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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)