The Joseph Rowntree Foundation published an interesting report about a week ago on vulnerability to drought and heatwaves. A couple of case studies are presented, one of them being about problems facing poorer households at a time when water costs are likely to rise. As you might expect, given the source of the report, there is a strong emphasis on social justice but the report does highlight the dichotomy that arises between the need to reduce water consumption and economic incentives to do that (e.g. rising block pricing) and the inability of poorer household to access water saving technologies or fiscal support. The concent of water poverty is thus brought to the fore.
It's worth a read.
Monday 28 February 2011
Friday 25 February 2011
CABE and Design Council to Merge
No surprise, I guess. And quite probably a harbinger of things to come. This was clearly driven by the loss of DCMS support for CABE. Some concentration of resources to utilise diminishing government support has to be a good thing. Hopefully those resourses maintained will be the right ones.
Carillion buys Eaga
Portfolio Theory and Energy Supply
Chris Huhne's speech at the Royal Geographical Society was, on the whole, a reasonably pragmatic and down-to-earth one.
There was one thing that jarred for me, though. He compared a portfolio of energy supply sources, in this context electricity generation technologies, with financial portfolios backing pension funds etc. And he used those famous words "energy security".
The two things are just not comparable in this way. Financial assets are, in the main, liquid; power generation assets have long lead times and are concrete (excuse the pun). One cannot play power asset the way one can play financial ones. We will build just enough generating capacity and if one technology fails, or proves to be highly expensive relative to others post hoc, then we will suffer the consequences, there's no getting away from it. Sure, a diversity of supply lessens the degree of supply upset but sure as eggs is eggs it doesn't constitue security.
There was one thing that jarred for me, though. He compared a portfolio of energy supply sources, in this context electricity generation technologies, with financial portfolios backing pension funds etc. And he used those famous words "energy security".
The two things are just not comparable in this way. Financial assets are, in the main, liquid; power generation assets have long lead times and are concrete (excuse the pun). One cannot play power asset the way one can play financial ones. We will build just enough generating capacity and if one technology fails, or proves to be highly expensive relative to others post hoc, then we will suffer the consequences, there's no getting away from it. Sure, a diversity of supply lessens the degree of supply upset but sure as eggs is eggs it doesn't constitue security.
Green Economy Council
The announcement and, indeed, the first meeting of the Green Economy Council is welcome in many senses but also prompts one or two negative, or perhaps I should say , critical comments.
First, just an observation. The press release says "The Council will uniquely bring together Ministers from three key departments......". Really? Does the author understand the meaning of "unique" or is this a massive damnation of previous UK governments' inabililty to operate "joined up thinking"?
And isn't there a very important department missing? Where on earth if the DfT? Transport is the source of a very significant proportion of UK emissions so why is DfT absent? (And having Ford UK represented is no substitute).
The cycnic in me also thought "Oh no - not another talking shop!". Perhaps a tad mean, that, and if this body can get things moving then all power to its collective elbow. However, initiatives like this do have a history of non-delivery and, heaven knows we need real action in this area.
Another worry is whether the make-up is right. It's full of the great and the good, mainly from very large organisations. Only one of the many quotes contained within the press release mentioned SMEs who will be absolutely crucial in the proposed transformation. So well done Kate Craig-Wood who said "The Government, through the Council, need to understand the issues that SMEs in the high-tech sector face and the important role they can play in achieving sustainable growth". And notice that she kept it sector-specific. The statistics are staggering - only 0.05% of UK companies (see the lilnk for the exact definition being used here) have over 1000 employees whereas about 68% are in the 0-4 employees bracket.
Another worry is that there seems to be a strong emphasis on the supply side with demand taking a back-seat. I'm no economist but I would have thought that a substantial proportion of green economy actiity has to be UK demand driven - that means, ultimately, you and me - and we know how large is the intention/action gap.
Enough of my whinging - let's hope this is not a "fiddling-while-Rome-burns" situation. It's just too important.
First, just an observation. The press release says "The Council will uniquely bring together Ministers from three key departments......". Really? Does the author understand the meaning of "unique" or is this a massive damnation of previous UK governments' inabililty to operate "joined up thinking"?
And isn't there a very important department missing? Where on earth if the DfT? Transport is the source of a very significant proportion of UK emissions so why is DfT absent? (And having Ford UK represented is no substitute).
The cycnic in me also thought "Oh no - not another talking shop!". Perhaps a tad mean, that, and if this body can get things moving then all power to its collective elbow. However, initiatives like this do have a history of non-delivery and, heaven knows we need real action in this area.
Another worry is whether the make-up is right. It's full of the great and the good, mainly from very large organisations. Only one of the many quotes contained within the press release mentioned SMEs who will be absolutely crucial in the proposed transformation. So well done Kate Craig-Wood who said "The Government, through the Council, need to understand the issues that SMEs in the high-tech sector face and the important role they can play in achieving sustainable growth". And notice that she kept it sector-specific. The statistics are staggering - only 0.05% of UK companies (see the lilnk for the exact definition being used here) have over 1000 employees whereas about 68% are in the 0-4 employees bracket.
Another worry is that there seems to be a strong emphasis on the supply side with demand taking a back-seat. I'm no economist but I would have thought that a substantial proportion of green economy actiity has to be UK demand driven - that means, ultimately, you and me - and we know how large is the intention/action gap.
Enough of my whinging - let's hope this is not a "fiddling-while-Rome-burns" situation. It's just too important.
Wednesday 23 February 2011
New Trees
Hooray! My little project to have the Parish Council plant more trees on the common land has delivered its first tranche. Not many - but more than zero. More to follow next year, hopefully, with a bit more cash in the budget (provided I'm re-elected, of course).
A Lost Opportunity
We went to see Greenland last night - oh dear! The four playwrights involved have growing reputations but this will not, I'm afraid, enhance them. It felt like a 2 hour lecture-cum-demonstration - not really what I believe a £30-a-head theatrical experience should be. Hearts were obviously in the right place but there was next to no narrative thread in the four intertwined "playlets" (a bit harsh, a couple of them did more forward to a degree). Furthermore, the playlets themselves were connected only by the common climate change theme with no other linkage making the whole thing seem something of a rag bag. Sadly this was a massive missed opportunity to engage. The best bit was audience watching. Why are the wierd still so prominent in this issue? It should be mainstream.
Monday 21 February 2011
Apples & Pears?
The Environmental Investment Organisation has recently published an emissions ranking table giving relative carbon intensities for a whole raft of GB companies. (Carbon intensity is defined as as Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions divided by turnover). Fine, but how can I use the rankings? Is it really meaningful to show Aviva, say, as ranking a good number of places above Rolls Royce?
Saturday 19 February 2011
Have you had your energy statement?
And would you recognise it anyway?
Uswitch has recently undertaken a survey which suggests that many people have not yet received an annual energy statement, or didn't recognise it when they did. Am I surprised? Well, no. Energy Cos appear to have "ticked the annual statement box" but if mine was anything to go by they are hardly eye-catching.
Mind you, Uswitch's release on all this is hardly a paragon of clarity - there is a plethora of %ages but no detail of the size of the survey nor where it was undertaken or when. Pinch of salt required?
Uswitch has recently undertaken a survey which suggests that many people have not yet received an annual energy statement, or didn't recognise it when they did. Am I surprised? Well, no. Energy Cos appear to have "ticked the annual statement box" but if mine was anything to go by they are hardly eye-catching.
Mind you, Uswitch's release on all this is hardly a paragon of clarity - there is a plethora of %ages but no detail of the size of the survey nor where it was undertaken or when. Pinch of salt required?
Monday 14 February 2011
FITs and starts
DECC has announced an early review of FITs particularly targetting large-scale solar PV. The reasoning is that that there is evidence (DECC claim) that the budget for FITs could be swallowed by that one technology. (That budget, by the way, was set under the CSR at £900M from 10/11 to 13/14). DECC say that FITs were conceived to promote domestic- and community-scale installations, not large commercial ventures. So far the scheme has done just what was intended, the majority of the over 21k installations registered have been domestic.
The review process will begin with a formal consultation document that will be published in a couple of weeks. This will set out:
- A 'fast-track' review of the tariffs for 'large-scale' PV of over 50 kW and for farm-scale AD.
- A comprehensive review of the Feed-in Tariffs that will run until the end of 2011 and will result in changes in tariffs and scheme design to be implemented for April 2012.
It is clear that the hope is for changes to the tariff for large-scale solar from the fast-track review to be implemented by the time of the Parliamentary recess on 19 July 2011. Fast track indeed! Obviously, notwithstanding that the consultation and conclusions from it will be evidence based, DECC's expectation is that the fast track review will conclude that changes to tariffs are necessary to make large-scale solar projects much less attractive.
Installations generating and accredited for FITs will not be subject to retrospective changes. However, any projects in the pipeline as at the time of the changes will no longer be eligible for the tariff at the current rates.
Solar projects below 50 kW and all other technologies should be 'safe' from tariff changes until April 2012 - unless evidence reveals the need for greater urgency.
It is also becoming apparent that DECC is looking for a more dynamic tariff-setting process to be one result of the longer-term review.
This is all well and good - the desire not to have public funds being swallowed by commercial projects is understandable. However, moving the goal-posts so quickly is going to send negative messages into the market - investors hate uncertainty. It also has something of a whiff of technology picking which we know has been disasterous in the past.
We have to hope that whatever DECC concludes it does not scare the horses. The UK's ambitions for renewables growth are already in tatters and I can't see decarbonisation of the grid happening in the timescale that HMG wishes but that's not reason for stalling what green technology is being brought forward.
Friday 4 February 2011
Green Claims
Defra has just launched a new Green Claims Guidance which aims to steer companies to making their green claims accurate and understandable. This is a relatively straight forward, no nonsense, document really just articulating common sense. It suggests that companies should ensure that their claims
> have relevant and genuine content;
> are made clearly and accurately;
> and can be substantiated.
So, all well and good. What it does do, if the public become aware of it, is provide a good tool with which to tackle poor, misleading or downright inaccurate claims.
What I found fascinating, though, was some of the background research that had been done into consumers' understanding and perceptions of "green" terms. This shows that although consumers are becoming familiar with some green terms, especially the more prevelant ones such as "recycling" and "carbon footprint", they remain confused by others such as "plastic neutral" (a dreadful term I think) and "water footprint". Furthermore familiarity with a terms does not necessarily translate into the appropriate understanding or meaning. This, of course, entails a risk that marketeers' output may not be interpreted in the way they intend.
I won't expand on the report's content any further but it's worth a read if you're at all interested in the perils and pitfalls of trying to promote green ideas or products.
> have relevant and genuine content;
> are made clearly and accurately;
> and can be substantiated.
So, all well and good. What it does do, if the public become aware of it, is provide a good tool with which to tackle poor, misleading or downright inaccurate claims.
What I found fascinating, though, was some of the background research that had been done into consumers' understanding and perceptions of "green" terms. This shows that although consumers are becoming familiar with some green terms, especially the more prevelant ones such as "recycling" and "carbon footprint", they remain confused by others such as "plastic neutral" (a dreadful term I think) and "water footprint". Furthermore familiarity with a terms does not necessarily translate into the appropriate understanding or meaning. This, of course, entails a risk that marketeers' output may not be interpreted in the way they intend.
I won't expand on the report's content any further but it's worth a read if you're at all interested in the perils and pitfalls of trying to promote green ideas or products.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)