Bromfield Swamp by David Stowe

The Brolga, which used to be called the Australian Crane, is quite well known amongst Australian birders and rural residents, if only because it is so noticeable either on land or in the air. It is almost unheard of within the general population because it’s been almost eliminated everywhere except the Top End, where it thrives simply because its breeding wetlands are in crocodile-infested sections impassable in the wet season. What astounded me when I first looked into the situation is how few “experts” on Brolgas we have. Our Sarus Crane is even less known.

The global Crane Specialist Group has 247 experts in 56 countries. The Australian chapter lists four experts. A website of terrific information, Australian Crane Network, rounds out much of what there is on Australia’s cranes.

Yesterday I had the privilege of Zoom-interviewing one of the nation’s four Crane experts. I was amazed by the level of cogent knowledge, born of a lifetime’s dedication, imparted to me in less than an hour. I found myself shaking my head in admiration. Humility was also clear: very little tracking of Australia’s cranes has been done (for such a bird-rich country, governmental funding of bird research is a pittance) and even numerical estimates of numbers is most uncertain.

As fascinating as yesterday’s new information was, the greater boost to my project was the boost to my own self-confidence. While very much a novice on the subject, during the interview, I found my analytical and writerly brains full engaged and capable. Perhaps, after all, this project has legs!

(The top photo by David Stowe is from the Australian Cranes Network website, showing two Brolgas and two Sarus Cranes coming down to a roost at Bromfield Swamp, where we hope to be in a fortnight!)

Eastward ho

Car in outback

In a few days we drive east from Darwin. We’ll take the main highway but make trips up to Borroloola and Karumba. eBird has a recent sighting at Karumba (or is it Normanton, I can’t recall) of over a hundred Brolgas and over a dozen Sarus Cranes. I’ll swoon. We’ll keep going to the Atherton Tablelands, where we’ll spend a week looking at both species in winter flocking mode.

Great anxiety accompanies this step. There’s no concrete reason for any concerns. The trip will be a tad uncomfortable – unlike most grey nomads, we’re just carrying a tent and an esky, and I can’t say I’m looking forward to the longish drives and the heat – but discomfort shouldn’t worry me. No, there are two sources of worry. Firstly, the notion of dodging pandemic lockdowns to get home afterwards fills me with exasperation. I even expressed to P the notion of abandoning ship now to head southward home and returning next year; thankfully her saner perspective held sway. More importantly, what is the point of a writing project revolving around fifteen species of birds, of which this trip will only encompass two? The prospect of travelling to catch the other thirteen species, in China, Bhutan, Nepal, Africa, USA, Northern Europe, and Japan … maybe I’m too old to countenance waiting out the pandemic to hit the road?

But of course the adventure is the fear, isn’t it? Inchoate terrors, glimpsed in the depths of the night, can only be a positive. I’m not ready to vegetate in suburbia.

Oh Poyang Lake

Poyang Lake

I’m sheltering in Darwin at the moment, rarely sparing a thought to Cranes, but an ICF five-minute overview of Poyang Lake, wintering home of four Crane species, swept me away. I’ve clipped an opening scene from the video, a scene that doesn’t do the rest of it justice at all. Do yourself a favor and spend the five minutes. For me, Poyang Lake is likely the only place I’ll ever see the critically endangered Siberian Crane.

In a fortnight, P and I will head across the Gulf of Carpentaria to find Brolgas (which I have seen in Victoria) and Sarus Cranes (new for us). This road trip was intended to kick off a global odyssey to see all fifteen species. Lately, I’ve begun to think the whole project will be ditched, courtesy of Covid-19, but seeing Lake Poyang and hearing about it ignites my heart. Who knows, perhaps I can still make this work in my ember years.

How they see us

Janine Burke My Forests

In The Age newspaper, James Bradley has an excellent review (his reviews are always welcome to me) of Janine Burke’s My Forests: Travels with Trees. I put this book on my bedside reading list but in the meantime am struck by a Burke line quoted by Bradley: “We humans are like flickers to the Sugar Gum, who is deep in tree time. We appear and disappear from view … like watching a speeded-up film or blips on radar.”

This revelatory disjunction between how we view an aspect of “nature” and nature’s “view” of us is also central to the brilliant book by Richard Smyth, An Indifference of Birds.

I hope to convey (somehow!) the same notion in my book on the Cranes.

Jun 9, 2021

Time to get cracking

This project creaks to life…

I watched the wonderful Greta Thunberg documentary, Greta Thunberg: A Year to Change the World on one of our free-to-air streaming channels. In the first episode, she accompanies a glaciologist on a vigorous hike up to a glacier and, hearing of its steady retreat destined to become a rout to nonexistence, plaintively says: “I knew things were bad and I have read about these kind of things a lot, but to really be here and to stand on the glacier and to hear from you, who has so much experience about glaciers … it makes you realize it’s for real.” My heart pangs. I’ve been ignoring the local Extinction Rebellion bulletins, ignoring the brave handful of friends I worked with for a year.

A tweet by Corey Callaghan on a fresh look, by him and colleagues (via a paper here) at the global number of birds, allowing for many forms of data uncertainty, suggests 9,700 species and 50 billion birds. Call it six or seven birds for each human, which for some reason strikes me as low. The distribution of bird numbers in a species is, as the tweet shows, log-left skewered; Callaghan says, “Mother nature loves rare species.”

On the right of the distribution chart, four species have more than a billion birds each. Could I have guessed them? Probably: sparrow, starling, gull, swallow.

1,180 species, however, have less than 5,000 birds. I make a mental note to compare this numerical cutoff

He ends by saying their total estimate is in line with 1997 estimates by Tim Blackburn and Kevin Gaston.

IUCN’s three “threatened” categories range from Critically Endangered, i.e. more likely than not to go extinct soon; to Endangered: 20% chance of disappearing in two decades; to Vulnerable, literally vulnerable and not healthy as a population. Oversimplifying, these three categories equate to numbers of birds: Vulnerable means under 10,000, while Endangered means under 2,500 birds. Again oversimplifying, it seems Callaghan’s left-of-the-graph group of 1,180 small species fall between the the two “bad” IUCN categories and the less scary IUCN category of Vulnerable.

What will happen in the Anthropocene?

7 minutes out of a city boy’s desk life

Movie still

I’m a city boy. Didn’t leave my Melbourne until my teens and then only briefly. Didn’t hike until my sixties. I reside in front of two screens most of my days.

Well, today naturalists Erv Nichols and Sandra Noll have graced me with a seven-minute YouTube glissando of bliss. Migrating with the Sandhill Cranes was made in 2018 – how did I miss it? They follow six hundred thousand massed Sandhills, greeking and calling, soaring on thermals, all the way from America’s southwest up to Alaska above the Arctic Circle. I cried.

Climate economics drives me wild

Noah Smith article extract

I’m an actuary not an economist, but when economists produce garbage, it’s usually easy for me to spot. That William Nordhaus won the 2018 Nobel for his modeling, so full of bad-faith assumptions, seems unbelievable.

If you have any interest in the debacle of climate change economics, have a close read of Noah Smith’s brilliant article “Why has climate economics failed us?” In it, he eviscerates the field, ascribing its uselessness to four factors:

  • “Simply not publishing enough research
  • Putting out models that are frankly just bad
  • Ignoring tail risks
  • Obsessively focusing on carbon taxes”

At the end of the article, Smith stresses that “the failures of the past cannot be allowed to persist into the future,” and he provides seven suggestions. A lengthy sequence of comments also holds some interest, though inevitably some of it is in bad faith.

If I were younger, I’d pitch in and assemble some good-faith economists and put together some models that can properly contribute to our deliberations of the climate emergency. As it is, I seethe.

“Beautiful and false”

Emma Marris article image

In The Atlantic, Emma Marris has penned a long, beautifully written article (“The nature you see in documentaries is beautiful and false“). I read it twice over today, glad to find something to propel me back into my Cranes project. “It isn’t just the sounds that make these films feel more than real,” she writes, among the many points used to illustrate her thesis. “They use the absolute highest-resolution cameras available, what Chang calls ‘military-grade lenses.’ The images on any modern television are thus crisp as fuck.”

Well, yes. I can appreciate the argument, I can appreciate her telling points. But as counterpoint, I’ve begun feeling that human beings should retreat from remote nature trips, should perhaps retreat to watching the documentaries she decries. We can’t, in all conscience, burn the carbon our travel entails, just so we can crowd out the animals and birds we point our cameras at. To be fair, Marris is not against travel documentaries per se, she’d prefer we’re dealt up nature documentaries that employ a “still-gorgeous-but-not-mythical approach,” and to be fair, I’d prefer that as well. But in the end, the nature documentary genre will exhibit the same jaw-dropping spectrum between the best and the worst that every other genre of human entertainment shows. Certainly, it seems to me, better we watch Planet Earth III than Farmer Wants a Bride.

Emma Marris’s weighty article is, of course, doubly germane to my 15 Cranes project. Should I spend the money, release the carbon, and disturb the remoteness as I have intended, in order to merely “see” or “witness” all fifteen species. Can I not ponder the world’s cranes using documentaries and the wonders of the Internet? What is the “right” thing for me to do and what should I do?

Salutary unexpected advice

A manager at solicits pitches for biodiversity writers:

We’re looking for future-forward stories on the science, politics, and economics of the global biodiversity crisis, geared toward reckoning and responding to this multidimensional crisis, not just cataloging species loss. We’re looking for stories w/ focus on intelligent responses, accountability, recentering Indigenous science/stewardship, and why a radical rethinking/prioritization of conservation is needed. We’re *not* looking for stories simply about cute wildlife/pretty nature, or focused solely on mass extinction or losing individual species. After all, biodiversity is about abundance, healthy functioning ecosystems, and cultural diversity too.

On the surface, my book project is “cataloguing species loss” and “about cute wildlife.” But of course it needs to be much more. I need to be able to dig into the Cranes not as objects or even as harbingers, but to wrap them around our planet as a skein of life, a skein that embraces me and my generations to come. That sounds pretentious but it needs to speak as an expression of practicality. I am, in a sense, investigating my purpose.

On my shoulders

Richard Betts article

Key Met scientist Richard Betts writes in Carbon Brief that “Atmospheric CO2 now hitting 50% higher than pre-industrial levels.” We’re now at 417 ppm of carbon dioxide, half again what the Earth’s atmosphere held in pre-industrial times, namely 278 ppm.

I am writing, writing a big book on nuclear power. I am writing and I take a break and read Betts’s succinct, visual article. Its import doesn’t sink in for a while, then it does. In fact it’s a curve that poleaxes me, the curve showing the rise year by accelerating year from 1750 to now. Where am I, an Australian born in 1955, on that curve? Let’s say that at age 25, in 1980, one might assert that Andres Kabel was a fully functioning global citizen. Well, roughly interpolating on the chart, two-thirds of the human-caused carbon increase has taken place during the period since 1980.

Please, Andres, make sure you grasp this. You preached that you are principled, a rational humanist, a “good guy.” For four decades, that’s what you held dear. You aggrandized that you were preparing your children and grand-children for the future world, you were optimizing the future world for them and their descendants ongoing. Instead, by inattention and inaction, you and your generation plummeted Earth to a +1C world teetering on the edge of 1.5C, gazing towards 2C or 3C, or a catastrophic 4C situation.

It was me. I am to blame. I’m bereft again and again and again.