Don't you just love insurance companies?

Insurance companies p*** me off. Just 'phoned Admiral to check on renewal cost for travel insurance. Quoted a price with a "20% discount" which is £44 more than Admiral's offer via MoneySupermarket. The only difference is that the latter has an excess which is just £25 more. Needless to say, I'm taking my business elsewhere.

Brexit and my MP - Part 48

Says it all:-


Dear Mrs Milton

To watch on TV news the succession of ERG members and close associates entering and leaving Chequers today was, at best, unedifying, and ultimately, sickening. Are these people running the country? That the Prime Minister has to resort to such association says all that needs to be said about the parlous state of political governance in this country.

Yours sincerely

Richard Bawden

Climate Change and Wine

The following is a repost from Rod Janssen's Energy in Demand blog. This article may be specific to Australia but the underlying issues will be felt world-wide. As average temperatures change, typical weather patterns are altered and life generally becomes more unpredictable the agricultural sector will be facing some very difficult choices.

A warning for wine-lovers: climate change is messing with your favourite tipple’s timing

While the much-derided “latte set” are stereotyped as the biggest worriers about climate change, it’s the chardonnay crowd who are acutely feeling its effects.

Australia’s wine industry is both world-renowned and economically significant, with around A$5.6 billion in sales in 2016–17, and winemaking and associated tourism responsible for more than 170,000 full and part-time jobs. Statistics also show that wine consumption is now accepted as being just as dinky-di as beer drinking for the average Australian.

However, record-breaking daily maximum temperatures, warmer than average overnight temperatures, and increasingly erratic weather patterns are playing havoc with the way wine grapes grow and ripen. This has knock-on effects for Australian grape growers, wine producers and consumers.

Climate in the vineyard hits the cellar and the store shelf

Most of Australia’s wine regions have experienced rising average daily temperatures. One effect is changes to ripening times, which has compressed the harvesting season and given wine-makers a crucial logistical headache.

Traditionally, white grape varieties would generally reach optimum ripeness before red ones. While all grapes tend to ripen faster as temperatures rise, this effect is more pronounced for later-ripening varieties (for example Shiraz and Cabernet Sauvignon) than earlier ripening varieties (for example Chardonnay and Riesling).

The old process of staggered harvesting times for red and white grape varieties was efficient, allowing the winery’s capacity to be used in sequence for different varieties. Now that different varieties are ripening at the same time, vineyards and wineries will have to make tough choices about which grapes to prioritise, and which ones to leave until later, resulting in inferior wine. Alternatively, they could take the expensive decision to increase production capacity by investing in more infrastructure such as fermenters and stainless steel tanks.

Perhaps you’re thinking that you, the savvy wine drinker, are unaffected by the difficulties faced by winemakers in the vineyards and wineries far away. Unfortunately this isn’t so. Harvesting grapes when they are not at optimal ripeness to solve the logistical problems of processing can lead to lower-value wine.

The fact is that this new reality is costing everyone – grape-growers, winemakers and consumers alike.

And just in case you think that the simple answer is changing Australia’s cultured palates back to beer, think again. Hop production is being hit just as hard by climate change.

Help is at hand

Fortunately, these are problems we hope to tackle. CSIRO recently announced a five-year research partnership with Wine Australia, and one of the projects aims to adjust wine grape ripening to suit a changing climate.

We hope to do it by studying plant growth regulators (PGRs) – molecules that are used by the plant to control and coordinate development. We are using a class of PGRs called auxins, first studied in grass seedlings by Charles Darwin in the 1880s, that have important roles in vine growth, and the timing of grape growth and ripening.

By spraying these compounds onto vines and grapes shortly before ripening, auxins can potentially be used to influence the timing of this process and therefore harvest date. They are already used in other horticultural crops, such as to control fruit drop in apples and pears.

Applying very small amounts of auxin can delay grape ripening, and therefore harvest timing, by up to four weeks (Davies et al., 2015, J Ag Food Chem 63: 2137-2144). This treatment works for red and white varieties in hot or cool climates, and is safe, cheap and easy to apply.

The flavour and aroma of wines made from ripening-delayed grapes is largely indistinguishable from wines made from untreated fruit harvested at the same sugar level, up to a month earlier. An exciting exception is that, in Shiraz, auxin-induced ripening delay can be used to increase the concentration of rotundone, the compound responsible for this variety’s popular peppery notes.

Work is currently under way to fine-tune spray formulations and application times. The aim is to release a commercially available product within the next five years.

This kind of solution will be vital for the sustainable, economical production of high-quality wines from existing grape varieties in established wine growing regions. We hope it will ensure you can enjoy your favourite drop for many years to come.

New Deep Coal Mine in Cumbria - Why?

One can't help but feel that the granting of planning approval for a new deep coal mine near Whitehaven is a retrograde step. Sure, the area requires new investment for regeneration but there must be more imaginative ways of achieving that. And it hardly helps the pursuit of limiting the global temperature rise to 1.5C 'cos I bet the steel plants that are the proposed recipients of the mine's output are not fitted with any CCS capability. More joined up thinking - not!

Brexit and my MP - Part 47 - Health Impacts

Now here's an interesting question to put to Brexiteers:


Dear Mrs Milton

I have recently read this paper from BMJ Open: https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/9/1/e026966. In it the authors come to the rather disturbing conclusion that under all Brexit scenarios they modelled increased costs of fruit and vegetables could result in between 3000 and 23000 extra deaths in the UK by 2030.  I will leave you to read the detailed analysis. I would be interested to know what health impact assessments of Brexit have been undertaken by the government, what conclusions were drawn and how you have factored such issues into your support for Brexit.

Yours sincerely

Richard Bawden

Brexit and my MP - Part 46

The following is from my MP. This is someone who voted remain in 2016. This is someone who represents a remain-voting constituency. And this is someone who can write "I have always believed that a deal with the European Union, and a measured transition when leaving, was important for our economy". No you haven't - less than 3 years ago you believed that remaining in the EU was the thing to do! 

The warped logic of our MPs is staggering.



Thursday 14 March 2019
I want to update you on the events of last night.
There was a series of amendments tabled by MPs from across the House. I voted against amendment (a) in Dame Caroline Spelman’s name to remove no deal as an option partly because of the comments Dame Caroline made herself. She had attempted to withdraw her amendment as she believed that the main Government motion was more powerful. However, the amendment was still put to the House and was won very narrowly - there were 312 votes in favour and 308 votes against.
The main motion then became the only opportunity to prevent no deal on 29 March. Leaving with a deal has consistently been the Government’s preferred outcome and this is a personal view that I have long held myself. I have always believed that a deal with the European Union, and a measured transition when leaving, was important for our economy. I therefore did not feel I could vote against this motion but wanted to make sure no deal was removed as an option. You can find a full transcript of the Prime Minister’s statement yesterday, and the debate that followed, at: https://tinyurl.com/y3f8qu3s.
I would like us to leave the EU on 29 March and, had the Prime Minister’s deal been supported, this would have been possible. I believe that a delay is now inevitable if we do not want to leave without a deal in place.
As ever, I will do my best to keep you updated as events unfold in Westminster.
My best wishes,
Anne.

Brexit and my MP - Part 45

Time for another email to  my MP.



Dear Mrs Milton,

Once again, our Government has demonstrated what an incoherent shambolic mess it is making of the so-called “Brexit process”. I have to wonder that you can bear to remain a member of a party whose leadership in its various guises over the last 4 years has overseen the descent of our country into this unpalatable morass.

Almost all commentators apart from hard-line Brexiters are agreed that a no-deal Brexit would be extremely damaging to the interests of the United Kingdom, and yet the Government appears to be sleepwalking towards just that outcome. It is the duty of all MPs to look after the interests of their constituents in particular and of the electorate in general. That must mean avoiding a no-deal Brexit. It is therefore utterly depressing to see that 278 members voted against the amended no-deal motion last night. This, to my mind, is a total derogation of duty. Incidentally, I note that you voted against amendment (a) and did not register a vote on the main amended motion. An explanation of your reasoning would be welcome.

How might a no-deal Brexit be avoided?

1)      Mrs May could manage to bludgeon acceptance in Parliament of her dog’s-dinner of a withdrawal agreement over the next few days. This would appear to be unlikely but if it happens, no matter how unedifying the spectacle, so be it. Presumably the EU27 would be willing to grant a short technical extension to Article 50 to allow necessary legislation to be put in place.

2)      There is support via an indicative vote in Parliament for a different deal which has a good chance of EU27 acceptance (so not the Malthouse plan which is clearly unacceptable) and this persuades the EU27 to grant a UK request for a long-term extension to Article 50. Pig’s might fly.

3)      Government agrees that the only way forward is for the question to be put to the nation – the so-called 2^nd referendum. Again, the EU27 would have to agree to a long-term Article 50 extension. This is possible but how likely is it?

4)      Revoke Article 50 and suffer the further divisiveness that would follow.

No Government would wish to face the above options but this Government and the previous incarnations have only themselves to blame.

This ridiculous situation stems from

1)      the calling of a badly formulated referendum to solve an internal party political problem;

2)      taking the “advice” of 37% of the electorate and believing it should be applied to the entire nation, no questions asked;

3)      the inadequacies of “Brexit means Brexit” as a meaningful policy statement in the absence of any idea of what sort of Brexit the Government should pursue;

4)      the premature invoking of Article 50;

5)      the apparent ignorance and ineptitude of some MPs and ministers;

6)      the rise of divisive politicking;

7)      the lack of anyone in a position of authority who could even marginally be considered as a statesperson.

It seems to me that we are a “United” Kingdom in name only. We desperately need to reset the clock, re-establish some sort of connection between Government and the people (Mrs May is wrong to characterise this trust as fragile – it is already broken), and restart the debate about the UK’s position in the World and in Europe. Article 50 must be revoked.



Yours sincerely



Richard Bawden

Unlawful Fracking Guidelines

This is a repost of an article by Fiona Harvey which first saw the light of day in the Guardian. It is a worthwhile read and yet another reason to boot out our awful government.

Court finds government failed to consider scientific evidence against fracking

The government’s attempts to make fracking easier have received a setback after the high court ruled key aspects of its national planning policy to be unlawful.

In a case brought by anti-fracking campaigners, the court found that it was material to consider scientific evidence, including the effects on climate change, in deciding policy on fracking, and the government had failed to do so.

The judgment implied that campaigners could raise climate change as a reason to object to planning permission for fracking sites, which will make it easier for campaigners to lobby against licensing new sites.

Mr Justice Dove also criticised the way the public consultation was carried out, calling part of it “so flawed in its design and processes as to be unlawful”.

The judgment also suggested that gas from fracking might not be considered a low-carbon source of fuel, which could also hamper attempts to expand fracking around the country.

The government will now present its arguments on what changes may have to be made to the national planning policy framework, which sets out the rules by which local authorities can make their planning decision on individual sites.

Any changes to the policy framework could make it easier for environmental groups to argue against new fracking sites, which ministers wanted to prevent.

Joe Corre, founder of Talk Fracking, represented by Leigh Day solicitors, which brought the judicial review challenge to the government’s national planning policy framework, said the government had been exposed. “The court has clarified both that the government has behaved irresponsibly and recklessly with our democratic rulebook. Their pretend consultation was a farce. It has also become clear with guidance from the court that objections to fracking on the basis of its climate change impacts must be considered at a local planning level,” he said.

The case had two main strands:

• Adopting key parts of the planning framework would be unlawful because the government failed to take into account scientific developments that call into question whether it was correct to agree gas was low carbon
• The government failed to carry out a lawful public consultation on the revision of the policy

Rowan Smith of Leigh Day called for a full review of the government’s policy framework.

Natural gas should not be considered a low-carbon fuel, as the government had tried to claim, added Jonathan Marshall, head of analysis at the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit. “With the UK’s electricity system almost free of coal, natural gas is now effectively the most carbon-intensive major source of power,” he said. “Official advice from the Committee on Climate Change concluded that fracking was only compatible with national decarbonisation targets if the gas produced replaced higher carbon sources of energy.”

He also pointed to a recent study by the British Geological Survey that found elevated levels of methane near a fracking site, which he said showed the fracking industry was not living up to the standards we should expect.

Claire Stephenson, a member of Talk Fracking, said: “The government have continually sought to ignore public opinion on fracking, despite the overwhelming opposition on a national level.

“The lack of public consultation and the unbiased support for an industry, without any substantial underlying evidence, has been a cause for concern.

“The additional acknowledgment from the judge, that climate change is a valid concern for campaigners and councils facing fracking planning applications, is a big win.”

Fracking has restarted in the UK after a seven-year pause.