When is Zero not Zero?

I'd missed this - it is now proposed that 0%=56%. That's the gist of the Zero-Carbon Hub's proposal for 2016 building regs: a "zero-carbon home" may have emissions as great as just 44% below 2006 building regs. This is nuts. These buildings will be around for years and years - not going for stringent regs now will simply burden all of us with the need to cut emissions even further in other walks of life. This was supposed to be the "greenest government ever" - it's hardly khaki at the moment. Oh, and to top it all the HCA will not be required to achieve Code Level 4 for new homes funded via it as previously announced.
What's the matter with the country when its building industry's core competence is lobbying ministers so that it can remain a bunch if feeble fannies foisting crap homes on the poor captive public? Shame on the lot of them.

Proposing the right sorts of actions

I've been enjoying a spell of fairly intensive contract work - hence the gap in blog posts. However, I've now had a chance to glance at DECC's electricity market reform proposals. All-in-all they aim to do the right sorts of things:
1) Long-term firm(ish) contracts for clean generation. These should reduce uncertainty and encourage more clean generation provided that the details can be sorted out. The preferred model is one based on contracts for differences which the market knows all about from privatisation. The trick is pitching the original PPA correctly.
2) Capacity payments. (Bring back LOLP*VOLL??!!??). These are needed to encourage potentially uneconomic peaking/reserve plant. My initial reaction to the proposed capacity margin manager (system operator?) and tender process is that it feels rather clunky and a bit of a step into the dark. My comment re LOLP*VOLL is not entirely tongue in cheek.
3) Carbon price support. Well - I've banged on about this before in this blog. The one thing that will worry a lot of people is that it is likely to benefit nuclear. This is not an issue as far as I'm concerned but does purturb some of my "greener" friends.
4) Emissions performance standard. Again, the devil will be in the detail but, clearly, coalers without CCS will be disadvantaged.
So far so good.

Cancun

I guess I have to say something.

Well, it was largely a diplomatic triumph with no big issues settled and a lot of the agreements being of the "agreeing to agree" type. But it was a step up from Copenhagen and at the periphery there are good news stories. Take Brazil's fight against deforestation, for instance. So what is it with Bolivia? Was this essentially President Morales in teddy-throwing mode?

One has to remain hopeful.

Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics

Today in a report on Boris's change of air quality targets the Grauniad repeats it reporting, first aired in June, that poor air quality results in 4267 (exactly??) Londoners dying prematurely each year. Of course, the Grauniad fails to say anything about the distribution of those deaths. How many are estimated to be 10 minutes premature, or 10 hours, or 10 days, or 10 months? I just hate it when shock horror stories are promulgated without the information to allow one to understand just what's going on.

Sustainable Hospitality

Edie has a short article describing a report from Whitbread on sustainable hospitality. Apparently ten recommendations flow from it:-

·Sharing is the solution for improvement

·Talk the same language

·Educating employees is vital

·Retro-fitting the estate is where the real gains can be made

·The UK hospitality industry needs its leaders to step up

·Sustainable hospitality does not mean living in a 'yurt economy' nor is it 'eco bling'

·The UK hospitality industry has an essential role to play in raising awareness of sustainability

·Consumers care

·Management needs to move away from simple forecasting strategies for business growth and embrace 'back-casting'

·There is a 'green pound' and more should be done to help consumers make informed choices

Seems like another case of stating the bleedin' obvious. Edie's article implies that the report will not be universally available but will be shared with government, the industry and its supply chain. Frankly, if the above is all it really says then it doesn't matter where it goes - it's another case of spouting motherhood and apple pie when some action is what is really required.

To Pair Or Not To Pair

Did you enjoy all that kerfuffle about whether Chris Huhne would be flying back for the fees vote or not? According to Edie it was partly due to the opposition not being willing to pair. Huhne is quote as saying "It is hugely regrettable that Ed Miliband's Labour Party has decided to put short-term political point scoring ahead of the long-term interests of the planet. They are putting the next two days ahead of the next two generations". Of course, Labour has a counter argument about management of parliamentary time to avopid such clashes. Don't you just wish that the whole lot of them could grow up and avoid sounding so infantile in public?

Camden's "Green" Fleet

Edie today reports that Camden has become the first council to launch a fleet of vehicles powered entirely by renewable energy. We're actually talking biomethane from a landfill site here. I always feel slightly equivocal about describing this as "renewable". Afterall, it would be far better not to have the landfill in the first place. However, given that it does exist, congratulations to Camden for taking this initiative.