Triodos to launch new current account

This from Edie.

Good luck to them but somehow I think there needs to be a big general hook as well as the sustainability one.

Brexit and my MP - Part 11

Finally, a response to previous communications.

Sadly, the usual old tosh.

Sigh!!

Brexit and my MP - Part 10

Dear Mrs Milton

I was appalled to read in the Sunday Times last weekend (9 April 2017) indications that Britain will be scaling down its concern over climate change. I would be obliged if you would let me know whether this is true or not.

I quote from the Conservative Party manifesto of 2015: "We will push for a strong global climate deal later this year - one that keeps the goal of limiting global warming to two degrees firmly in reach. At home, we will continue to support the UK Climate Change Act"; also "We will work to prevent climate change and assist the poorest in adapting to it". How does scaling down concern over climate change align with these pledges?

As I'm sure you are aware, limiting warming to two degrees is already something of a stretch target; and because of the long residence times of most greenhouse gases in the atmosphere any lessening of GHG reduction has a ratcheting effect on global temperatures.

This apparent new stance would suggest that in trying to lessen the disaster that will be Brexit the government is now content also to wreck the environment for future generations.

Yours sincerely

Richard Bawden

To Diesel or not to Diesel

This post comes with a health warning - one of our cars is diesel-engined, albeit Euro6 standard - so look out for bias in what follows.

There is no doubt that NOx levels in urban environments are excessive and that much of the blame lies at the wheels (or, more accurately, tail-pipes) of diesel-engined vehicles. Now Sadiq Khan has announced plans to tackle this issue in London at least. Justified? Yes, I believe so, although a switch back to petrol-powered vehicles may well exacerbate CO2 problems.

What hasn't been helpful is the vague statement by the prime minister that drivers of diesel-engined vehicles may be "compensated". If she means a scrappage scheme - all well and good - especially if the onward purchase is very carefully defined in terms of all polluting emissions. What would be stupid would be to enact some sort of monetary feed-back that ensured diesel-powered vehicle stay on the road for longer.

Facts Not Opinions

We are in the habit of attending several performances at Shakespeare's Globe Theatre and the Sam Wanamaker Playhouse each year. It is our normal routine to walk from Waterloo Station to the theatres, a walk which takes us past 99 Southwark Street, the site of the Kirkaldy Testing Museum. Above the entrance to the museum is the motto "Facts, Not Opinions".

The machines housed in the museum were used to test all manner of construction materials, so creating de facto standards for such materials whereby engineers could know their strengths, not just guesstimate them. In these days of "post fact truth" this is, perhaps, a museum that should be visited regularly by every politician in the land. They then might appreciate what every engineer knows: if you let opinions take the place of facts whatever you build is liable to fall down.

Cliveden and Other Pagodas

I was going through some family papers today and I came across this text written by my father. I do not know whether he ever did anything with it so I thought I could at least publish it here to give it a brief electronic life. It was printed on his old dot-matrix printer so is not easy to read. Someday I might transcribe it.

Brexit and my MP - Part 9

The Rt Hon Anne Milton MP

House of Commons

London

SW1A 0AA

26 March 2017

Dear Ms Milton

With Mrs May promising to trigger Article 50 this week amid increasing talk of “no deal being better than a bad deal” I simply have to write again to plea for some sanity to prevail.

This hard Brexit that the country now appears to be facing seems to me to be nothing short of a monumental case of national hara-kiri. We appear to be hurtling towards a “solution” with no special single market access, no bespoke customs union, no free trade deal with the 27 – just crashing into trying to cope with WTO rules? For what? Simply to reject freedom of movement? Certainly 16.2M “Remain” voters do not want this. I doubt that many of the 17.4M “Leave” voters thought that this is what they were going to get.

This weekend 27 nations celebrated 60 years of unparalleled peace, security and prosperity in Europe to which the UK is sticking a metaphorical two fingers in the air. Why? What is to be gained?

Mrs May has promised a Britain that works for all. In reality she is presiding over a government that is dividing the nation further. She may even be bringing about the complete sundering of the Union.

This Brexit is nothing but a disaster in the making.

Already we have carmakers demanding special protection because they fear the increased tariffs they will face.

Other industries are following suit.

The NHS and social services face losing irreplaceable staff.

Banks and other financial institutions are considering relocation for passporting rights.

Airlines fearing the loss of open skies agreements are considering similar moves.

We have suggestions that drug trials protection might be watered down.

There are influential members of Parliament suggesting that environmental protection should be relaxed.

Funds of academic research look to be in jeopardy.

Every householder in the country faces higher food and fuel prices.

They also face the prospect of continuing stagnation in wages.

And, dare I say it, increased, regressive taxation is clearly flavour of the month.

Over the years your activities as MP for Guildford have suggested to me that you are firmly of the “one-nation” tradition of conservatism. Are you not appalled at the Little Englander, hard-Brexiter hijacking of your party?

Once again, I plead for you to use to influence to inject sanity into this disastrous process.

Yours sincerely