Intro:
Over the course of the coming weeks I will set out a post Bali agenda based on the simple and fundamental premise that we do not have time for any more Balis.

This series of articles will set out why in the compelling case for immediate action on climate change and why in this context Bali was an abject failure.

It will then look at the uncertainties in the science behind current climate change predictions and the inherent risk of policy failure where the science is not correctly understood.

Finally, I will address the potential pitfalls that we face in attempting to develop polices that will ensure that we meet our various targets as well as some of the mechanisms that we might employ to achieve those targets.

Article 1: the day after Bali
2007 saw the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) finally agree the text of a report that stated, once and for all, what the vast majority of scientists had been saying for many years previous: Our planet's climate is changing at an unprecedented rate according to all recorded data; and that rate of change is the direct result of the rapid increase in greenhouse gas emissions caused by humans from the time of the Industrial Revolution onwards.

It has taken almost thirty years since Brundtland and fifteen since Rio to reach the agreement embodied in the IPCC report. This has helped to promote the notion that climate change is not real and/or that it is not caused by human activity. Overall it has been a huge obstacle for those trying to develop and implement effective and realistic policies to reduce the increase in global energy demand and curb CO2 emissions. In 1999 the Kyoto Declaration set out emissions reduction targets. However, without the unequivocal scientific backing, provided by the IPCC in 2007, it was not ratified by all of the major polluters, in particular the US and Australia.

However, despite the scientific consensus that was reached in 2007, the summit of world leaders in Bali failed to agree emissions reduction targets. This is strange given that the summit was called as much in response to the IPCC report as to revive the now largely defunct Kyoto mechanism. Yet, just months after the 2007 report and at a time when even the USA and Australia looked willing to participate in the numbers game, Bali failed to produce a successor to Kyoto which would have created universal and effective emissions targets.

Bali has been hailed by some as a step in the right direction'. However, in truth the summit was high on rhetoric but low on action, another in the long line of ‘we need to talk more about doing something' agreements. In other words it was an agreement to agree a notion that even the English Courts would not recognise. It allowed, those nations that blocked the original Kyoto targets to come away from Bali basking in the glow of being slightly ‘greener' but did not force them into doing ‘something' to combat their emissions production.

It is with good cause then, that Climate change campaigners and others on the left may well have seen the Bali declaration in an altogether dimmer light. As we develop higher tech and more accurate means of measuring changes in the global environment and learn more about the complex interactions between natural systems the evidence only becomes more compelling. The IPCC report did not tell us anything we didn't already know. Its real value was in the agreements over methodologies and guidance for reporting that did not make the front pages. Whilst those agreements are invaluable to scientists and policy makers, the limits agreed for the maximum atmospheric emissions and subsequent temperature rises beyond which significant climate change is inevitable were really rather conservative.

The IPCC report agreed that significant climate change is inevitable once the atmospheric concentration of CO2 reaches 450 parts per million which, it is predicted, would limit the average global temperature rise to 3°C by the end of the century. Beyond these limits the effects of climate change are expected to become long-term (hundreds of years) and irreversible (unrecoverable ecosystem damage, ‘runaway climate change', etc).

Yet back in late 2006 the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) published 'High Stakes', a report that questioned those limits even before they were agreed internationally and asked some penetrating and relevant questions about the ability of policy makers to deliver and implement policies with a realistic chance of meeting them. Perhaps most tellingly the IPPR, which specialises in risk assessment, concluded that one of the greatest risks is spending more money on risk assessments and not enough on actually reducing emissions. It's hard to argue with a report that tries to argue its authors out of their jobs.

In the next article I will examine in depth these uncertainties in the science behind current climate change predictions and the inherent risk of policy failure where the science is not correctly understood.

Keith Baker -  Technology and Science Editor (12/02/08)

11 SEPTEMBER 2008

 

The UK Government has today revealed plans for a new Community Energy Savings Programme, as part of its £1bn package of measures to help combat fuel poverty, climate change and energy waste in the UK.

Communityenergy.info understands that the new Community Energy Savings Programme will be used to support new and existing partnerships of local councils, voluntary organisations and energy suppliers to engage with local residents in the poorest communities and ensure that hey have access to the most efficient heating and renewable energy technologies.

Full details on how to finance and run the programme are still being finalised, but it is believed that funding will come from a portion of the new £1bn obligation that is to be put on the energy suppliers and electricity generators.

Commenting on the announcement communityenergy.info Editor, Hugh Goulbourne, said'This is excellent news for UK communities who are rightly concerned about rising oil and gas prices on their heating bills. Through my experience in Kirklees and in Shoreditch I have seen that, where communities are presented with all the information on the cost and savings associated with different technologies, they will support the long-term solution, such as district heating, CHP or solar thermal.'
 

For further details on the proposals see:

 

21 NOVEMBER 2007   

13 AUGUST 2007

Keith Baker, Technology and Secience Editor

There's an idea that's been floating around in my head for some time now. I can't take credit for thinking it up (that goes to Dr. Joseph Healey) but it's got me wondering - whatever happened to airships?

If you're thinking of airships you're probably thinking of blimps used for advertising or the Zeppelin disaster, but ponder a little longer and you might also start wondering why we hardly ever see them any more, and if they might be worth re-visiting as a greener form of transport.

Shipping, air travel and road freight are major sources of emissions, and whilst many of us want drastic reductions in their use we are fighting an uphill battle. We have to contend with the growth in demand in the developing world for business and leisure travel and the impact of the new infrastructure needed to support this. At the same time, the growth in freight has still not reached a peak, in the USA for example, US$1T is being invested in new highways alone to support inter-state road freight.

When viewed in this light, airships would seem to be an appealing alternative to conventional travel, in particular freight. They may lack the speed needed to get fresh produce from a Spanish greenhouse to a British supermarket (who really needs that anyway?) but for non-perishable goods and long distance mail there are clear advantages.

They are safe, the Zeppelin disaster taught designers that using hydrogen was a very bad idea, and the infrastructure they require is minimal (i.e., no need to build roads through unspoilt countryside). They can carry more than a cargo aircraft and much more than a lorry, with a fraction of the noise pollution. Evidence also indicates that they produce far fewer green house gas (ghg) emissions per ton carried than conventional freight. This could be reduced even further if my vision of a heavy freight airship covered in lightweight solar cells powering electric propellers to drive it for the majority of the journey, with standard propellers being used for take-off, landing and in heavy winds, were to become a reality.

Having studied atmospheric physics and experienced travel in a glider, I would accept that this might not be a solution for all forms of travel, in particular long distance passenger travel. However, there is little evidence to stop airships from being used on the many transatlantic and transpacific trade routes that follow the trade winds. The technology exists and an Ohio firm is currently developing heavy lifting airships (see http://www.dynalifter.com/Dynaliftercom/RoadlessTrucking.htm).

More work is also needed to adduce evidence of low ghg emissions, but I cannot see how the energy embodied in an airship per ton of freight transported can be higher than for a plane or ship, even once the energy cost of producing helium is factored in. The operational energy is lower than for a plane due to the buoyancy provided by the helium, and although they have to contend with air resistance they are designed on the same aerodynamic principles as other aircraft. Comparison with ships is more difficult because we are required to consider the relative buoyancies of a ship in water and an airship in air, as well as accounting for both wind and water resistance to a ship. There is also the issue of the number of craft and frequency of journeys needed to replace a super-freighter, although reducing the number of journeys by smaller freight ships would also have a notable impact on ghg emissions.

Another immediately obvious use of airships could be as a less invasive means of eco-tourism. When you visit a National Park (e.g. in the US or Africa) you'll invariably get in and around by flying and/or driving, and you may well camp in a purpose built lodge in the park. Airships can carry large cabins and stay aloft almost indefinitely (they can even be refuelled by other airships) and need only a small landing strip to set down. As such, they have the potential to allow eco-tourists to visit remote areas without building roads and lodges. Airships would significantly reduce the air and noise pollution and have the added bonus of a spectacular view from the air.

So, there are obvious environmental and economic attractions to the re-birth of airships for freight and tourism. Given the popular debate and protest around travel, in particular air travel, it deserves to be viewed as a serious proposition. I have put forward my bits of research on this but we are not pretending to have a definitive argument, so please see what you think of my points and let me know on the blog.

Incidentally, an engineer friend informs me that one of the old airship hangars near Bedford is being re-fitted, so maybe someone else has seen the potential!

..............................................................................

25 JULY 2007
Flooding in UK exposes the risks associated with man made climate change:
Experts are blaming the current inclement weather, which has brought misery to many communities in the UK over the summer, on a malfunctioning of the 'jet stream'. Theories diverge as to what is causing the 'Jet stream' which normally lies much further north during the summer months to sit right above the UK. However, what seems certain is that the phenomenon can be linked to climate change and the rise of global tempatures, in particular sea temperatures.

30 JUNE 2007

Keith Baker, Technology and Secience Editor

Since 1970 the average UK household size has fallen from 2.9 to 2.3. It is not, however, just a trend towards more solitary living that is driving changes in domestic energy consumption but also the way we are using our homes.

The traditional role of the living room as the focus of household activity appears to be fading, and whilst the decline in average occupancy may be reducing the need for dwellings to contain a large communal space, our technology choices may be influencing the way we use the other spaces in our homes. This article draws on the results described in my Ph.D. thesis (‘Sustainable Cities: Determining Indicators of Domestic Energy Consumption') and expands on the empirical evidence presented within it to speculate on how we are moving away from traditional living patterns and the implications for future domestic energy demand. The latter part of the article also draws on elements of some work I published back in 2004.

The study was based on a survey of 148 dwellings representative of three built form types common in the UK (terraces, semis and detached dwellings) for which floor area and annual gas and electricity consumption data were obtained. The most statistically significant indicators of differences in consumption were determined, and whilst these results confirmed the validity of several established indicators: total floor area, occupancy, dwelling age and the number of rooms; they also found that the number of bedrooms a dwelling has and whether or not occupants reported regularly working from home were also significant. Of these, the number of bedrooms was found to be overall the most statistically significant determinant of consumption, and this finding raises important and timely questions regarding how changing lifestyles may be influencing domestic energy demand. Bedrooms were specified as rooms in which a bed is permanently set up, whether or not in regular use for that purpose, and the evidence suggests that a number of home offices were captured in the sample.

Many existing domestic energy rating schemes and models assume a ‘zone 1 / zone 2' model for predicting energy demand for space heating. Zone 1 comprises the living area of a dwelling, which may be one or more rooms: the living room and the dining room if the two are physically separate. These are assumed to be heated to a higher temperature unless actual measurements are available. This in itself highlights a difficultly in developing and validating domestic energy models, in that intensive surveying requires greater resources and willing participants. In addition the psychological element of knowing one is being monitored, known as the Hawthorn effect, may induce participants into more optimal behaviour as regards their energy regimes.

The study did not monitor temperatures or make use of other on-site survey methods within the dwellings, and as the consumption data was collected for the previous year, the Hawthorn effect was negated. However, it did find some evidence of a relationship between the use of portable electric heaters and electricity consumption. Additional evidence was found for relationships between electricity consumption and ownership and use of TVs, PCs and digiboxes. Although the location of these devices was not questioned it is possible to draw some preliminary conclusions with regard to how changes in our lifestyles are changing the way many of us use energy in our homes.

First, our bedrooms are becoming more central to our everyday living - they are no longer just for sleeping in. We are moving more and more technology into them, using them for both work and entertainment, and as many students and those sharing houses will attest, also using them for entertaining visitors. To meet these needs TVs, PCs and digiboxes are moving in alongside hi-fi systems and radios, and spending more time in them requires heating them to a comfortable temperature.

Over the winter my own household reduced the periods over which our central heating system was on, used the gas fire in the living room and heated our bedrooms (where we spend much of our time) using electric heaters only as needed. We found that our energy bills reduced compared to the same period last year and although this is only anecdotal evidence it was interesting to find it supported the much more rigorous evidence from my thesis. Of course the problem here is that secondary heating is invariably less efficient, but in a well-insulated home it should be needed less.

These results are good news if it means that those of us who do not live in family households are reducing our energy consumption, especially as single person households produce higher per capita emissions and have been singled out for criticism for this in the media. However, the finding regarding homeworkers is less reassuring.

Those working from home, with the obvious exception of those running their own businesses from them, are consuming energy at a time when they would normally be sharing consumption with others in their workplaces and therefore producing fewer per capita emissions. The number of people reporting regularly working from home in the UK rose by 65% from 1997 to 2001, accounting for 2.2 million workers or 74% of the employed population. Further work is needed to quantify the amount of emissions that are offset to a place of employment by opting to go in rather than stay at home, and this is further complicated as transport needs to be included in the calculations.

Furthermore, as we consume more and more technology for both work and entertainment our energy consumption will continue to rise. It has been estimated that the digital switchover will require a new power station to meet the energy demands of digiboxes, especially as very few of these devices allow for home networking so one box is needed per TV that does not have a built in digital receiver. The counter arguments to this are that not everyone will purchase them for all their TVs, with secondary TVs being used for watching DVDs and replaced with older digital equipped TVs when the primary set is upgraded; that PCs will be used more frequently for watching TV; that technology substitution (replacing conventional cathode ray tube (CRT) sets with LCDs) will mean more efficient devices are in use; and the efficiencies of digiboxes will improve.

However, some of these arguments are counter-intuitive and others simply fail in the face of existing evidence. Those used to receiving a TV signal to all their TVs will likely still wish to do so after the analogue signal is switched off. This means either adding a digibox or replacing the set, which is likely to be a larger primary set so that either way net consumption will rise. Although in fairness this may not be the case if people switch to existing PCs we then have the issue of a demand for increased monitor sizes, which itself follows an existing trend. Increased screen size is also an argument against improved efficiency through technology substitution. Another study has shown that the falling costs and smaller footprints of flat panel TVs are meaning consumers are purchasing larger TVs, thereby negating the energy savings.

So we are becoming a more solitary and more technologically-savvy society. The result is that we risk sleepwalking towards producing higher emissions, even if some of the changes in our lifestyles may be acting to reduce them. If we're spending more time awake in our bedrooms we also need to wake up to the fact that the type of technology we are using is causing us to increase, not reduce, the emissions we're producing from them.

14 JUNE 2007

Maria Carvalho, Business and Third sector Editor

Whilst flipping through the pages of recent issues of magazines such as the Economist or Fortune, it would be hard to miss the glossy advertisements, with their catchy mottos and even catchier pictures, for corporations displaying their environmental initiatives or the reams of articles proclaiming the virtues of certain corporations that are making pledges to reduce their carbon footprints.

Three decades ago, many would have seen ‘corporate environmentalism' as an oxymoron. However, the recent emergence of man made climate change and environmental justice in the public consciousness has induced several companies to initiate marketing campaigns to champion their corporate environmental initiatives. A range of initiatives including, environmental management systems, voluntary agreements, industry-wide standards and internationally certified standards evidences the environmental zeal of corporates now.

However, despite this progress many still view corporate environmentalism with a degree of scepticism. Such critics argue that the majority of corporate environmental strategies are merely symbolic and minimal forms of action towards addressing their environmental impact, more a business gimmick than a serious part of the firm's business strategy. Such a policy they would characterise as ‘green wash' because the strategy does not substantially change the harmful processes and outcomes of the firm but merely diverts attention away from their harmful practices and the associated criticism against the firm.

Corporate environmentalism, however, covers a range of policies and it is not easy to identify what can or cannot correctly be characterised as ‘green wash'. One starting point that is often used has been to examine the purpose of a firm's newly found corporate environmentalism. Unless the firm's principal driver is to protect the environment, then critics will dismiss the firm's environmental initiative as being merely ‘green wash'. That is because only those companies that are willing to, quite literally, buy into the belief that it is worth protecting the environment will put in place the substantive and sustainable changes that are necessary in their operating plan, even if it does not provide any immediate or discernable financial benefit to the business.

The reality is that it is extremely unusual to find a business that will adopt high environmental standards solely because of a strong sense of environmental altruism. Instead businesses that have significantly reduced their environmental impact, tend to have done so for three main reasons: to satisfy the expectations of their external and/or internal stakeholders; to take advantage of market opportunities; or, perhaps most noticeably, as an attempt to avoid the cost of strict and mandatory regulations.

Critics complain that these businesses are merely engaged in ‘green wash'. They do not do enough and could do a lot more if they were truly committed to the environmentalist cause. But, whilst it is true that these rational do of themselves create certain limitations to the way in which a firm might manage their environmental impacts, it is important to acknowledge also the benefits that have accrued from these drivers.

There are numerous examples where external stakeholder pressure, from non-governmental organisations, consumers and media campaigns, has pushed businesses towards considering their environmental impacts. Corporations can ill-afford the affects of negative publicity on their reputation and firms, such as Exxon Mobile, have been forced to mitigate the risks of causing environmental disasters (such as the Valdiz oil spill) or have gone further by cutting down the amount of natural resources they consume and the amount of waste they generate. An example is Motorola, which managed to reduce its absolute energy use by 78% between 2000 and 2004.

Crucially also internal stakeholders of a company, namely their shareholders, management, and employees, are now making decisions to create substantial changes in the company's internal structure and so align their long-term objectives with those of the environment. Examples of key internal decision-makers who have publicly acknowledged that they want to reduce environmental impacts within their supply chains or improve their environmental performance as part of their long-term business strategy, include Lee Scott the CEO of Wal-mart or William Clay Ford Jr the CEO at Ford - two notable and particularly important industries.

Similarly, many corporations now recognise the new ‘green' business opportunities that are on offer: According to New Energy Finance, global investment in renewable power-generation, bio-fuels and low-carbon technologies rose from $28 billion in 2004 to £71 billion in 2006, demonstrating that firms are willing to gamble on being able to exploit opportunities in the long term that will not only revolutionise their business, but even their industry.

Many other corporations are unwilling to gamble on this potential financial reward, but are keen to avoid the financial burden that will result if demanding regulations are imposed that they are unprepared for. In anticipation of this many enter into voluntary ‘greening' initiatives, for example manufacturing companies such as AMD, Intel and Sun have been part of a move to ‘green the computer industry' by developing more energy efficient "multi-core" processor chips.

Despite being regarded by many as ‘green wash', all of the above examples have brought about significant benefits for the environment. That the improvement of environmental performances may have offered those businesses a competitive advantage over their rivals should be recognised as part of the reality that businesses are in the business of staying in business and cannot be expected to implement the incredibly costly measures of substantially reducing their environmental impacts if it would risk their financial security and/or that of their stakeholders. Far from ‘green wash' these businesses and industries deserve recognition and support, not only to reward their efforts but to ensure that the correct instruments are deployed to remove the constraints that place limitations upon their actions and encourage other businesses and industries to follow their lead.

One noticeable limitation is the focus of much of the corporate environmentalism on improving efficiency. This is neatly illustrated by the ‘greening of the computer industry' described above. Though the improvement of energy efficiencies is significant, the scale effects of increased computer production far outweigh the efficiency effects - the forecasted power and cooling costs for computer servers in 2010 is approximately fifty percent higher than its 2006 levels and four times larger than the 1996 levels.

Such limitations, at the end of the day, could be seen as inevitable with any form of corporate environmentalism. As such the debate should not be about whether companies are or are not merely motivated by ‘green wash' as opposed to a pure sense of responsibility to the environment. Instead, recognition must be given to the role of others in the environmental equation.

Principal amongst those are governments and international organisations. These institutions have the power to introduce regulations that will ensure that businesses are on a level playing field when financing the reduction of their environmental impacts: only a regulatory threat can provide the major and continuous incentive for businesses to improve their performance and the baseline instrument to ensure that at least a minimum acceptable standard of environmental protection is in place.

Once the rules of the market are redrawn, corporations can take environmental protection to the next level through improving their business operations, technologies and long-term strategies, whilst other industries are more likely to take heed of that regulatory threat by acting effectively and voluntarily (for example the European airline industry seems increasingly willing to negotiate following the imposition of extra tax on frequent flyer miles in the UK).

Finally, at every level and in every sector of our society citizens, like you and me, need to examine how as consumers our decisions and lifestyles inexorably affect the environment, and how we can take steps to force businesses to reduce our own impact.

06 JUNE 2007

Keith Baker, Technology and Secience Editor

Intro

It's easy to dismiss advice to save energy. The amount of energy saved by doing simple things such as turning off lights, turning appliances off rather than leaving them on stand by, and not over-filling your kettle would seem to be a drop in the ocean compared to the amount we need to save to hit even the most conservative emissions reduction targets. Even if we all did our bit, what good would it do in the overall scheme of things?

It's easy to get duped into inaction by paralysis, but the fact is that it all adds up. There are approximately 25 million households in the UK today, with an average household size of 2.3, and an average home consumes approximately 80.8GJ of energy per year, a figure which has changed little over the last 30 years. This currently accounts for 27.5% of the UK's total annual energy consumption. Add to this the amount we consume for transport, the amount we waste through energy inefficient practices at work, and the energy used to produce, package and transport our food, and the simple things don't seem quite as small any more.

Our consciences are at last being pricked. We may not know for absolute certain that the last decade of unusually hot summers and mild winters in Europe and higher than average numbers of extreme weather events around the world are the direct result of the emissions we have been increasingly generating since the Industrial Revolution, but there is an almost universal consensus amongst scientists that these emissions are driving climate change.

Furthermore, even if we had a magic bullet that could dramatically reduce our emissions overnight, we'd need a whole magazine to deal with the predicted impacts of the climate change we have already 'banked', as well as the other environmental problems our species has caused during our brief spell as caretakers of our planet. The results of studies into climate change show such a consistent trend that scientists now have a new adage - for climate change the news just gets worse. We might not know for absolute certain, but what we do know is that this risk is certainly not worth taking.

Many of the simplest and easiest things we can do to reduce the amount of energy our homes consume are changes of habit, and when it comes to energy we humans have developed quite a lot that can be changed. How we go about that, and how we encourage others to join us, is something we all have a role and a stake in.

Our actions influence those around us, our consumer choices influence industry, and our votes and campaigns can influence governments. The fight against climate change needs to be fought on all levels and in all areas of our society, but our best hope of winning is having everyone on board and doing their bit. In 1992 the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development set out the theme of ‘Think global, act local'. Little things really do add up.

So what can we do?

The first thing to remember is that every little thing really does count. Climate change is one of those issues that does not go away outside of election periods. It does not even go away when we get home, shut out the rest of the world and settle in for the evening. In fact when it comes to what we can do and how often we can do it our homes are the best place to start. Therefore in order make those changes it's useful to understand how we waste energy and find the best places to start.

First of all, improving domestic energy efficiency does not directly equate to reducing emissions. Compared to 2000 levels domestic energy efficiency may improve by 25% by 2010, however consumption and carbon emissions may fall by only 10%. The simple reason for this is that whilst improvements in dwelling insulation and the efficiencies of heating systems and lighting are increasing efficiency our actual consumption of energy is still increasing.

Yet improving the insulation in our homes is still an obvious place to start reducing our energy bills. The UK has some of the most poorly insulated dwellings in Europe, 39% of which were constructed before 1945. Our housing stock is so thermally inefficient that a study conducted by the Environmental Change Unit at Oxford University concluded that up to 40% of the money invested in insulation may be realised in terms of improved thermal comfort, but properly heated homes have healthier households and so place lower demands on public services. As is so often the case with the things we can do to reduce our environmental impact the greener option has other benefits.

How efficient is your home?
For those hoping to move into a more efficient home the news is pretty good. Building regulations are updated regularly and minimum efficiency standards for new build continue to increase. A dwelling constructed today is approximately 60% more efficient than average, but turnover is slow at around 150,000 new homes constructed per year and about 15,000 scrapped. Unfortunately the current omission of two and three bedroom dwellings from the new Home Information Packs means that buyers of dwellings that are typically energy inefficient, for example the single brick terraces that characterise many urban areas, will not be informed of how well they perform. However, paying for a full survey will highlight not only poor insulation but also any other problems that have the potential to become expensive.

Aside from those who can afford a new home, and particularly the lucky few with the time and resources to self-build, most of us have to do the best with what we've got. Although installing cavity wall insulation is not feasible for many dwellings there is still room for improvement by adding internal or external cladding and extra loft insulation. Some cheaper solutions include sticking sheets of silver foil on the walls behind radiators to reduce the heat lost through walls, and where they're fitted underneath a window extending the windowsill over them will help direct warm air into the room. Little things like these can produce noticeable results.

How do you use your home?
We should also consider how we use our homes. Most of us have some form of central heating, but there is no point in having it on when the whole home is not in use. Some homes now have zoned heating systems but these are still a minority. Switching off radiators is an option but as most of us use some form of secondary heating, usually gas fires or electric heaters, smaller households and people who work from home may find that experimenting with using secondary heating in the rooms they use most and switching off central heating completely may save energy. Of course, the quickest and easiest energy saver of all is putting on an extra layer of clothing.

How we use water?
Once we humans make ourselves a comfortable shelter our next need is water. Saving water is another environmental good in itself, but also the less we use the less energy we consume by pumping it around. Heating it is responsible for around 20% of the emissions our homes generate, therefore a well maintained and efficient boiler is a must, but over its lifetime the more cost effective option is a micro combined heat and power (micro-CHP) unit. These are now only a few hundred pounds more expensive than an A-rated boiler.

Community CHP schemes are gradually expanding, but why wait? Also, the better insulated our cylinders and pipes are the less energy is wasted, and more can be saved when we wash ourselves and our clothes by opting for energy efficient washing machines and showers, and keeping the bath for special occasions. The jury's still out on dishwashers, but they are efficient users of water and make sense if hot water isn't needed for most of the day.

How we cook?
Now we've got shelter, water and had a wash it's time for a meal to celebrate some good news. The proportion of domestic emissions associated with cooking is 5% and falling. This is in part due to a shift towards more homes having gas hobs and ovens, but there are likely to be other factors involved, for example eating out offsets energy used at home to the service industry. In reality other than not leaving cookers on when not in use there isn't an awful lot we can do on a daily basis to reduce the energy we use for cooking, but what about the electronic displays now found on so many cookers and microwaves? Switching them off may reset their clocks, but who really needs a clock on their microwave anyway? Little things adding up again.

How do we use technology?
Finally we get to one of the things that defines us as a species, our use of technology. Technology is now giving us the option to generate our own electricity from solar photovoltaic panels and micro wind turbines, heat our water using solar thermal panels, heat our homes using ground source heat pumps, and improve lighting levels using light pipes. However, we can still do a lot to reduce emissions from the technology we use in our homes. The use of lights and appliances generates around 22% of domestic emissions and their energy consumption is rising rapidly at around 2% per year, having doubled in the last 35 years. Switching off the light when leaving a room is one of the simplest things we can do to reduce our energy consumption, but it needs to become so habitual that we no longer think about it, just as we don't think about cleaning our teeth or locking our front doors. Replacing incandescent light bulbs with energy efficient ones could help save a huge amount of energy, so much so that Venezuela has already banned them and Australia and California are following suit. The EU has an option to do so under the Energy-using Products directive, which comes into law on August 11th 2007 and will be subject to rolling revision. The EU introduced appliance energy efficiency labelling as far back as 1995, and as replacement periods for appliances such as fridge-freezers and washing machines average between 10 and 15 years paying a little extra for a AAA rated appliance will be worth it in the long run.

Another issue covered by EuP is stand by power, but again the greenest option is to switch appliances off at the mains. TVs and PCs are already subject to various efficiency schemes, such as EnergyStarTM, that restrict stand by power to under 1W, but digital and cable TV boxes have been measured as consuming in excess of 7W in standby. One cable box has been measured at over 20W in stand by. Wireless routers are another new entrant to our inventories of the technology we use in our homes that are often left on when not needed. Again these are little things that need to become habitual. Whilst boot up times for computers may put many people off switching them off if they are away from them for only a brief period that excuse doesn't apply to monitors and speakers, and once we've got into that habit why break it at work?

See also ‘ten things we can all do now' http://www.communityenergy.info/?page=3

25 MAY 2007

Hugh Goulbourne, Public policy/Energy and Transport Editor

A summary of my conclusions on some of the key aspects of the white papers are set out below, but overall our thoughts are as follows. The papers should be welcomed as a huge step forward in the way in which we think about alternative energy options and energy efficiency. Despite a number of fairly inaccurate or contradictory remarks, the papers together present an open and wide ranging strategy for our future energy market.

It is clear, however, that the emphasis is still on implementing centralised systems of generation. The two papers indicate that the Government is putting its weight behind a mix of coal, nuclear and large scale renewables but there is little to suggest any conviction or political will behind distributed energy generation.

This is largely because the DTI has taken the view that Combined Heat and Power plants as efficient sources of heat and micro-renewables (solar, biomass, heat pumps, wind etc) as sources of add-on electricity. The Energy paper, therefore, has failed to accurately assess or acknowledge the current potential for electricity to be efficiently generated and then stored on site thus largely negating the need for large amount of overcapacity in the national grid for peak usage.

As a result the subsidies that have been offered for decentralised energy CHP and renewables are a series of vague, indirect and disproportionately small schemes. At the same time the fiscal incentives that are being looked at, for example a supplier obligation or carbon credits, whilst they are welcomed have yet to be properly worked out and there is no guarantee of their financial worth or success.

For some time commentators and experts have been suggesting that energy companies should be forced to purchase electricity at preferential rates from CHP/renewables based generators for a certain period of time, usually around 20 years. The mechanism of feed in tariffs provides certainty of financial return to those who invest (as the Energy Paper acknowledge at para 3.63 current tariffs offered by companies are lower than the on market price). It also raises the price of electricity which increases the economic rational amongst consumers for efficiency measures (at the same time we could assist those at risk from fuel poverty on a more sustainable basis by increasing the scope of ongoing Government projects to insulate their homes and install on-site energy generation). Finally, because the tariff rate decreases over time it encourages a decrease in the cost of production.

Feed in tariffs have already helped to stimulate a market and an industry around decentralised technologies in other parts of Europe (most notably, Germany and Spain). The Governments proposals for the extension of the renewables obligation to renewables based CHP and micro generation is welcomed but is a far less certain mechanism for potential investors.

If we ignore this sort of market mechanism (see Chapter 5) and choosing to place the emphasis on large projects (renewables, coal and nuclear) then we risk not only our energy security and Kyoto commitments but also our economic competitiveness. It is essential that we capitalise on our technological expertise in renewables and CHP. Companies will not invest in building production capacity in the UK if there is no market here (already companies like BP have moved their renewables subsidiaries elsewhere) which means that already we are losing our chance to provide more highly-skilled and well paid jobs in this country.

I hope that local and regional (for example the Mayor of London) government as well as NGOs and campaign groups will join together in trying to help the Government to drive decentralised energy and efficiency to the top of the political and public agenda.

Planning white paper

Full text www.communities.gov.uk/index.asp?id=1510503
See also http://www.communities.gov.uk/index.asp?id=1002882&PressNoticeID=2425 and http://society.guardian.co.uk/communities/story/0,,2085174,00.html

Some thoughts:

Decentralised energy: Paragraph 7.11, demonstrates the Government's lack of commitment and/or lack of understanding of our decentralised energy options. Decisions on large decentralised energy options, which scientists agree are the most efficient form of generation, need to be given some sort of strategic overview by national and regional government (e.g. The Mayor of London). It cannot solely be left to local councils and individual communities. Overall the paper seems to ignore decentralised energy, focusing instead on micro generation in the home (paras 7.18-7.25).

Efficiency: Whereas the Government is unwilling to trust local authorities generally it wants to leave responsibility for increasing the efficiency of buildings to Local authorities (paras 7.12-7.15) and in the case of industry has simply undertaken to review and discuss the issue with industry (Paragraph 7.17).

Nuclear, CCS and renewables: the proposed system of National Policy Statements (NPS) (chapters 2-4), would appear to respond to the findings of the Barker Review which indicated that planning needed to be more strategic and the process simplified.

Clearly it will be easier under this system to push through large, single site projects such as airports, car parks, major roads, supermarkets, waste incinerators or nuclear power stations. It will also assist the development of large renewables (wave, tidal, wind or solar) but it is difficult to see how this system will benefit more diffuse projects such as public transport infrastructure or biomass/CHP, where regional or local politics and land ownership are likely to make it very difficult to set out a clear and obvious NPS.

In addition it is not clear to me how the government would wish to resolve competing NPSs, for example a statement indicating that certain key sites should be used for nuclear stations vis-a-vis the same statement for large scale renewables (unless they incorrectly classify them all as low-carbon generation).

Concerns have also been raised as to the accountability of such a system, especially given the duration of up to 25 years proposed for an NPS. There must be some risk that a Government could, despite public and parliamentary opposition, push through an NPS. Once in place it would become very difficult for the type of development envisaged in the NPS to be halted, especially where specific sites are identified. The establishment of an independent commission should offer some comfort, especially as there is precedent for a supposedly toothless commission becoming a real block to Government power in the form of the Information Commissioner's Office, the body that regulates data protection law.

Energy white Paper

Full text http://www.dti.gov.uk/energy/whitepaper/page39534.html
See also https://services.shoreditchtrust.org.uk/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6681377.stm and http://environment.independent.co.uk/climate_change/article2581246.ece

Some thoughts:

Decentralised energy: The Government's planned measures (for example, easing licensing process and improving the options for sale of electricity back to the grid) are an indication that the Government has begun to take distributed energy seriously.

However, they are clearly unwilling to give the industry the political and financial backing that is needed. Instead they appear ready to accept that such technologies are too expensive and untested to satisfy our electricity need (for example in chapter 3 they set out a range of tangential strategies such as the Warm Front programme for the promotion of CHP). Given that there are several examples of successful projects in the UK and that other European countries have managed to successful adopt efficient decentralised energy systems, it is difficult to understand why.

It is equally difficult to understand why the Government is unwilling to introduce some form of market mechanism such as feed in tariffs to quickly promote the use of small scale renewables and localised Combined Heat and Power projects. The extension of the renewables obligation to renewables based CHP and micro generation is welcomed but is a far less certain mechanism for potential investors.

Efficiency: The Government's plans for a cap and trade system for businesses is very welcome as are its continued commitment to engaging with homeowner and energy suppliers and to supplying greater information on energy usage (smart metering etc). However, the Government has yet to ensure that the fundamental driver for a change in consumer behaviour, an effective carbon price, is passed onto the end user. An effective EU ETS appears to be the preferred method, but it is disappointing that the paper does not contemplate use of feed in tariffs to support renewables and CHP given that this mechanism has been used very successfully in other EU member state markets. Proposals to bring forward plans for energy efficient new social housing in 2012 appear a little bit too little and too late.

Renewables - The paper indicates a strong line on renewables forming a substantial part of our energy mix. The commitment to tidal projects is heartening and the Government seem keen to set clear and fairly ambitious targets.

Nuclear: There is nothing in the paper that guarantees that nuclear will go ahead. The paper undertakes not to offer any form of incentive to the industry and business is still only likely to invest if it is given some form of financial security, especially in relation to decommissioning and waste. The bottom line is that unless the Government covers some of the costs then the UK nuclear industry cannot finance the new build. However, whilst there outward commitment to the cause may be politically expedient in keeping the nuclear lobby happy, there is a real danger that the political and strategic investment that is needed elsewhere is wasted. Finally, the paper does not explain how replacing oil and gas with uranium that is mined abroad is going to guarantee our energy security.

Transport: It remains to be seen whether the EU can leverage sufficient support to arrive at a position where the powerful car manufacturers are forced to change the way in which they build, market or sell cars. The reality is that whilst we continue to enlarge and/or build new airports then aviation emissions will continue to rise.

See also "Brown 'Green' Justice": In the week of the Planning White Paper and on the eve of the publication of the Energy White Paper, TMP environment columnist, Hugh Goulbourne, argues that it is the poorest who will suffer from environmental degradation if we do not face up to climate change issues. http://www.tmponline.org/

Comment received 30 May 2007 07:28

from ferrand said...

Energy White paper

1/. The whole paper seems to be based on the principle that all generation sources of electricity must be connected. [To the grid to ensure that the "taxation hand" is kept on the switch ? shades of Lenin's dictum "Communism is all about electricity" It was reported on "You and Yours" Radio 4 on 25/05/07 that the Treasury wants everything

"grid connected" whereas David Milliband is in favour of dispersed generation, stand alone if preferable] This is a nonsense, stand alone systems are viable, often more so than grid connected. It is not usually economic for small installations, eg a solar pv roof on a private house, to be grid connected.

2/. Why do we need Nuclear Power ? In 1998 Lord Clinton-Davis gave a reply to Lord Liverpool about the Solar PV potential for the UK being greater than the then electricity demand. See House of Lords proceedingsfor Feb 1998. The report cited was I believe that from ETSU,

see http://www.aea-energy-and-environment.co.uk/ and ask for report etsu-R-82 1994 solar pv , I have had an offer from China for Solar pv units at £1.35/watt CIF UK, and Sun & Wind Energy internatioanl issue 2/2007 pages 86-144 quote prices which could potentially come down to £1.05/watt, Dye Solar Cell technology predicts £0.20/watt once mass production is established.

3/. Nuclear - CHP No mention of "local" Nuclear energy, making use of the waste heat, see http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf33.html

4/. No mention of using waste to produce electric power and biofuels, see
http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/11116.html
http://news.com.com/Want+alternative+energy+Try+pond+scum/2100-11386_3-6145197.html?tag=st.prev
http://www.green-trust.org/2000/biofuel/biooils.htm

5/. No mention of the use of Hydrogen produced by Wind Energy to be applied to coal for transport fuels. The problem of the North of Scotland WEC's connection to the grid could be dealt with if they instead produced Hydrogen ? Transferred by pipeline [no line loss] or tanker.

6/. Technology development - little mention of funding of demonstration projects as opposed to "Research". There are many undeveloped technologies available, see below for two for tidal power and offshore wind.
http://www.earthtoys.com/emagazine.php?issue_number=07.04.01&article=tides

http://www.earthtoys.com/emagazine.php?issue_number=07.04.01&article=contra


7/. No mention of the "anti inflationary" characteristics of Renewable Energy. See SUSTENG attached, a possibly fertile and profitable field for leasing organisations to move into Renewable Energy equipment ?

8/. The House of Lords comments on more local activity being required in energy matters - back to the "local gasworks" appeared to have been ignored ?? seeHouse of Lords Science & Technology Committtee's reports,
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldselect/ldsctech/ldsctech.htm

23 MAY 2007
What Stern got wrong
The Stern review on the economics of climate change completely fails to acknowledge the imminent decline in global oil production http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=8954

23 APRIL 2007

Last month the Labour Mayor of London outlined his vision of a sustainable future for London. Now the Labour Government is also demonstrating its willingness to listen to business, environmental campaigners, scientists and community groups by committing to a broad based and thorough package of measures to tackle climate change.

Until now the Government has focussed its efforts on the international stage, pushing the EU to agreement on stiffer carbon emissions targets (20% by 2020) and encouraging UN activity on the environment. However, it is the activity closer to home of two of Labour's heavyweights that has seized the green agenda back from opposition groups.

Last Monday, in a speech to the Green Alliance, the Chancellor Gordon Brown paid tribute to the role of the environmental movement in highlighting the scale of the challenge posed by climate change. He supported this rhetoric with proposals for a raft of balanced fiscal commitments, most notably a package of measures to provide low-income families with energy efficient and sustainable homes.

The day after, Secretary of State for the Environment David Milliband published the Government's Climate Change Bill. The Bill proposes achievable medium to long-term targets for the reduction of green house gas emissions, which according to scientific consensus are the cause of the change in the Earth's climatic conditions. A number of mechanisms such as carbon auditing, trading and benchmarking schemes are proposed and have been put out to general consultation until the early Summer.

Proposals will also see the establishment of an independent panel of experts who will monitor the UK's performance in the context of EU and Global agreements on carbon quotas and drive the growth of the UK's low-carbon industry.

In stark contrast to the Conservative's well meaning but poorly thought out initiatives (in particular their piecemeal proposals around taxation of the aviation industry) the Climate Change Bill has received widespread support. Business and environmental communities accept the economic necessity of restricting the wasteful use of resources but are keen that regulation is matched by financial incentives for those companies, communities and individuals that strive for efficiency or innovation.

The Chancellor's announcements last week (and his expected announcements in the budget on Wednesday) recognise the need for balancing regulation with financial incentives. Further financial incentives are planned in the longer-term by the Secretary of State through the introduction of tradeable personal carbon allowances for everyday activities such as travel.

The events of the past week are a sign of real hope. However, it is only a start and over the coming months, specific Government proposals on energy, transport, waste and planning will be published to underpin that framework.

Government must lead in building consensus with the help of scientists, business leaders and community leaders as to how to develop a diversified and environmentally sound mix of technological and fiscal solutions. It must also continue to show that it is willing to commit in substance (finance and regulation) to the values of sustainability and resource efficiency.

As progressives we must support this campaign. Social justice relies on equitable access to all human and natural resource and it is the poorest communities that will least be able to afford the consequences of a resource-starved society. Building the values of efficiency and sustainability into our economy may mean a change to our lifestyle.

However, it will make the UK into a truly modern, affluent and equitable society.

More facts:

2007 UK Budget Report

Ø A number of environmentally-efficient measures aimed at saving some 6 million tonnes of carbon.
Ø Domestic commitments include:
o the phasing-out of high-energy light bulbs in the UK by 2011;
o the introduction of grants of £300 to £4,000 for pensioners installing insulation and central heating in their homes;
o a 50 percent increase in the amount available for microgeneration grants for homes, and the exemption until 2012 of all new zero carbon homes up to half a million pounds from stamp duty.
Ø International commitments include:
o the establishment of an Environmental Transformation Fund to tackle international poverty through environmental protection; and
o a £50 million initiative in central-Africa to prevent rainforest destruction, led by Nobel Prize winner Wangari Maathai.

For full details visit the Treasury website:
http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/budget/budget_07/bud_bud07_index.cfm.

UK Climate Change Bill

Key points of the draft bill:
Ø a series of clear targets for reducing carbon dioxide emissions - including making the UK's targets for a 60% reduction by 2050 and a 26% to 32% reduction by 2020 legally binding;
Ø a new system of legally binding five year "carbon budgets", set at least 15 years ahead;
Ø a new statutory body, the Committee on Climate Change, to provide independent expert advice and guidance to Government on achieving its targets and staying within its carbon budgets; and a requirement for Government to report at least every five years on current and predicted impacts of climate change and on its proposals and policy for adapting to climate change.
Further details, and David Milliband's YouTube video about the Bill, are available on the Defra website:
http://www.defra.gov.uk/news/latest/2007/climate-0313.htm

EU Climate Change Targets

Last week, the EU leaders also agreed on the following package of measures to tackle climate change:
Ø To cut carbon dioxide emissions by 20% from 1990 levels by the year 2020,
Ø to use solar, wind and hydro-electric power to help achieve this cut.
Ø a target on the use of bio fuels
More on the conclusions of the Summit can be seen at:
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_Data/docs/pressdata/en/ec/93135.pdf

..............................................................................

Hugh Goulbourne, Public policy/Energy and Transport Editor

For many years the way in which we use our natural resources, including the environment, has for the majority of our community been little more than a fringe issue.

The increase in unusual and often catastrophic weather patterns has focused the minds of citizens and policy makers alike on climate change. Experts have indicated that these unusual weather patterns are likely to be linked to the dependence of our industrialised society on fossil fuels. Economists warn that failure to act now will have disasterous effects on the future prosperity of the global economy. Policy makers have proposed a variety of penalties and incentives to encourage a move away from a fossil fuel driven economy. The costs to individuals of these policies has now directed the media and general public to ask the question ‘why should we ask ordinary working people in the UK to pay to resolve this problem?'.

The answer is quite simple. Quite apart from the risk that environmental damage poses to our society, there is the very real threat that profligate use of fossil fuels and many of our other natural resources will lead to soaring prices and ultimately remove our ability to sustain our economy or our society. Oil, for example, as well as being a fuel is also one of the most important materials in the production of many of the products that drive our economies, in particular plastics and chemicals.

Current market conditions encourage profligate use of resources, but cheap flights, cheap cars and cheap clothes now will mean little access for anyone to any of these resources except for the very rich or very powerful in the future. When added to the natural forces of dwindling supply and increasing global demand, caused by rapid industrialisation and increasing populations, there can be no doubt that individuals with fewer financial resources or countries with less military might will have less and less access to important resources.

Progressives have played a critical role in the past in changing society for the better, in our local communities in the UK and abroad. Over the past century and a half, they have campaigned to ensure that progressive values have combined with popular concerns to deliver social justice. Part of the social contract underpinning the concept of social justice is the provision by our communities (and those elected to represent our communities) of opportunity and resource to all.

It follows that without sustainable systems of production and consumption of our natural resources, the very basis of our notion of social justice, will be removed forever. These are values that we have fought for and won over several decades. On issues such as universal suffrage, the provision of universal welfare, apartheid or poverty we now have a shared sense of what is right or wrong, a social contract. We must now add a new element, the concept of sustainability into our way of life and into our economy.

Sustainability is only achieved through eradicating wastefulness from our lifestyles and replacing it with processes and technologies that seek to extract the greatest possible long term benefit from our natural resource.

Currently we heat and power our homes and business with technologies and systems that are wasteful and inefficient. Our use of transport is designed in a way that places the comfort of the individual over the health and well-being of the community. Worst of all we produce energy and resource intensive products (e.g. plastic packaging) for single and short-term use. A waste of our precious resources and a heavy burden on our municipal systems when the time comes to dispose of them.

Undeniably this new element of our social contract will mean that each individual and community must make changes in the way in which we live. However, an economy which builds long term sustainability into its processes must logically be good for business, good for the environment, and good for all citizens, including the most disadvantaged. The time has, therefore, arrived for decisions to be taken which although tough in the short term are necessary for the medium and long term future of our communities in the UK and beyond.

Technology and system advances are already giving us some of the solutions to the challenges that we face. The political challenge now is to engage with our communities and instil a belief and confidence in our collective and individual ability to achieve the rapid change that is required before we cause our own demise. We must resist the argument which says that because it will cost it must be bad for those with the least in our community. In the race to achieve sustainability no part of society will be left unaffected. It requires action right across society from individuals and businesses to Government. The status quo, however, does not provide equally to all in our society and in a resource starved world, it is those with the least who will suffer the most. Only by building sustainability into our economy and lifestyle will we guarantee jobs, transport, energy and all of the resources that are needed in the medium and long term to sustain all in our community.

The real question that we need to ask, therefore, is not can red be green, but do those who are red still have the collective will and desire for activism to fight for a greater concept of social justice?

-------------------

Four things that with your support will ensure that you live in an equitable and sustainable community:

Energy: replace the emphasis on cheap fuel with an emphasis on efficient fuel production and use by:
o Phasing out individual gas boiler units in built up areas;
o Introducing or replacing existing community or district heating systems, with combined heat and power plants (gas and/or biomass);
o Encouraging a dynamic energy production market - remove regulatory barriers/find a suitable site namely areas in need of regeneration and with the potential to offer the skill base such as Liverpool or East London and offer fiscal incentives for companies to locate there and compete to develop renewables, carbon capture and storage, adapt nuclear fission (or develop fusion) for more localised use;

Transport:
o Greater emphasis on pedestrians in towns and cities: traffic free zones, traffic calming and congestion charging;
o Road tolling to improve the condition of and prevent congestion on major highways;
o Efficient and affordable public transport - buses in built up areas, trains between cities and use of waterways such as rivers and canals for freight and passenger transport.

Housing: provide local government with the opportunity to partner with local communities, contractors and suppliers to build larger developments which take advantages of the synergies that are produced by encouraging a range of socio-economic families and individuals to live in a community because it is designed with healthy living and socialising spaces, adequate facilities (shops, restaurants etc); to be energy efficient and with reliable public transport links.

Waste management: retailers and their suppliers forced to pay a cost for excessive packaging - all SMEs brought within local council recycling schemes - set targets for biomass production from waste

MARCH 2007
Red takes on a shade of green
Hugh Goulbourne welcomes Labour's capture of the 'green' agenda http://www.compassonline.org.uk/article.asp?n=502  
Other related material from Compass website: