It's Not What You Say, It's Who Is Saying It!

It is often said that humans are tribal animals and this appears to be true when considering "controversial" scientific issues such as climate change. Some research reported in the New Scientist appears to indicate that we are more likely to believe someone from our own "tribe" or of like mind than otherwise - no matter if the message is exactly the same. This suggests a need to be pretty savvy about who presents when and to whom.

Another Missed Opportunity

So much could have been done in the budget to boost the government's green credentials. Alas, so much wasn't done.

Perhaps the most telling aspect was hitting oil and gas companies with increased production tax and recylcing it back into lower petrol prices. This is wonderful populist politics that will do absolutely nothing to save energy, to reduce resource wasteage, to boost the green economy. Pathetic!

A New Leaf

So, the Nissan Leaf hit the showrooms, yesterday. But will it revolutionise UK motoring? 'Fraid, not yet. The £30k price tag and 110 miles range mitigate against that. However, it's a major step forward - 'cos a G-Wiz it certainly ain't. So what we need to see is
(i) steady de-carbonisation of the grid
(ii) further improvement in battery technology
(iii) economies of scale.
Point (i) does worry be somewhat - on the affordability front:
(a) nuclear is expensive (and gets, unfairly, massive negative press)
(b) renewables are expensive
(c) CCS reduces efficiency, and so will be expensive.
My poor old pension is going to be squeezed further and further!

Carbon Plan - Is It A, B or C?

I've been up to my eyeballs for the last couple of weeks so have only just got around to glancing at DECC's Carbon Plan document (apparently a "draft" - hedging bets already?). I can't say that I'm overwhelmed. If this is to be the "greenest government ever" (I bet someone is regretting those words) then we really need to see some action, not another plan pulling together existing policies, many of which were instigated by the previous government.

Perhaps that's being a little harsh. The government has, at least, not trashed those initiatives; and some are moving ahead - the document lists a whole raft of actions many of which are tagged "started". The cycnic might argue that it's easy to dream up such a list - true - but some, at least, do have some meat on them. Take, for instance, working on accreditation to back the Green Deal. Or developing a strategy for electric vehicle infrastructure. Both are needed.

There's the odd surprise, too. Such as committing the Treasury to legislate to create a minimum carbon price by next month. Mr Brown's Treasury would never have been bounced into something like that!

So I guess, once again, it's a case of 2 cheers and watch this space.

The Iconic Plastic Carrier Bag

Ever wondered if "Ban the Bag" is fully justified? Well, there's a fascinating report from the Environment Agency that goes a long way to explaining just how we should treat alternatives if our behaviour is to have a positive effect. The report assesses the lifecycle impacts of standard one-use plastic bags and a number of alternatives. It shows that the enviromnetal impact is dominated by resource use and production with transport, secondary packaging and end-of-life management having relatively minor impacts. One interesting way to grasp the impacts is given in the form of a table showing how often alternatives have to be used in order that their impact is lower than a one-use bag. For instance, assuming that the base carrier is genuinely single use (e.g. not subsequently used as a big liner) then a paper carrier would have to be used 3 times for its impact to be lower; for a low density polyethylene 'bag for life' this rises to 4 uses; then for a more durable non-woven polypropylene bag the required uses are calculated at 11; and for a cotton bag we reach an amazing 131 uses. If you assume that 40% of single use bags do actually get used for something else, such as a replacement bin liner, then re-use requirements for other bags, of course, rise. In the case of the cotton bag this is now 173! (I guess I'll just have to carry on with all those cotton bags that my wife dislikes!).

The report does not consider some impacts, such as littering, or the impacts of degradable polymers in the recycle stream. Never-the-less, from my, admittedly cursory, glance this appears to be a pretty thorough piece of work providing plenty of food for thought.