Great Repeal Bill - Open letter to Julian Sturdy

Dear Mr Sturdy,

As part of the Brexit process the government will be introducing several repeal bills to move EU regulations into UK law, with the intention of repealing many of the regulations.

We have already seen this summer with the Grenfell Tower fire the effect of weak regulations, so that it is quite clear that we should not be reducing the protections that we have gained from being part of the EU in the name of reducing red tape.

Some of the areas that we get many of our protections from the EU include:

• Environmental protections; this for instance includes the ban on the use of neonicotinoid pesticides that are so harmful to bees;
• Clean water which has brought life back to many rivers which had no fish in them during my childhood
• Clean seas and beaches through regulations on the processing of sewage so that water companies are no longer allowed to dump raw sewage
• Clean air; regulations that the government still fails to enforce and which leads to the early death of 60,000 people per year
• Climate change, which is the greatest problem we face, as if we don’t get it right not only will much of the constituency be flooded by the end of the century but there will be devastating storms, a huge reduction in food production in many parts of the world and a refugee crisis with hundreds of millions of people fleeing parts of the world that become uninhabitable.

So far, the UK Government has said that the regulations will remain in force after we leave the European Union, but they have also said that they want to cut red tape in many areas that affect the profitability of business.

I am pleased that the government has made these promises, but as my MP I ask you to help ensure that they are kept.

As the Great Repeal Bill progresses, please defend our high standards and take whatever action you can to ensure we do not weaken our environment laws, or leave them vulnerable to future change away from the watchful gaze of the public and Parliament.

Please also take every opportunity to press the UK Government on my behalf to deliver their commitment to leave the environment in a better state for the next generation. I would like to be sure that there are clear, ambitious, and legally binding targets, and funding to achieve this, and regulators to ensure that they enforced.

I hope to see set out in the long-awaited 25 Year Environment Plan for England soon.

Robust laws and clear plans are vital if the UK is to continue to be a global leader in this area.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Best wishes

Tom.

Tom Franklin
4 Frazer Court
YorkG
YO30 5FH

Global warming - response from Julian Sturdy and my reply

I wrote to Julian Sturdy on 5 November about global warming with particular reference to Heathrow expansion and HS2.  He has now responded:

Dear Mr Franklin

Thank you for taking the time to write to me regarding the Government's recent decision to expand Heathrow Airport by building a third runway.

Air quality is a significant national health issue that the Government takes extremely seriously. The Airports Commission concluded that a new runway could be delivered without impacting the UK’s compliance with air quality limit values for nitrogen dioxide.

The Government conducted further analysis to compare these conclusions with updated projections provided in the Government’s 2015 Air Quality Plan. This analysis concluded that, based on the Government’s Air Quality Plan, the Heathrow and Gatwick schemes would neither cause nor worsen exceedances of air quality limit values.

While Heathrow is already taking action to reduce air quality impacts, such as through introducing low emission vehicles, the Government recognises that an expanded airport will need to go further, including during the construction period. Measures to mitigate air quality impacts will be determined through the National Policy Statement and development consent process. They could include measures which an expanded Heathrow have committed to, including:

I should note that the Secretary of State for Transport has said that the Government will grant development consent only if it remains satisfied that a new runway will not impact on the UK’S compliance with its air quality obligations.

The Government agrees with the Airports Commission that a new runway at Heathrow can be delivered within the UK’s carbon obligations. The airport will use low-carbon, locally sourced materials during construction, and its scheme includes plans for both improved public transport links and an ultra-low emissions zone for airport vehicles by 2025. The airport has a target of at least 50 per cent of passenger journeys to the airport being made on public transport by 2030.

More widely, October saw an unprecedented UN global agreement to combat aviation emissions. Under the deal, airlines will offset their emissions with reductions from other sectors to deliver carbon neutral growth for the aviation sector from 2020. 

I certainly agree that we need to be developing transport infrastructure outside of the South East but I believe reducing our reliance on flights is increasingly difficult in the modern world. Sadly, I feel that we would jeopardise the opportunities and life-chances of younger generations by severing Britain’s connections with the wider world.

I hope that this response is informative and if you have any further concerns or queries that you would like to raise with me please do not hesitate to get in touch. 

Yours sincerely 

Julian Sturdy

To which I have responded:

Dear Mr Sturdy,

Thank you for your letter on global warming and Heathrow expansion of 14 November.  Unfortunately I must disagree with you as you have some of your facts wrong.

It is quite clear that the government does not take air quality seriously; to the extent that it has now had two judgements against it on air quality. The first ordering it improve the plan as it did not meet minimum legal requirements, the second that the revised plan still did not meet the minimum requirements.  To quote from the recent judgement which can be found at http://www.documents.clientearth.org/download/11525/ and was published on 2 November (almost two weeks before your letter).

3….the Supreme Court made a declaration that the UK was in breach of Article 13 of the Air Quality Directive (2008/50/EC). In his judgment of April 2015 granting that declaration, Lord Carnwath, with whom the other members of the Court agreed, said (at paragraph 31), "The new government, whatever its political complexion, should be left in no doubt as to the need for immediate action to address this issue." [emphasis in the original)

16. The United Kingdom is divided, for the purposes of the 2008 Directive and AQPs, into 43 zones and agglomerations. It is common ground that in 2010 40 of those zones and agglomerations were in breach of one or more of the limit values for nitrogen dioxide.

21.  The Supreme Court decision established, as had been accepted by the Secretary of State, that the Government had failed to meet the obligations set out in Article 13 in relation to non-compliant zones. The Government accepted that it was obliged to devise a new AQP in accordance with Article 23 and that that plan should be published by December 2015. The Government did indeed publish its plan, which was entitled "Improving Air Quality in the UK-Tackling Nitrogen Dioxide in our Towns and Cities", on 17 December 2015.

86. It seems to me plain that by the time the plan was introduced the assumptions underlying the Secretary of State's assessment of the extent of likely future non-compliance had already been shown to be markedly optimistic. In my judgement, the AQP did not identify measures which would ensure that the exceedance period would be kept as short as possible; instead it identified measures which, if very optimistic forecasts happened to be proved right and emerging data happened to be wrong, might achieve compliance. To adopt a plan based on such assumptions was to breach both the Directive and the Regulations.

89….[I]t seems to me likely that fixing on a more proximate compliance target date and adopting a less optimistic assumption for likely emissions might well mean that CAZs are required in more cities, but ultimately that will depend on the outcome of further modelling.

95 iv) that it would be appropriate to make a declaration that the 2015 AQP fails to comply with Article 23(1) of the Directive and Regulation 26(2) of the Air Quality Standards Regulations 2010, and an order quashing the plan.

In short the government has failed to meet its minimum requirements.  The autumn statement has also failed to help, when it might, for instance, have introduced a scrappage scheme for the most polluting cars or changed car tax and fuel duty rates to encourage people to use cleaner cars.

Moving on to Heathrow airport.  Firstly, on clean air, the declaration by the government that either Heathrow or Gatwick schemes would not cause or worsen exceedances [sic] of air quality limits in the 2015 AQP is rendered moot as the plan has been found to be unlawful.  With an improved plan that meets Article 23(1) of the directive it is clear that the proposals for Heathrow would not meet the minimum requirements.

I also find it worrying that you can have confidence in a secretary of state who has twice been found to be failing to meet minimum requirements.

As to meeting our CO2 obligations, it is clear that a whole variety of government decisions have made this nigh on impossible, but here we need only consider aviation. According to a parliamentary answer in 2007 “in the UK, flights leaving UK airports are responsible for 13% of the country’s entire ‘climate impact’”, and since then aviation has been growing faster than most sectors of the economy which will only worsen the impact of aviation on climate change.

The government’s own aviation White Paper, the DfT’s ‘high scenario’ predicts that by 2030 passenger numbers will treble compared with 2003 levels and their central scenario predicts passenger numbers will double from 228 million to 455 million on 2005 levels.  (Department for Transport (2009) - CO2 and Passenger Demand Forecasts, P45 http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/aviation/atf/co2forecasts09/co2forecasts09.pdf). Government forecasts say that as a result, CO 2 emissions will increase from 37.5 MtCO2 to around 59 MtCO2 by 2030. The government’s own forecasts show that even conservative aviation growth estimates mean this one industry alone would absorb nearly 50% of the UK’s carbon budget by 2050. 

In other words, the entire rest of the economy is expected to subsidise the airline industry by billions of pounds through much harsher reductions in their own CO2 use.

Until, and unless, the government can clearly demonstrate that we can, and will, meet our CO2 obligations it should do nothing that would lead to an increase in climate changing emissions, and on the precautionary principle should not allow any airport expansion.  I have read the UN global agreement to combat aviation emissions (http://www.icao.int/environmental-protection/Documents/Resolution_A39_2.pdf) and there is nothing there that requires the industry to do anything.  There are a large number of get outs and some aspirations (such as increasing efficiency by 2% per year), but nothing that requires reductions to be delivered.

Finally, in your penultimate paragraph you state “I believe reducing our reliance on flights is increasingly difficult in the modern world. Sadly, I feel that we would jeopardise the opportunities and life-chances of younger generations by severing Britain’s connections with the wider world.”  I hope you appreciate that the effects if global warming would do far more to jeopardise the life-chances of younger generations than not flying as often as people currently do.

You do not address my points about renewable energy generation and fracking at all.  I must therefore again request that you:

• Press the Prime minister and transport minister to cancel airport expansion as this is not compatible with even meeting our current emission targets.
• Press the Prime minister, Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy transport minister and Chancellor of the exchequer to cancel HS2 as unnecessary and polluting.
• Press the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government to change planning regulations to make it easier to install wind turbines
• Press the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government to ban fracking as incompatible with meeting our global warming targets and a danger to health and industrialisation of the countryside.

Yours sincerely

Tom.

Tom Franklin

Brexit - Open Letter to Julian Sturdy MP

Dear Mr Sturdy,

I am writing to make two important points about Brexit, which I hope you will bear in mind in your thinking on Brexit, and point out to the various Brexit ministers and the Prime Minister.

52% percent of voters who voted in the referendum voted for Brexit, but many of these people did not want “hard Brexit”.  Indeed from my discussions with people both before and since the referendum few want the so called hard Brexit proposed by several ministers (including those who are responsible for negotiating Brexit).  There is clearly no mandate for a hard Brexit, indeed when almost half the electorate who voted want to remain in the EU, and many who voted to leave want a minimal exit there is clearly a majority for having a minimal possible exit, including free movement of people and the right of EU citizens here to remain (and for UK citizens in the EU to have the right to remain there).

To put it another way, if the vote had been 52% to remain and 48% to leave there would not be a mandate for a hard remain (which might be defined as joining the Schengen area and the Euro).  Seeing the absurdity of the that proposal if the just a small number more had voted remain then it is clear that hard Brexit has no validity and would be a small number of extremists forcing their opinion onto the majority.

Whilst there are clear problems with the EU, and some things that we will be better off without it has also brought many things which have made the lives of its citizens better, and I would therefore ask you to press the relevant ministers (both departmental ministers and Brexit ministers) to ensure that we keep:

·        Clean air regulations

·        Clean water regulations

·        Car emission regulations

·        Working hours directive

·        All Health and Safety regulations

·        Medicines regulations ensuring the safety of medicines.

I have yet to meet people who want to see these regulations abolished as they protect our health and safety.

Finally, can I remind you that York voted to remain, and therefore if you see the referendum as binding you should clearly follow the mandate from your electors and vote remain in any vote in parliament.

Best wishes

Tom.

Tom Franklin

Global warming targets - Open letter to Julian Sturdy MP

Dear Mr Sturdy,

The UN Environment Programme published its Emission Gap Report on 3rd November (http://web.unep.org/emissionsgap/) this clearly shows that not enough is being done to reduce CO2 emissions in order to limit global temperature rises to the 2°C maximum safe limit, and certainly will not achieve the 1.5°C limit that we really need to achieve.

There is therefore a clear need for all countries, including the UK, to do more than so far committed in order to keep the world safe for our children and future generations.

The government has made a number of decisions that will make meeting the targets even harder, including:

• The new runway at Heathrow which will allow a significant increase in flights and hence CO2 emissions.
• HS2 as high speed trains use considerably more energy to transport the same number of people as slightly slower trains.
• The effective prevention of land-based wind turbines – which is currently the cheapest way to produce electricity.
• Ending of subsidies to solar photovoltaic (PV) generation too early, whilst this would have reasonable in a year or two as prices fell we have seen a massive reduction in installation of domestic PV generation, and loss of capacity to install PV as a result.
• Licensing of fracking, which is simply another form of fossil energy that will produce both CO2 and methane both of which are greenhouse gases (besides the issues of industrialisation of the countryside and pollution of water supplies).

We are also realising a considerable part of our CO2 reduction by exporting the CO2 production, for instance by closing our steel industry.  This does not actually reduce the amount of CO2 produced, simply moves it elsewhere; in some cases, to places where less efficient processes may be being used resulting in even higher CO2.

I am therefore writing to you to press the government to work harder to reduce global warming in the following ways:

• Press the Prime minister and transport minister to cancel airport expansion as this is not compatible with even meeting our current emission targets.
• Press the Prime minister, Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy transport minister and Chancellor of the exchequer to cancel HS2 as unnecessary and polluting.
• Press the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government to change planning regulations to make it easier to install wind turbines
• Press the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government to ban fracking as incompatible with meeting our global warming targets and a danger to health and industrialisation of the countryside.

I would also be interested in your opinion on each of these and their importance in meeting our obligations to the future of the planet as a habitable place.

Best wishes
Tom.
Tom Franklin
4 Frazer Court
York
YO30 5FH

Drop Hinkley Point - letter to Julian Sturdy MP

Dear Mr Sturdy,

Apparently a decision is to be made on Hinkley Point next week.  This would be a huge disaster and missed opportunity for the UK.  Let me outline just a few of the problems with Hinkley Point

1. It is an unproven technology; with two other power stations being built to the same design being massively over budget and over time so that there is a serious danger that it will not be available when we need it.
2. It is yet another massive development project in the South when we need projects and development in the North of the country far more.
3. It is taking money from renewable energy.  We are seeing the government provide subsidies for North Sea Oil and Fracking both of which are enormously harmful while removing all subsidies from renewable energy developments.
4. It offers guarantees of electricity prices for three decades, during which time we can expect the price of renewable energy to fall massively with the result that consumers (you and me) are likely to end up paying more for electricity to France and China.
5. Nuclear energy leaves dangerous waste for tens or hundreds of THOUSANDS of years, waste that we don’t have any way of safely handling so that it is currently stored at huge cost and with a serious danger of leaks.

If the investment were instead put into renewable energy it would create thousands of jobs within the UK, provide electricity much more quickly and safely.

Please press the Chancellor to drop Hinkley Point and invest the money in renewables instead.  It will be better for Britain, safer and create more jobs in the UK.

Best wishes

Tom.

Tom Franklin

4 Frazer Court

York

YO30 5FH

Open letter to Julian Sturdy MP on the fuel duty escalator

Julian Sturdy MP

House of Commons, London

Dear Mr Sturdy,

Sometimes it is unpopular to do the right thing, but that is what genuine leadership takes.  I am therefore writing to you to ask you to do something which is likely to be unpopular, but which is vital.

I am writing to ask you to press the Chancellor of the Exchequer to raise fuel duty by more than the rate of inflation in the forthcoming budget.  We know that global warming is the greatest threat that faces humanity worldwide, and we know that we need to vastly reduce the amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) that we produce if we are to prevent catastrophic global warming that would leave much of York under water.

There is very strong evidence that fuel usage is at least partially elastic (ie usage in part reflects cost).  We have also seen a significant reduction in the cost of fuel, with the fall in the price of crude oil.  In order to encourage a reduction in the use of petrol and diesel we need to use all the methods available including improving public transport, encouraging more walking and cycling (for instance to get to school) and raising the price of fuel.  There can be no better time than now to increase fuel duty as it will be less problematic for consumers given the fall in prices over the last few months and it will help to raise revenue to enable us to preserve essential services such as the NHS and education.

I hope that you will press the Chancellor of the Exchequer to raise fuel duty.

Best wishes

Tom.

Tom Franklin
4 Frazer Court
York
YO30 5FH

email:    tom@franklin-consulting.co.uk

Is homeworking better for the environment

According to a new study: Rebound: unintended consequences of transport policy and technology innovations working from home saves at best 0.4% of the energy used compared to going to work. They also suggest that home shopping does not save energy except in very limited circumstances. It seems to me that this must depend on how you do it. They suggest that heating homes, for instance, uses a lot of the energy and that people travel more for social reasons.

It seems to me that it must depend on what you do. I hardly ever put the heating on, and only turn the printer on when printing (maybe once a week). Admittedly I would probably cycle to work in which case their would be little energy used getting to work. However they say

"It does however require energy to heat or cool the home office. lt may also
lead to people moving further from the workplace, which could stretch urban
cities further apart (this is often referred to as sprawl). Aebischer and Huser
(2000) reported that there would be a 30% increase in household energy use if
one person in a household was working from home. lt was also found that the
number of non-commuting trips increases slightly with telecommuting"

As for online shopping, if it is being delivered by the postman - who goes past the house every day - what is the extra energy? Their evidence is based on a 2001 report which claims:

"Matthew and Hendrickson (2001)demonstrated that roughly the same amount of
energy is used to distribute 1 million dollars worth of bestseller books inU.S.
metropolitan areas by traditional retails (28-33 TJ of energy) as by online
shopping (30 TJ of energy). A similar study inJapan concluded that traditional
retail has a lower environmental impact in dense urban areas (Williams and
Tagami, 2001)."

I would have thought that this would have changed significantly in the last few years. Local shops have closed so people may have to travel further to shop and there has been a vast increase in online shopping so that there may be significant volume savings.

However, a large part of their argument seems to be based on the "Rebound effect" whereby if we make savings in one place then it is ok to use more elsewhere (I don't commute so I can go further for my holiday).

That bus just OVERtook me

Well, we have had problems with bendy buses, but here is an idea which looks even more scary for the average cyclist....

Yup, the idea is that it rides over two lanes of traffic.  But I have a number of questions:

• How do you stop cyclists getting stuck in the rails?
• What happens if there is a lorry in the bus lane?
• What happens to cars changing lane?
• How does it go round corners?
• What happens to the cars at the junctions.

Still, it looks like a nice idea.  When I was young I envisaged a car with legs so it could overtake a traffic jam.  could come to a town near china one day?

http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/02/china-to-build-ginormous-buses-that-cars-can-drive-under-video/

Flowers are loosing their smell so bees loose their way

Apparently pollution means that the scent of flowers doesn't travel as far as it used to - but surely there is less pollution than there used to be with the reduction of coal burning? or is it all from cars now?

Anyhow, apparently this is affecting bee numbers. See http://www.livescience.com/environment/080411-pollution-flowers.html