Neonicotinoids

[embee]

Originally Posted by Red Herring

...This thread started with us being asked to write to our MP's so unless we want it to go straight into the bin marked loony mail we had better come up with a slightly more realistic proposal than that.

I appreciate your comments, RH, and adding a bit of balance.

I started the thread basically as a selfish venting of spleen. There are online petitions for anyone who feels moved to act in that way.

My real anger is that such "emergency authorisations" are being issued on the basis of "in case" rather than "to solve". This is an authorisation for the use in 2021, which hasn't happened yet (much), based on a possible problem which may arise if climatic conditions suit the spread of the yellow peril. That's tantamount to "normal practice". It's a bit like making the govt emergency powers for the pandemic the normal situation, just in case something else happens at some time. Emergency powers for normal circumstances, thin end of a very big wedge.
The cost/benefit analysis for using neonicotinoids would have to be outstandingly compelling to offset the quite possible risk of eliminating an already seriously depleted and challenged bee population. I can't help feeling that an awful lot of folk really do not appreciate the situation threatening bees and the essential role they play, as indeed do so many insects. The majority of life on this planet is made up of insects, they are critically essential, we wipe them out at our own peril. Just search for decline in insect population.
I (and others) have noted the dramatic reduction in insect population over the last few years. I rode from the Midlands to the south of France* last year (in July when it was possible) and over the whole 700mls or so the front of the bike collected a few dozen insects. Ten years ago it would have been absolutely plastered with them. This is serious. That's why neonicotinoids have been (notionally) banned in the EU, even if they do then circumvent the ban with emergency authorisations.

* - yes I know the CO2 footprint of it, but I haven't contributed to population growth which is far more damaging.

[redtrummy]

Yep I am sure we have all noticed our visors don't need a clean as often as they used to. In 2019 we visited the Lyn Peninsula in the van, on arrival home the front of it looked like an insect extermination machine - it was covered, like stepping back in time. I am very tolerant to all insect life in the garden, and how do they pay me? By having a nip here and there where ever there is bare skin.

[Seeker]

I used to write to my MP with the thought that he would listen, then came the time I was asking him to consider not allowing a foreign takeover of one of the UK's last large engineering firm - in the National interest. He quoted Tory policy, told me that he totally agreed with me, then voted along party lines anyway. Hypocrite.
In a subsequent email, I mentioned, in passing, that all Tories are untrustworthy and he took exception to that and said he would no longer respond to my emails unless it was an actual need.
I have no idea whether he even reads my emails or has them deposited straight into the junk folder.

Since then my emails have become... err, shall we say a little more critical of the government.

I have absolute confidence that nothing I have said or will say to my MP makes any difference whatsover when all he does is vote along party lines and that's depressing.

It's still cathartic (for me) to rub his nose in the government's failures since they're coming so fast and so often, recently. So, I'll keep emailing.

[Dave20046]

Originally Posted by Red Herring

Is that what you put in your letter to your MP?

I'm sorry if you think I might be trolling you on this, that's not my intention, but few things wind me up more than armchair experts telling people they shouldn't be doing something if they are unable to make a sensible, realistic and achievable suggestion as to an alternative. There is no doubt in my mind that as a population we need to be investing more into ways of reducing our impact on this planet, unfortunately we live in a capitalist environment where the majority are more interested in what is best for them, rather than their compatriots or decedents......

My post was defiitely tongue in cheek however reflecting on it's instant dismissal, why shouldn't an industry feel an impact from a (human led) circumstance rather than our wildlife? I don't think we should accept that just because we live in a capitalist world, it won't last much longer with that attitude.

I reckon we could use 40% less sugar and people would barely notice, and I'm not necessarily talking about taking sweet things off the shelves. It's all the overly processed crap with needlessly added refined sugar.

[Red Herring]

Actually Dave your suggestion was absolutely spot on in identifying the long term solution, both in terms of resolving the insecticide issue and problems with human health. Unfortunately such measures take years to bring into effect, they are all about influencing lifestyle and public perception/education.

Having said that in theory we could do it overnight, simply remove all the items with sugar off the shelves. Unfortunately the population would kick up, get rid of whoever was responsible, and bring it back. The same applies to any manufacturer, they act unilaterally, people stop buying their produce, another manufacturer fills the void......

The only way to reduce the use of sugar is to reduce the demand for it, in much the same was as we have managed the tobacco industry.

[Dave20046]

Originally Posted by Red Herring

Actually Dave your suggestion was absolutely spot on in identifying the long term solution, both in terms of resolving the insecticide issue and problems with human health. Unfortunately such measures take years to bring into effect, they are all about influencing lifestyle and public perception/education.

Having said that in theory we could do it overnight, simply remove all the items with sugar off the shelves. Unfortunately the population would kick up, get rid of whoever was responsible, and bring it back. The same applies to any manufacturer, they act unilaterally, people stop buying their produce, another manufacturer fills the void......

The only way to reduce the use of sugar is to reduce the demand for it, in much the same was as we have managed the tobacco industry.

Tobacco industry was exactly what I was thinking of comparison wise but didn't want to be the first one to say it!

Regarding armchair commentators, I think where practical it would help if when decisions are made (especially when potentially harmful to the population/the reversal of a previous pledge) publicising some insight into options assessed and the reasoning would appease the masses. Obviously you don't want to add too much administerial burden but it would probably mean MP's could remove the bin they carefully place under their letterboxes and no longer have to stride over it everytime they leave the building.

In Sheffield where corrupt officials have been busy coining it in for quite a while, there was a scandal when the council sold the City's trees (almost literally). They negotiatied a 'self governing' contract with a private company, there was a fee for each stage of tree maintenance - the most lucrative for the contractor being, felling. Needless to say, with money to be made, they tried felling every tree in Sheffield; it took campaigners a shed load of FOI requests to look at the judgement process and uncovered there was 0 assessment of other options available to them i.e a tree needed a little pruning , their action was felling it. A tree had disturbed a curb stone, rather than spending 10 mins replacing the curbstone which would last many more years, they felled the tree. And so on. There were a load of protests and the programme mysteriously stopped, looks like it wasn't needed all along. The cynics were right from the start, no one has faith that decision makers have actually appraised all options and made the right decision and I think clarity would help.

[Bibio]

this was known about years and years ago. the sugar tax was not just about raising revenue it was about less consumption of sugar to preserve the beets farming. iir scotland is the uk's biggest producer of sugar beets so its going to affect them more than anybody. the uk is not the only producer there are plenty country's in the eu... oohhh wait we are not friends with them anymore...


remember potato blight.......

[Dave20046]

Originally Posted by Bibio

remember potato blight.......

That's not something we talk about here in England

[Seeker]

Originally Posted by Bibio

iir scotland is the uk's biggest producer of sugar beets

Sugar beet hasn't been grown in Scotland for 50 years, they are just now talking about its re-introduction. The sugar beet that used to be grown there had a higher sugar content because of the long daylight hours. Climate change is one reason they are talking about it making a return.

https://www.fwi.co.uk/arable/sugar-b...%20consumption.

Most sugar beet is grown in the East Midlands and East Anglia. There was a British Sugar plant (refinery?) in Peterborough. They dump the slurry into settlement ponds and since the production takes place in the winter the ponds don't ferment. We had one mild winter and the stench in Peterborough was incredible.

[Bibio]

Originally Posted by Dave20046

That's not something we talk about here in England

even more so in Ireland..

Originally Posted by Seeker

Sugar beet hasn't been grown in Scotland for 50 years

i stand corrected