be easily replicated or replaced. It's worth a read.

No Anaesthetic, No Execution?

There is a lack of pentobarbital at US prisons (New Scientist, no 2941). This is one of the main anaesthetics used in lethal injections. As a result some states (e.g. Arkansas) are suspending executions until alternatives are found; others are switching to new, untested combinations. Perhaps the US could consider just getting rid of the death penalty instead?

Gaia - Great Theory But.......

As ever I'm behind on my reading and have only just managed to look at the 26 October edition of New Scientist which contains an article by Toby Tyrell puporting to test the Gaia hypothesis. Indeed, Tyrell has recently published a book on the subject.

Being late to reading the article reminds me that I didn't pick up James Lovelock's original work until several years after it hit the bookshops. I recall thinking at the time that it was a wonderful theory - appealing to the new-age hippy in me if nothing else (actually that's being mean to Lovelock - it is genuinely a fascinating and well-worked theory). However, I couldn't see any conclusive proof that his hypothesis was correct. Being an idle *** I didn't take that thought any further; and I suspect that there were/are many others in that boat. Tyrell has, however, set out to test Lovelock's main propositions.

To cut a long story short, Tyrell's conclusion is that the Gaia hypothesis is not an accurate picture of how the world works (though he does point to some "mini-Gaias" such as the thermoregulation of the interior of terminte mounds). In some ways this is a great pity - there is something comforting about the thought of a self-regulating world. However, it rather looks as though we shall have to tackle the various environmental issues confronting us on the basis of our world system being very much more fragile that the Gaia hypothesis suggests - it won't just happen!