Johansen.se

With only a few weeks until Germany’s election, Elon Musk has unambiguously thrown his support behind the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) party. In a video address to a party rally last week, he appeared to urge Germans to “move on” from any “past guilt” related to the Holocaust.

It’s good to be proud of German culture, German values, and not to lose that in some sort of multiculturalism that dilutes everything.

Troublingly, the AfD is now firmly entrenched as Germany’s second-most popular political party, behind the centre-right Christian Democratic Union (CDU). Like all parties in German elections, however, it cannot win an outright majority. It is also unlikely to be invited to join any ruling coalition that emerges from the February 23 election.

But the AfD’s anti-migrant, anti-government sloganeering has already seriously distorted Germany’s public debate and democratic culture, leaving many to ask whether it even needs to win elections to see its policies implemented.

This was evident following a dramatic week in Germany’s Bundestag.

First, in a radical break with Germany’s political norms, opposition leader Friedrich Merz deliberately drew on the votes of the AfD on Wednesday to ram a radical anti-asylum seeker motion through the parliament.

It was the first time in the history of the Bundestag that a parliamentary majority was reached with the help of the far right. Merz’s action was widely condemned as a “taboo-breaking” step towards legitimising the AfD.

The so-called ‘firewall’ was broken this week between mainstream German political parties and the far right.
Clemens Bilan/EPA

Merz tried to take this a step further with a far-reaching bill to tighten immigration controls on Friday. Although the bill narrowly failed, all of the AfD voted with Merz. Twelve members of his own CDU party refused to back him.

Merz’s courting of the far right is widely seen as politically unnecessary, given his conservative CDU is already leading the national polls, making him the favourite to succeed the Social Democratic Party (SDP)‘s Olaf Scholz as chancellor.

This raises a couple crucial questions heading into the election. Is it insiders or outsiders that are playing the biggest role in bringing the far right into the mainstream? And just how big a role will the AfD play after the election?

The Musk effect

Musk’s embrace of the AfD should come as no surprise, given the integral part he played in Donald Trump’s election victory in the United States. In the German context, however, his behaviour and statements have taken on darker hues.

Germans know only too well what is at stake when democracy is eroded by those who abuse its freedoms to attack it. Had Musk’s now notorious Nazi salutes following Trump’s inauguration been performed in Berlin, for example, he might have faced up to three years in prison.

The catchphrase “never again” has underpinned German politics since the second world war. Yet, the response to Musk’s recent provocations was oddly muted in some sections of the German media.

The German tabloid Bild made embarrassing excuses for his Hitlerian salute, while others spoke vaguely of a “questionable gesture”.

With a few notable exceptions, it was left to activists to remind Germans of the severity of this gesture – projecting an image of Musk’s salute on a German Tesla plant, alongside the word “heil”.

Given the seriousness with which Germany patrols representations of its Nazi past, it was surprising just how few journalists were prepared to state without equivocation that “a Hitler salute is a Hitler salute is a Hitler salute”.

Merz’s embrace of the far right

Initially, there were some signs Germany’s main political leaders would decry Musk’s attempts to normalise far-right politics in the country.

When Musk called the AfD the “last spark of hope” in December, both Scholz and Merz quickly condemned his meddling.

Scholz has continued to label Musk’s blatant attempts to influence German politics as “unacceptable” and “disgusting”.

Merz claims to be keeping his distance from Musk. But it appears his strategy for winning the election is not far from what Musk is suggesting – mimicking AfD policies and collaborating with the party on anti-immigration votes.

In his most radical break with the centrism that characterised the CDU under former Chancellor Angela Merkel, Merz cracked the “firewall” against working with the far-right this week. Knowing just what it meant, he used the AfD’s support to pass the starkly worded nationalist border protection motion in the Bundestag.

The AfD publicly celebrated their good fortune, calling it a “historic day for Germany”.

Democratic party leaders, meanwhile, registered their shock and dismay. Merkel herself spoke out against Merz, saying it was “wrong” to “knowingly” work with the AfD.

Her intervention appears to have been critical to the immigration bill failing on Friday, with many of her former supporters in the CDU withholding their votes.

A defaced election poster for the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) showing leader Friedrich Merz smeared with a Hitler moustache.
Martin Meissner/AP

What AfD’s rise could mean

Given the two votes in the past week and Musk’s high-profile intervention, many in Germany now fear a CDU victory in the election could signal more collaboration with the AfD.

The Left Party has denounced Merz as an AfD puppet and demanded Musk be forbidden from entering Germany.

The Greens’ Robert Habeck, Germany’s vice chancellor, has said Merz’s nationalist coalition would “destroy Europe”. He has also warned Musk to keep his “hands off our democracy”, prompting Musk to label Habeck “a traitor to the German people”.

People attend the election campaign launch of the Alternative for Germany (AfD) party on Jan. 25.
Hannibal Hanschke/EPA

Musk is by no means the cause of the AfD’s popularity, but his embrace of the extremist party has given it a global profile and credibility in circles that might not have otherwise considered supporting it.

Musk has been a controversial figure in Germany ever since his Tesla “gigafactory” arrived in Brandenburg and was promptly accused of felling 500,000 trees and irreparably damaging precious groundwater reserves. Accusations of Tesla breaching German labour laws and even conducting surprise checks on sick workers have also not endeared him to progressive Germans.

As some commentators have suggested, it is probably not coincidental the AfD’s plans for the German economy would benefit Musk’s business interests. Economic self-interest alone seems insufficient, however, to explain why Musk has gravitated to the extreme right.

The same might be said of Merz. Electoral calculations alone cannot explain his risky courting of the far right. He has long been the frontrunner to win the next election. Cosying up to the AfD will only make it harder to form a coalition with either Scholz’s Social Democratic Party or the Greens.

If these two parties refuse to deal with Merz, the only other bloc large enough to deliver his party control of the government would be the AfD. Would he go so far?

Whether it is formally part of the next government or not, the AfD and its camp followers (such as Musk) could be set to have a much bigger influence on German politics. How this will change Germany in the long term remains to be seen. Läs mer…

It’s official. On February 1, US President Donald Trump will introduce a sweeping set of new 25% tariffs on imports from Canada and Mexico. China will also face new tariffs of 10%.

During the presidential campaign, Trump threatened tariffs against all three countries, claiming they weren’t doing enough to prevent an influx of “drugs, in particular fentanyl” into the US, while also accusing Canada and Mexico of not doing enough to stop “illegal aliens”.

There will be some nuance. On Friday, Trump said tariffs on oil and gas would come into effect later, on February 18, and that Canadian oil would likely face a lower tariff of 10%.

This may only be the first move against China. Trump has previously threatened the country with 60% tariffs, asserting this will bring jobs back to America.

But the US’ move against its neighbours will have an almost immediate impact on the three countries involved and the landscape of North American trade. It marks the beginning of what could be a radical reshaping of international trade and political governance around the world.

What Trump wants from Canada and Mexico

While border security and drug trade concerns are the official rationale for this move, Trump’s tariffs have broader motivations.

The first one is protectionist. In all his presidential campaigning, Trump portrayed himself as a champion of US workers. Back in October, he said tariff was “the most beautiful word in the dictionary”.

Trump hasn’t hidden his fondness for protectionist trade measures.

This reflects the ongoing scepticism toward international trade that Trump – and politicians more generally on both ends of the political spectrum in the US – have held for some time.

It’s a significant shift in the close trade links between these neighbours. The US, Mexico and Canada are parties to the successor of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA): the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA).

Trump has not hidden his willingness to use tariffs as a weapon to pressure other countries to achieve unrelated geopolitical goals. This is the epitome of what a research project team I co-lead calls “Weaponised Trade”.

This was on full display in late January. When the president of Colombia prohibited US military airplanes carrying Colombian nationals deported from the US to land, Trump successfully used the threat of tariffs to force Colombia to reverse course.

Read more:
What are tariffs?

The economic stakes

The volume of trade between the US, Canada, and Mexico is enormous, encompassing a wide range of goods and services. Some of the biggest sectors are automotive manufacturing, energy, agriculture, and consumer goods.

In 2022, the value of all goods and services traded between the US and Canada came to about US$909 billion (A$1.46 trillion). Between the US and Mexico that same year, it came to more than US$855 billion (A$1.37 trillion).

One of the hardest hit industries will be the automotive industry, which depends on cross-border trade. A car assembled in Canada, Mexico or the US relies heavily on a supply of parts from throughout North America.

Tariffs will raise costs throughout this supply chain, which could lead to higher prices for consumers and make US-based manufacturers less competitive.

Auto manufacturing stands to be hit hard by Trump’s tariffs.
Around the World Photos/Shutterstock

There could also be ripple effects for agriculture. The US exports billions of dollars in corn, soybeans, and meat to Canada and Mexico, while importing fresh produce such as avocados and tomatoes from Mexico.

Tariffs may provoke retaliatory measures, putting farmers and food suppliers in all three countries at risk.

Trump’s decision to delay and reduce tariffs on oil was somewhat predictable. US imports of Canadian oil have increased steadily over recent decades, meaning tariffs would immediately bite US consumers at the fuel pump.

We’ve been here before

This isn’t the first time the world has dealt with Trump’s tariff-heavy approach to trade policy. Looking back to his first term may provide some clues about what we might expect.

In 2018, the US levied duties on steel and aluminium. Both Canada and Mexico are both major exporters of steel to the US.

In his first term, Trump imposed major tariffs on US steel imports.
ABCDstock/Shutterstock

Canada and Mexico imposed retaliatory tariffs. Ultimately, all countries removed tariffs on steel and aluminium in the process of finalising the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement.

Notably, though, many of Trump’s trade policies remained in place even after President Joe Biden took office.

This signalled a bipartisan scepticism of unfettered trade and a shift toward on-shoring or re-shoring in US policy circles.

The options for Canada and Mexico

This time, Canada and Mexico’s have again responded with threats of retaliatory tariffs.

But they’ve also made attempts to mollify Trump – such as Canada launching a “crackdown” on fentanyl trade.

Generally speaking, responses to these tariffs could range from measured diplomacy to aggressive retaliation. Canada and Mexico may target politically sensitive industries such as agriculture or gasoline, where Trump’s base could feel the pinch.

There are legal options, too. Canada and Mexico could pursue legal action through the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement’s dispute resolution mechanisms or the World Trade Organization (WTO).

Both venues provide pathways for challenging unfair trade practices. But these practices can be slow-moving, uncertain in their outcomes and are susceptible to being ignored.

A more long-term option for businesses in Canada and Mexico is to diversify their trade relationships to reduce reliance on the US market. However, the facts of geography, and the large base of consumers in the US mean that’s easier said than done.

The looming threat of a global trade war

Trump’s latest tariffs underscore a broader trend: the widening of the so-called “Overton window” to achieve unrelated geopolitical goals.

The Overton Window refers to the range of policy options politicians have because they are accepted among the general public.

Arguments for bringing critical industries back to the US, protecting domestic jobs, and reducing reliance on foreign supply chains gained traction after the ascent of China as a geopolitical and geoeconomic rival.

These arguments picked up steam during the COVID-19 pandemic and have increasingly been turned into actual policy.

The potential for a broader trade war looms large. Trump’s short-term goal may be to leverage tariffs as a tool to secure concessions from other jurisdictions.

Trump’s threats against Denmark – in his quest to obtain control over Greenland – are a prime example. The European Union (EU), a far more potent economic player, has pledged its support for Denmark.

A North American trade war – foreshadowed by the Canadian and Mexican governments – might then only be harbinger of things to come: significant economic harm, the erosion of trust among trading partners, and increased volatility in global markets. Läs mer…

For centuries, people have claimed that their aching joints can predict changes in the weather, often reporting increased discomfort before rain or cold fronts. Given the scale and duration, there is a sense of legitimacy to these anecdotes – but this phenomenon remains scientifically contentious.

From shifts in barometric pressure to temperature fluctuations, many theories attempt to explain how environmental factors might influence joint pain. But is there an anatomical basis for this claim, or is it simply an enduring weather-related myth? Are our joints any more reliable than the Met Office?

At the heart of this debate lies barometric pressure, also known as atmospheric pressure – the force exerted by air molecules in the Earth’s atmosphere. While invisible, air has mass, and the “weight” pressing down on us fluctuates with altitude and weather systems.

Higher barometric pressure often signals fair-weather conditions with clear skies and calm winds, whereas lower pressure typically precedes unsettled weather, such as cloudy skies, precipitation and humidity.

Moveable joints are intricate structures cushioned by synovial fluid, the viscous liquid that lubricates joints, and encased in capsules rich in nerve endings. In healthy joints, these components should allow smooth, pain-free movement. However, when joints are compromised by cartilage damage (as in osteoarthritis) or inflammation (as in rheumatoid arthritis), even subtle changes in the environment may be acutely felt.

One leading hypothesis suggests that changes in barometric pressure may directly influence joint discomfort. When atmospheric pressure drops ahead of storms, it can allow inflamed tissues within joints to expand slightly, increasing stress on surrounding nerves and amplifying pain. Conversely, rapid increases in pressure, characteristic of fair-weather systems, may compress already sensitive tissues, leading to discomfort in some people.

Barometric pressure may influence joint discomfort.
Chuck Eckert / Alamy Stock Photo

Scientific studies offer some support for these claims, though results remain mixed. For instance, a 2007 study published in the American Journal of Medicine found a slight but significant correlation between dropping barometric pressure and increased knee pain in osteoarthritis patients. However, this pattern is not universally observed across all joint conditions.

A 2011 systematic review in Arthritis Research & Therapy examined the relationship between weather and pain in rheumatoid arthritis patients. It revealed highly variable responses: while some people reported increased pain under low-pressure conditions, others noted no change. A few even experienced discomfort during high-pressure fronts.

More recently, a [2019 citizen-science project] called Cloudy with a chance of pain used app-based pain tracking to explore this connection. The study found a modest association between falling pressure and heightened joint pain, but it also highlighted substantial individual differences in how people perceive weather-related pain.

These findings suggest that while changes in barometric pressure may influence joint pain for some, responses are far from uniform and depend on a complex interplay of factors, including the individual’s underlying joint condition and overall pain sensitivity.

Why responses differ

Barometric pressure rarely acts in isolation. Fluctuations in temperature and humidity often accompany pressure changes, complicating the picture.

Cold weather can have a pronounced effect on joints, particularly in people with existing joint conditions. Low temperatures cause muscles to contract and become stiffer, which can lead to reduced flexibility and a greater risk of strain or discomfort.

Ligaments, which connect bones to one another, and tendons, which anchor muscles to bones, may also lose some of their elasticity in colder conditions. This decreased pliability can make joint movement feel more restricted and exacerbate pain in conditions like arthritis.

Cold weather can also cause blood vessels to narrow — particularly in the extremities, as the body prioritises maintaining core temperature. This reduced blood flow can deprive affected areas of essential oxygen and nutrients, slowing the removal of metabolic waste products like lactic acid, which may accumulate in tissues and exacerbate inflammation and discomfort.

For people with inflammatory conditions, the reduced circulation can aggravate swelling and stiffness, especially in small joints like those in the fingers and toes.

Cold also slows the activity of synovial fluid. In lower temperatures, the fluid becomes less effective at reducing friction, which can heighten joint stiffness and make motion more painful, particularly for people with degenerative conditions such as osteoarthritis.

Sudden temperature changes may also play a role. Rapid shifts can challenge the body’s ability to adapt, which might worsen pain in people with chronic conditions. Similarly, high humidity can intensify sensations of heat or dampness in already inflamed areas, further complicating the experience of pain.

However, isolating a single variable – whether humidity, temperature or pressure –proves difficult because of the interplay of overlapping factors.

Responses to weather also depend on individual factors, including the extent of joint damage, overall pain sensitivity and psychological expectations. This variability makes it difficult to link a single meteorological factor to a biological response.

Still, the evidence suggests that people with joint conditions tend to be more attuned to environmental changes, particularly pressure fluctuations.

While the relationship between weather and joint pain remains an imperfect science, the collective evidence indicates that there may be some truth to the age-old belief. For those with chronic joint conditions, shifts in barometric pressure and accompanying weather changes might indeed serve as nature’s warning system – albeit one that’s far from foolproof. Läs mer…

AI burns through a lot of resources. And thanks to a paradox first identified way back in the 1860s, even a more energy-efficient AI is likely to simply mean more energy is used in the long run.

For most users, “large language models” such as OpenAI’s ChatGPT work like intuitive search engines. But unlike regular web-searches that find and retrieve data from anywhere along a global network of servers, AI models return data they’ve generated from scratch. Like powering up a nuclear reactor to use a calculator, this tailored process is very inefficient.

One study suggests the AI industry will be consuming somewhere between 85 and 134 terrawatt-hours (TWh) of electricity by 2027. That’s a similar amount of energy as the Netherlands consumes each year. One prominent researcher predicts that by 2030, over 20% of all electricity produced in the US will be feeding AI data centres (huge warehouses filled with computers).

Big tech firms have always claimed to be heavy investors in wind and solar energy. But AI’s appetite for 24/7 power means most are developing their own nuclear options. Microsoft even plans to revive the infamous Three Mile Island power plant, scene of America’s worst ever civil nuclear accident.

Despite Google’s ambitious target of being carbon neutral by 2030, the company’s AI developments mean its emissions have climbed 48% in the past few years. And the computing power needed to train these models increases tenfold each year.

However, Chinese start-up DeepSeek claims to have created a fix: a model that matches the performance of established US rivals like OpenAI, but at a fraction of the cost and carbon footprint.

An environmental game changer?

DeepSeek has created a powerful open-source, relatively energy-lite model. The company claims it spent just US$6 million renting the hardware needed to train its new R1 model, compared with over $60 million for Meta’s Llama, which used 11 times the computing resources.

DeepSeek uses a “mixture-of-experts” architecture, a machine-learning method that allows the model to scale up and down depending on the complexity of prompts. The company claims its model can also store more data and be trained without the need for huge amounts of expensive processor chips.

Compared with its US rivals, DeepSeek promises to do more with less.
Chitaika / shutterstock

In reaction, US chip manufacturing and energy stocks plummeted following investor concerns that AI companies would rethink their energy-intensive data centre developments. As the world’s largest supplier of specialist AI processors, Nvidia saw its share price fall by US$589 billion, the biggest one-day loss in Wall Street history.

Paradoxically, as well as upsetting the performance of US tech stocks, improving the energy efficiency of AI platforms could actually worsen the industry’s environmental performance as a whole.

With tech stocks crashing, Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella tried to bring a longer-term perspective: “Jevons paradox strikes again!” he posted on X. “As AI gets more efficient and accessible, we will see its use skyrocket, turning it into a commodity we just can’t get enough of.”

The Jevons paradox

The idea that energy efficiency isn’t always a good thing for Earth’s resources has been around for well over a century. In 1865, a young Englishman named William Stanley Jevons wrote “The Coal Question”, a book in which he suggested that Britain’s place as an industrial superpower might soon come to an end, due to its rapidly depleting coal reserves.

But to Jevons, frugality was not the solution. He argued: “It is wholly a confusion of ideas to suppose that the economical use of fuel is equivalent to a diminished consumption. The very contrary is the truth.”

According to Jevons, any increase in resource efficiency generates an increase in long-term resource consumption, rather than a decrease. Because greater energy efficiency has the effect of reducing energy’s implicit price, it increases the rate of return – and demand.

Jevons offered the example of the British iron industry. If technological advancements helped a blast furnace produce iron with less coal, profits would rise and new investment in iron production would be attracted. At the same time, falling prices would stimulate additional demand. He concluded: “The greater number of furnaces will more than make up for the diminished [coal] consumption of each.”

More recently, the economist William Nordhaus applied this idea to the efficiency of lighting since the dawn of human civilisation. In a paper published in 1998, he concluded that in ancient Babylon, the average labourer might need to work more than 40 hours to purchase enough fuel to produce the equivalent amount of light emitted by a modern lightbulb for one hour. But by 1992, an average American would need to work for less than half a second to produce the same.

Throughout time, efficiency gains haven’t reduced the energy we expend on lighting or shrunk our energy consumption. On the contrary, we now generate so much electric light that areas without it have become tourist attractions.

Warming and lighting our homes efficiently, driving our cars, mining Bitcoin and, indeed, building AI models are all subject to the same so-called rebound effects identified in the Jevons paradox. And this is why it will be impossible to ensure a more efficient AI industry actually leads to an overall reduction in energy use.

A Sputnik moment

In the 1950s, the US was horrified when the Soviets launched Sputnik, the first space satellite. The emergence of a more efficient rival caused America to allocate more resources to the space race, not less.

DeepSeek is Silicon Valley’s Sputnik moment. More efficient AI will probably mean more distributed and powerful models, in an arms race that is no longer made up only of US tech giants. AI offers superpower status, and the floodgates may now be fully open for the UK and other global competitors, as well as China.

What’s for certain is that in the long term, the AI industry’s appetite for energy and other resources is only going to increase. Läs mer…

Developers need not “worry about bats and newts” before they start building, Chancellor Rachel Reeves has said in a speech that outlined her plans to reform the UK’s planning process. Reeves’ comments suggest construction firms and housebuilders will be allowed to destroy habitat if they pay into “a nature fund” that might finance restoration elsewhere.

As an ecologist (with a passion for bats), I have serious concerns about what this would mean for the UK’s dwindling biodiversity. The comments from the chancellor are, at best, disheartening at a critical time for nature conservation.

Bats and newts are derided as the gum in the wheels of the planning system. But the idea that nature inherently obstructs development and stymies our collective prosperity is wrong. There are many ways infrastucture can be designed to work with nature in mind from the start – often with low cost.

The chancellor’s own calculations are off if she attaches no economic value to nature. In one scientific study that tried to quantify the economic contribution of wildlife, researchers found that losing pest-eating bats in North American farmland would cost farmers several billions of dollars in crop losses.

Blaming wildlife for economic challenges will only worsen the biodiversity crisis. A report from 2023 found that nearly one in six UK species are at risk of extinction, and that the country is one of the most nature depleted in the world.

Rather than weakening protections for nature, the UK should be doing much more to help the plants and animals that call these islands home.

Why we should worry about bats and newts

Populations of the great crested newt halved between 1965 and 1975 and have continued to decline by 2% every five years since. The enormous loss of habitat is partly to blame: half of all ponds vanished in the 20th century and 80% of those remaining are in poor condition. These figures highlight the long-running failure of the planning system to protect nature.

Newts need ponds to breed in, but they also traverse surrounding grasslands and marshes to find food and new homes. Destruction of these habitats will not be easily remedied by digging a new pond elsewhere, with money from the chancellor’s new fund. Connections between habitats are also essential – isolated, artificial ponds are of little use if wildlife cannot reach them.

The UK has lost a vast area of nature habitat within a generation.
Kyaw Thiha/Shutterstock

This approach will be even less helpful to bats, whose habitat requirements are even more varied.

Bats are highly sensitive to environmental changes. The UK is home to 18 species, including the brown long-eared bat and the pug-like barbastelle. Far from being the menace of developers, bats have suffered greatly as changes to buildings have excluded them from making roosts while changes to the wider landscape have made it harder for them to find feeding and breeding sites.

The numbers of some species have shown a small increase since monitoring began in 1998, but a wider perspective is instructive: the barbastelle bat, for instance, has declined by 99% in the UK over the past few hundred years.

The wider decline of nature now poses a terrible strain. Local bat conservation groups have reported an uptick in the number of starving or underweight bats. All UK bats eat insects, so their health is linked with moths and butterflies and other pollinators that knit ecosystems together. Bats are an early warning system for the overall health of our environment.

Develop with nature, not against it

Conservation measures have to be tailored to the relevant species and setting. Careful deliberation in the planning system is important to protect species – it cannot be replaced with a pot of money that each developer pays into.

Take “bat tunnels”, the structures designed to help bats safely navigate developments which recently drew the chancellor’s ire. These tunnels have been installed along the HS2 trainline and, in theory, protect bats from the 220-mph train as it intersects their flight paths.

Bat tunnels maintain connections between habitats, enabling bats to reach their roosting, feeding and breeding sites without risking their lives near roads or other man-made barriers. It’s not just a fatal collision bats risk – noise and pollution also perturb bats and the insects they eat.

While some species might benefit from a simple bat box that allows bats to roost by providing a roosting structure either outside of a building or on trees, others might need more complex changes. Bats rely on sound to navigate, emitting squeaks that bounce around their environment to create an audible impression of the world.

Conservationists might build them flight paths composed of hedgerows and other features that bats can use to orient themselves. This can be particularly important for developments over a large area.

In these instances, it’s important that bats, who may travel several kilometres from their roosts to feeding sites, have well-connected habitats. Fragmenting the landscape leaves smaller and smaller pockets of available habitat which in turn support fewer and fewer species.

Some measures to help wildlife are cheap and easy to implement.
Heather Wharram/Shutterstock

Instead of being an expensive burden, most measures for mitigating development are fairly easy to implement. It could be as simple as maintaining and improving hedgerows or preserving old trees. More ambitious schemes include designing rail lines that allow animals to pass over or beneath.

Instead of weakening protections and treating biodiversity as a hindrance, a smarter approach would be to integrate nature into development from the outset, and so prevent harm to protected sites and reduce the need for compensation later. The Woodland Trust said that “HS2’s assessment of woodland was significantly deficient” and its impacts to ancient woodland could have been avoided with alternative routes or proposals. In lieu of better assessment, the developers ran into avoidable delays.

There is no one-size-fits-all approach to conservation – no big pot of funding that can pay to repair all the damage later. It requires careful, species-specific strategies, because the needs of wildlife vary greatly. Ignoring the necessity of protecting wildlife jeopardises ecosystems which underpin the economy.

Effective conservation is not a barrier to development, but rather, key to a sustainable future, for people, nature and industries.

Don’t have time to read about climate change as much as you’d like?
Get a weekly roundup in your inbox instead. Every Wednesday, The Conversation’s environment editor writes Imagine, a short email that goes a little deeper into just one climate issue. Join the 40,000+ readers who’ve subscribed so far. Läs mer…

The mere mention of Leonardo da Vinci evokes genius. We know him as a polymath whose interests spanned astronomy, geology, hydrology, engineering and physics. As a painter, his Mona Lisa and Last Supper are considered works of mastery.

Yet one great achievement that frequently goes unrecognised is his studies of human anatomy. More than 500 years after his death, it’s time this changed.

Leonardo is thought to have been born on April 15 1452 in Anchiano, a small hamlet near the town of Vinci, close to Florence. His mother was a 16-year-old peasant girl called Caterina di Meo Lippi, and his father was Ser Piero da Vinci, a 26-year-old notary.

Anchiano is believed to be Leonardo da Vinci’s birthplace.
Marco Taliani de Marchio/Alamy

Being illegitimate, the young Leonardo was only permitted an elementary education in reading, writing and arithmetic. He was also barred from becoming a notary, but this worked out to his advantage. Instead of being constrained by life as an officiate, he was free to be creative and explore the world of nature, satisfying his insatiable appetite for knowledge.

The human anatomy became one of his great interests. This was seeded during his time as an apprentice in Andrea del Verrocchio’s bottega (studio) in Florence, where studying the human form was crucial for achieving realistic depictions.

Creating detailed anatomical drawings required precise sketching skills and the ability to accurately depict the structures being studied. As Leonardo’s fascination grew, he would delve deeper into anatomy as a discipline.

Pioneers

This traces back to the 2nd-century Greek physician Galen of Pergamum, whose anatomical descriptions were mostly based on insights he had gained through dissecting animals and studying wounded gladiators. However, he did no human dissections – they were illegal during his time – and many of his extrapolations from animal to human anatomy were wrong.

Galen dissecting a monkey, Veloso Salgado (1906).
wikimedia

It wasn’t until the 14th century that anatomy and medical science advanced thanks to the start of systematic human cadaver dissections. The physician Mondino de Liuzzi, who practised the first public dissections of human cadavers at the University of Bologna, published the first modern anatomical text, Anathomia Corporis Humani, in 1316.

The text was mostly descriptive in nature, like that of Galen, lacking drawings to illustrate anatomy. Subsequent texts on the subject during the 14th and early 15th centuries did contain drawings, but these were basic and unrealistic.

Leonardo advanced this discipline through his remarkable observational skills, knowledge of perspective and, most notably, his outstanding drawing abilities. His anatomical sketches were unlike anything seen before. For example, his sketches of the muscles of the arms and human skull are comparable to illustrations in today’s medical anatomy texts.

Sketches of human muscles, 1515.
Italian Renaissance Art, CC BY-SA

According to Leonardo’s biographer, Giorgio Vasari, the artist “was one of the first who, with Galen’s teachings, began to bring honour to medical studies and to shed real light upon anatomy, which had until that time been shrouded in the deepest shadows of ignorance”.

Leonardo was the first to depict a detailed study of the human spine, showing its natural curvature and correctly numbered vertebrae. He drew and described nearly all the bones and muscles of the body in beautiful detail, as well as investigating their biomechanics.

His studies on the heart combined both experimentation and observation. Using an ox’s heart to understand blood flow though the aortic valves, Leonardo poured molten wax into the surrounding cavities to make a wax cast, from which a glass model of the heart was made. He then pumped water mixed with grass seeds through this model to visualise the flow pattern. From this experiment, he concluded that the vortex-like flow of blood through the aortic valves was responsible for closing them during each heartbeat.

Sketches of the heart, c1507.
MAG, CC BY-SA

Over 450 years later, in 1968, scientists used dyes and radiography methods to observe this blood flow and prove that Leonardo was correct. A study in 2014 using MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) also demonstrated that he had provided a strikingly precise depiction of these vortex-like flows.

Shortcomings

Leonardo may have dissected around 30 human corpses during his lifetime. Most took place at the Santa Maria Nuova hospital in Florence, and later at the Santo Spirito hospital in Rome. The fact he didn’t have more human cadavers to study probably helps to explain why he also got things wrong.

In addition, Leonardo was very influenced by Galen, through his readings of both Mondino de Liuzzi and the Persian writer Avicenna (c980-1037), while also dissecting animals such as dogs, cattle and horses to fill in human anatomical gaps.

This approach is evident in his study of the male and female reproductive system, as I found when carrying out a detailed review of his work in this area. Misconceptions included the presence of three channels in the penis for semen, urine and “animal spirit”. The prostate gland is also missing in all his sketches of the male reproductive system. Meanwhile, he made the uterus spherical (derived from cow dissections), and similarly misrepresented the fallopian tubes and ovaries.

Even then, Leonardo still got a lot right. He correctly depicts the position of the foetus in the uterus, and the umbilical cord anatomy. He also correctly argued that penile erections were caused by blood engorgement and not by air or “vital spirits” flowing into the penis, as suggested by Galen.

Sketch of baby in the womb, c1510-1513.
Wikimedia, CC BY-SA

Where he got things wrong, Leonardo’s shifting focus may also have played a part. His restlessness, disorganised notes and unfinished work suggest ADHD (attention deficit hyperactivity disorder). Equally, this may also explain his boundless curiosity and incredible creativity.

Despite his shortcomings, Leonardo’s anatomical studies were centuries ahead of their time, rivalling modern standards. His work in this area might have been more appreciated had he published it in a book: he had planned one, and is said to have been collaborating with the Renaissance physician and professor, Marc’Antonio della Torre.

Unfortunately, this was cut short with Marc’Antonio’s death in 1511. Leonardo died in 1519 at the age of 67, and while his gifts to the world have received endless attention, his important contributions to anatomy remain overshadowed, and deserve greater recognition. Läs mer…