Jottings from SW Surrey. This used to be mainly about energy but now I've retired it's just an old man's rant. From 23 June 2016 'til 12 December 2019 Brexit dominated but that is now a lost cause. So, I will continue to point out the stupidities of government when I'm so minded; but you may also find the odd post (or repost) on climate change, on popular science or on genealogy - in the latter case particularly my own family.
Saturday, 30 July 2011
To Hypothecate Or Not To Hypothecate, That Is The Question
The Environmental Audit Committee in its latest report rounds on the government for giving environmental taxes a bad name. The Committee claims that the govenment is using taxes to raise revenue rather than to recycle into environmental improvements. Well, yes, isn't that what taxes are for? Can't we get away from this notion that green taxes are some special class. Basically, they're not. In essence they are perhaps better than some taxes in that they are targetted at bads rather than goods. There's some education to be done all round!
I'm No Economist, But.......
Chris Huhne (he of the rather heavy right foot) says that the big six have a strangle hold on the UK domestic energy market (presumably he just means gas and electricity although the article seems to lean towards electricity alone - a not unfamiliar failing in energy discussions) and that the market should be broken up. OK - that's the standard "need for more competition" line. He says "We need more companies and more competition to keep prices as low as possible". But he also says "The UK needs to double its normal energy investment to replace old power stations". (See what I mean about electricity only?). Forgive me if I'm being naive but if we're aiming to drive down prices - presumably to nearer short-run marginal cost - then will we not be decreasing the companies ability to invest? Power stations are expensive things and investors need to know that they will make a return on their investments. The market is not particularly indusive to such investment now - and Huhne's "solution" will only make life more difficult.
Tuesday, 26 July 2011
Warmer Bath
I've just come across a publication entitled "Warmer Bath" which is one of the best guides to domestic energy efficiency (with or without an historic building emphasis) that I have come across. The document is lucid, does not patronise, and has a number of useful features such as a table listing in one place the carbon effectiveness, cost and hassle factor associated with many measures. It's a pity most EE publications are no where near so well written.
Wednesday, 6 July 2011
Full Circle
When I were a lad (and we lived in a cardboard box on the A1 etc. etc.) I recall my mother taking apart old clothing and refashioning it into something "new". Well, it's come full circle. I really like what Worn Again is doing. And well done to Virgin and Eurostart for their part.
Tuesday, 28 June 2011
Mattress Recycling
It's an old adage - "If you don't look, you won't find". Mattresses have always been a problem item when it comes to recycling (I guess that's why they are one of the more commonly fly-tipped items). But - the other day I found this site: JBS Fibre Recovery. So there's really no excuse now, is there? There must be many more like this.
Wednesday, 22 June 2011
DECC Delivery Review
Given that my old stomping ground, the Energy Saving Trust, was one of the principle subjects of DECC's Delivery Landscape Review I thought I should have a look at its findings. To be honest, I'm not overly surprised. The key statement is that EST will lose its core grant funding from 2012/13 but will be expected to bid for DECC/HMG delivery contracts.
Part of the rationale for this change is that DECC should have closer control over what is delivered and at what cost. The Review claims that such control has not be present in the past. Now, it is true that as a private company EST is not accountable to the SoS or other DECC ministers. However, certainly in my time at EST, we would have welcomed more direction from DECC (and previously Defra). We were forever being told "It's your plan, not ours, deliver it how you wish". So the Review is being, at best, somewhat disingenuous.
The document also states that EST has begun to ramp up its commercial operations to ensure that it continues to thrive in the absence of guaranteed DECC funding. True, but it's a big ask by April 2012, and it disguises the radical downsizing that has taken place (to the extent that one big leaving bash was held at the end of March because there just wouldn't be time for all the individual ones).
As a consequence a number of good people have gone elsewhere. One hopes that we are not in baby and bathwater territory.
Part of the rationale for this change is that DECC should have closer control over what is delivered and at what cost. The Review claims that such control has not be present in the past. Now, it is true that as a private company EST is not accountable to the SoS or other DECC ministers. However, certainly in my time at EST, we would have welcomed more direction from DECC (and previously Defra). We were forever being told "It's your plan, not ours, deliver it how you wish". So the Review is being, at best, somewhat disingenuous.
The document also states that EST has begun to ramp up its commercial operations to ensure that it continues to thrive in the absence of guaranteed DECC funding. True, but it's a big ask by April 2012, and it disguises the radical downsizing that has taken place (to the extent that one big leaving bash was held at the end of March because there just wouldn't be time for all the individual ones).
As a consequence a number of good people have gone elsewhere. One hopes that we are not in baby and bathwater territory.
Saturday, 18 June 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)