Fast forward to the End of the Earth?

I enjoyed reading an article by Martin Wolf in the FT (Wednesday 22/5/2013) entitled 'Climate sceptics have already won'.

Not content with just complaining about it Mr Wolf went so far as to offer a number of solutions with a view to buying time so that humanity can get its act together and so avoid catastrophe.

So far so good.

The solutions proposed were, in a nutshell:

• Tax carbon emissions
• Go nuclear
• Impose really tough emissions standards on cars
• Create secure global trading regime in lower-carbon fuels
• Develop ways to finance technology transfer
• Invest in research
• Invest in adaptation
• Think through geo-engineering.

You can be for or against any of these proposals, each of which has its merits.

Cars makers are already doing a lot to reduce emissions from their vehicles, for example. Geo-engineering seems a bit risky to me. Well-managed nuclear energy goes a long way to decarbonising the economy. Etcetera.

Many, or in fact all of the solutions, involve government action, not just regionally but globally. This is no doubt the greatest obstacle to any meaningful action being possible.

Our governments do not appear to be capable of formulating effective policies liable to affect GHG emissions, let alone habitat loss, mass extinction and other threats to the Earth System, Gaia or however you wish to call or planetary home.

The feeble way in which they are managing the depression/recession illustrates how incapable they seem to be.

The mantra of our leaders sounds like 'markets and the economy cannot be managed or controlled, we are helpless and will just have to wait for growth or whatever to come along'.

Woe betide us if climate change is viewed in the same way.

You can do only so much on a personal level (live an a low energy home, use public transport or stay put, grow your own food, recycle everything, only acquire things which have been recycled, support local businesses and produce etc).

What does it take for a governments to do something similar on a national, regional, global level?

The stark fact remains that it may already be far too late to avoid cataclysmic climate change induced by human activity. The only solution will be the sort of adaptation proposed by James Lovelock in order to preserve what can be preserved.

Things, such as Greenland or Antarctic ice sheets, are moving faster than we can imagine.

Is what is good for the Goose good for the Gander?

Yes, I know they're ducks...

A lot of g's in there, I know. But there is a reason for it.

Having been asked if an Alsace Riesling or Gewurtztraminer would be a good match with a roast goose, I imagined this would work well, although I did not have this particular roast fowl to hand to actually taste it.

I like the idea of serving a good white wine with roast goose, and I began to think of all the other wines likely to go with it.

A Vouvray demi-sec from Huet perhaps or a Montlouis from Les Loges de la Folie?

Then, chancing upon Jancis Robinson's latest FT magazine column in which she tentatively suggests a white Hermitage 2008 from Tardieu-Laurent ("A white to drink with goose even?") as a good accompaniment to goose, I thought a good white Saint Joseph would also do the trick.

But my mind was constantly brought back to the virtues of a mature Cahors from Clos Triguedina or Mas del Périé..

Is this not the best sort of wine to go with the goose or the gander?

This reminded me of a stay in a small village near Figeac blessed with a fine restaurant frequented by the locals, serving magrets, confits and all the products of the duck (see photo above), but also, more rarely, of the goose. Geese could be spotted by the keener eye in the fields roundabout, and the wines favoured locally were Cahors, but also Buzet, Bergerac and Gaillac.

So the choice is wide and will demand a lot of tasting and roasting, but at this time of year that is not a hardship.

Let me know if you have any other suggestions.

Lazy French Choice

Charming Charmer

Having made something spicy involving chilli and beef we wondered what to drink with it.

We made the usual lazy French-style choice of having a rosé, which is the default choice of this nation when something vaguely spicy or resembling a pizza is to be eaten.

After rummaging around in my old wine boxes I dug up this bottle of Enjôleur (= Charmer) 2009 from Domaine Robert Sérol, (property recently mentioned by Jancis Robinson in her FT column 27/10/2012)

And very nice it was too. A wine made from Gamay grapes (or Gamay de Saint Romain to be exact -  the Sérols would not forgive me if I didn't mention this), slightly off-dry with 11% alcohol.

Of course when I say off-dry, I do not mean like those blush Zinfandels or other sickly-sweet rosés that are not too palatable. This was just sweet enough to balance the acidity, and complement the raspberry/strawberry aromas.

It did go down very well with this hot and spicy beef.

A few words about this producer. This estate is in Renaison in the heart of the Côte Roannaise appellation.

This is a small wine producing area (around 200 hectares) situated to the west of Roanne in central France, overlooking the valley of the Loire. The vines are planted on generally east facing hillsides between 370 and 550 metres high.

If the Beaujolais (100kms to the east)  is the most renowned home of the Gamay grape variety, then the Côte Roannaise and its neighbour the Côtes du Forez are its second home, producing wines that stand out for their immense drinkability (when you choose the right ones).

Domaine Sérol is well known for its beautifully made wines reflecting terroir in the most faithful and expressive way. Their cuvée Troisgros is served in the eponymous restaurant in Roanne.

Among the other stars of their wine range is L’Incorruptible 2009 made using indigenous yeasts and without added sulphites (delicious !) and the De butte en blanc 2009 Viognier which is a revelation and great value for such a handcrafted wine. It is also one to watch as it was made from young vines and in a few years may be a match for the Condrieu wines made not so far away on similar soils.

The Tragedy of the Commons and other tales

News that Norway (on 3D le journal a radio programme with Stéphane Paoli - France Inter Radio 10/6/2012) has extended its territorial claim to areas of the arctic liable to hold reserves of oil with a view to eventually drilling for the black liquid show that ecology and 'green' values fly out the window when money and 'resources' start to do the talking.

We are told that self interest (aka greed) is what makes the world of capitalism and the economy work and that it is right to grab as much of whatever you can so that nobody else does. The consequences of all this self-interest are of no matter, even if they involve the eventual destruction of life on Earth.

In game theory this behaviour is described in the dilemma of the 'Tragedy of the Commons'. We would all like to preserve the common land for the good of all, but we are fearful that others might take more than us. Therefore we try to appropriate the whole resource for ourselves. Everyone else does the same. Result: nothing left for anyone. We seem to be trying this out on a planetary scale.

Adam Smith, one of the fathers of modern economic thinking and of capitalism is reputed to have condoned all this avarice, even encouraged it in his writings. It would seem however that Smith might have been writing about enlightened self-interest not Gordon Gekko style 'greed is good'.

It is important to make this distinction. As human beings we naturally wish to improve our personal lot and the condition of humanity as a whole. We do also have an altruistic streak, and this extends beyond even human-kind to all of Nature.

Politicians, and many commentators who should know better, cannot believe that people are capable of doing things because they are right, good or just; not out of sordid self-interest. They are convinced that people who favour organic food or wine or ecological policies are just fashion victims and this fad will pass. Harry Eyres gives a good account of this in his recent column (The Slow Lane - Financial Times 9/6/2012).

In the belief that the electorate are only guided by narrow self-interest, our career politicians come up with policies which reflect this - short-term, mean-minded half-measures, not forgetting to feather their own nests and those of their financial friends all the while. They should now realise that we need leaders with courageous long-term goals to guide us out of all our present messes.

Where are they ?

Genius

Interesting piece by John Authers (The Long View - Financial Times 14th April) on investing genius or genius alone. He mentions a book by Michael J. Gelb in which the seven principles of genius are set out (in Italian): Curiositá, Dimostrazione, Sensazione, Sfumato, Arte/scienza, Corporalitá, Connessione.

In brief the genius investor should be a Renaissance man infused with all these qualities.

What a pity our financial leaders and our leaders in general do not demonstrate these traits in their dealings. What a pity we do not all aspire to this roundedness in our own lives.

Blank screens

I much enjoyed Simon Kuper's recent article (Financial Times weekend magazine) on the influence of the computer and social media on calming everything down and avoiding revolutions. Far from the world being the powder keg portrayed by Paul Mason (of 'It's all kicking off' fame) the world is in fact kicking back and settling down in front of a screen instead, no doubt stuffing its face with junk food.

A good reason to turn them all off, at least once in a while, and do something to lift one's spirit - a walk in Nature, reading a decent book (a real book not an electronic one)...

The scourge of the UPVC window and energy efficiency

Restored sash windows

An interesting piece in the Financial Times weekend edition (24/25 March) by Dr Simon Thurley, chief executive of English Heritage.

Dr Thurley presents the challenge faced by this country to reduce energy use in housing. He points out that 27% of our CO2 emissions come from burning fossil fuel to heat our homes. Significantly he warns us that by 2050 only a third of UK housing will have been built since 2007, presumably one would hope, to reasonably good standards of energy efficiency.

The remaining two thirds will be just as leaky and inefficient as they are now, unless something is done to improve them. Unfortunately there seems to be no sign whatsoever of this happening.

Dr Thurley comments on the ability of traditional buildings to be energy efficient as long as one understands how they work. He is particularly scathing on the use of plastic windows.

In my view these are particularly disastrous for older houses both aesthetically and technically. They are a sure-fire way to disfigure a harmonious Victorian facade whilst providing an inferior solution from an energy efficiency standpoint. Dr Thurley shows that properly maintained traditional windows with shutters or thick curtains can be just as, or more efficient, at keeping in the heat as plastic.

Critically, owners of plastic windows will never recover their outlay by energy savings because the windows are designed to last only about 20 years. Good sash windows can potentially last for centuries, and do not involve intense energy use or harmful chemicals in their manufacture.

I can vouch for all this having lived in a large Victorian house (ca 1885) and found it in a sorry state, having been 'modernised' by previous owners. All that was required to make this house extremely pleasant and comfortable was to repair the sash windows, eliminate draughts, ensure proper ventilation, and reinstate the fireplaces (a more appropriate decor helped too). Having done all this and changed the boiler we reduced our heating costs by half.

Who Are you ?

Yes. It's like the Who track. And it's a very good question which we all ask ourselves at one time or another. It is also a very difficult question to answer, as the answer will change over time. There is no central core of being which is immutable and will be forever the same, which we can produce like some identity document. Who we are depends on where and when we are, who we are with and may be different at different times, even times of the day. It was reading Harry Eyres' column in the FT which made me think back to who or what I was.

Who was I many years ago when I was a young dog, to coin a phrase ? I thought there would be no need to learn to drive a car for various reasons, among them was the development of public transport and the scarcity of hydrocarbons. How mistaken was this assumption ! I did not feel the need for owning too much property: in fact I could pretty much pack all my belongings into one bag and take off at almost a moment's notice; the heaviest and most prized item being a Brother portable typewriter on which I taught myself to type and tapped out all my university dissertations along with miscellaneous scraps of poetry. I aspired only to being and seeing with a cold though observant eye and perhaps writing about what was seen. I used to think I might be a photographer but could never scrape together enough cash to get some decent kit. Cash was king at the time: you had no ability raise money through credit for anything. You had what you had. I never thought you could own a house or land or acquire these things. I did drift along, not achieving very much, not really knowing what I was here for.

I met a very old friend some time ago whom I had not seen for many years. She was surprised I was not in fact a photographer. She was convinced I would be one. This made me think about why I had not, and about how and why I had been doing what I had been doing for so many years. I had become ensnared by the illusion that you could work hard at some job and find personal and financial rewards enough to then have time to do all those things...Of course you do not find reward in working at some job, even though you may have a few baubles like a very nice car and a nice house and no particular worries about the end of the month coming long after the money has run out. You also find that your brain has become atrophied and sterile and incapable of thought or creation. You find that you cannot consume for ever more. You find that you borrow money against all your instincts to buy a house even though all you want is a bit of land with a small dwelling and a large garden, you get cars and mobile phones and computers and all those things which are good but tinged with evil, and which are but distractions from...From what ? Could it be philosophy, poetry, the contentment of being ? You feel, you think, that you are trapped. And then comes liberation.

You find one day that the corporate world no longer needs you, even after all you have done for them over the years. You give up the car because you have to. You spend time in the garden, planning which vegetables you will put in etc. You draw diagrams of your plot and its various areas given over to herbs, wild flowers, fruit, potatoes etc You suddenly think that it is two years since you boarded a plane on some boring business trip. It all does wonders for your carbon footprint. But somehow it doesn't feel right because you are not enjoying it; because you somehow think that those who have remained in the rat race are having more fun. You somehow feel guilty for having been made redundant and not being able to get a job because let's face it, you are that age. You are over the hill. The problem is you, not the economy, not the banks, not the spineless career politicians. But is it ? You have probably simply changed, that is all; and all things considered you may be much better for it. A better human being.

Wind or Hot Air

Photovoltaic cells top left at our house 

Read an article in the Financial Times weekend edition about electricity generation from wind power and nuclear subsidies, keeping lights on etc. That offshore wind is horrendously expensive to build and unreliable is well known. Of course our government is allowing our beloved power companies to spend vast amounts on this so it must be worthwhile after all. This article was good at condemning this misuse of resources but also breathtakingly absurd because it called for the construction of nuclear power to be subsidised instead, forgetting that it already would be if any private companies could bother to build any plants. However they will never do so because they realise that no subsidy could ever be high enough for them to make money considering the risks involved and the extremely long time they would last. They would much prefer taxpayers to finance all of this construction, safety, de commissioning etc; all they want is to sell us the electricity at inflated prices. Nuclear energy is safe enough, only as long as no one makes a mistake, there are no floods, earthquakes, terrorists etc.

The author chose to ignore completely that the cheapest and most effective way to keep the lights on etc is not to use energy in the first place. He indignantly announces that electricity in Denmark for example is 4 times more expensive than here because of the proportion of renewable energy in it but forgets conveniently that the average new house in Denmark in 1983 was already as efficient as 2002 new build standards in the UK. Builders here will happily state that it is impossible to build a well insulated efficient home for a reasonable price, preferring to use building methods unchanged since the reign of Victoria. If they took the trouble to look at modern construction techniques they might realise buildings could be made many times as energy efficient for little extra cost. Our energy crisis might be solved almost at a stroke, particularly if government committed enough funding along the lines of a Marshall Plan for energy efficiency. The economy would boom while buildings were retrofitted and people would never again die of cold in badly built houses in our relatively mild winters.

Nor do energy companies rejoice in the fact that people who generate their own electricity or use less of it (or less gas or heating oil etc) are less dependent on them and will not be swelling their subsidy gorged coffers. These big companies do not like this and nor do I suspect do our governing classes who would much prefer to see people depending on their chums in finance, energy etc who in turn donate large sums to their parties. There is more hot air in wind power than meets the eye. I would urge people to free themselves from energy tyranny or vote for governments who would make this happen.