Public Access to EPC Data

At long last - it's possible that EPC data will be more widely available. My ex-colleagues at EST sweated blood a couple of years ago trying to persuade CLG to frame the legislation in such a way that the data could be used to enable targetted marketing. And now - here we (possibly) go. Pity DECC is slashing EST's funding next year so there'll probably be nothing the organisation will be able to do.

Dieter Pours Cold Water on Decarbonisation Target

Well worth watching - Dieter Helm's evidence to the Energy and Climate Change Committee.  He suggests that the aim to reach the 2020 and 2030 emissions targets using only renewable energy is "absurd". He further warned of rising prices and DECC's over-arching optimisim in this area. In fact he laid out a lot of sacred cows for slaughter. Watch it!

'Tis the Season for Doom and Gloom

Now the IMechE is in on the game. In this report they don't advocate a risk czar (see my earlier tongue in cheek post), rather they advocate the following:

1. The adoption by governments of five Engineering Development Goals alongside the UN Millennium Development Goals. These are:    

Energy: Use existing sustainable energy technologies and reduce energy waste.  Don't wait for new technologies to be developed

Water: Replenish groundwater sources, improve storage of excess water and increase energy efficiencies of desalination

Food: Reduce food waste and resolve the politics of hunger

Urbanisation: Meet the challenge of slums and defending against sea-level rises

Finance: Empower communities and enable implementation

2. Provide all nations and leaders with engineering expertise. 

3. Help the developing world to ‘leapfrog’ the resource-hungry dirty phase of industrialisation.

So, more jobs for engineers then? (Sorry, unnecessarily snide comment). But seriously, are we really going to be able to engineer our way out of this problem? I know that history is littered with sceptical comments of this nature that proved false but perhaps, in this instance, history is not a guide to the future? And I'm reminded of those instances so well documented by Jared Diamond in "Collapse" when catastrophe did occur.

Quality vs Quantity

Interesting report from the Institute of Civil Engineers suggesting that local authority recycling incentives risk the production of poor quality recycled materials that cannot actually be reused. The ICE claims that "the progression to a ‘circular economy’ - where recovered and recycled materials are high enough quality to be routinely bought back into use, reducing the demand for goods made from raw materials - could see the waste industry be part of a resource efficiency drive that could contribute 10% to CO2 reduction." I must say that this plays to my prejudices - I've always thought that solely quantitative targets and incentives run the risk of creating perverse outcomes. I'm not saying such targets should not be used - they provide valuable indicators and that is the key - they are indicators. Targets and the decisions that follow need to be much smarter.

PS Proves a point?

One in Five Not Interested

Apparently a recent survey identified that 1 in 5 people are not interested in climate change. So why haven't the other 80% achieved more? It was the wrong question. How many are really doing their bit? Very few (mea culpa).

Time for a Department of Domestic Security?

Time for a little whimsy:

We're familiar with the energy security debate, we're been alerted to the food security one, and then there's water.

Is it time for a new department, or a new "czar"?

Just a thought.

Becoming Crochety

I think I'm becoming more like my father - railing against the idiocies of modern life. Take some of the recent political (and other) noises on education, for instance.

First there was Simon Hughes wanting universities to engage in a massive social engineering programme. That there is inequality in education opportunity is without doubt. However, the way to overcome it is not, I repeat not, to pile on another layer of bias by discriminating against those who have been down a particular "priviledged" education route. No, Simon, the answer is to deliver proper high class state education in the first place. I have been through this debate. I agonised long and hard before spending my hard earned post-tax pennies on sending my boys to a private school. It was against all my political leanings but in the end they received a better education. And further-more I believe society will have benefitted. Not only did I pay my share of taxes to finance the state education system while also paying school fees from post-tax income (a very painful experience as far as the pocket is concerned) but society is benefitting from two better-educated young men, both holding down responsible jobs providing much needed services.

So much for that! Then, yesterday we had all that fuss over measuring secondary schools via the so called Baccalaureate target. What's all the fuss about? One of the services I provide is the estimation of the economic worth of a company or project. Do I go and tell the owners of the same how I'm going to assess its worth? Of course not. I'll use paramaters that I or my clients think are important. So, if HMG thinks it is important to know how many pupils achieve 5 "academic" GCSEs then fine - we can ignore that statistic if we like but at least let us know.

As I said - more like my old man by the day!

That Science Museum Exhibition

Last month I noted the opening of the Science Museum's climate change exhibition. Now the Ecologist reports a spat with environmental campaigners because Shell is the exhibition's biggest sponsor. The oil company's actions are being compared with those of the tobacco firms a decade ago when they sponsored anything that moved before it became socially unacceptable for them to play this role. Well, yes and no. Shell may be a major source of CO2 but until such time as we get our combined act together to decarbonise our energy sources we need them. We never needed the tobacco companies. What is concerning is the apparent statement by the museum's director that the exhibition will not state a position on "whether or not climate change is real". Really?