carbon trust - Terra Infirma

Archives

carbontrust Terra Infirma

Browse All

6 June 2011

Do we need the Carbon & Energy Saving Trusts?

Compared to the furore over other UK Government cuts, the announcement that two key environmental quangos, the Carbon Trust and the Energy Saving Trust, are losing their core funding has been met with a rather muted response. For those who don't know the CT focussed on cutting emissions in industry and the EST domestic emissions. Except for industrial transport emissions which the EST covered. (Why? Answers on the back of a postcard...)

I used to have a contract with Envirowise - the waste/everything-except-energy equivalent of the CT/EST. All of these UK environmental quangos have a similar structure - a core service augmented by huge numbers of consultants who have to go through a rigourous selection procedure and then get called upon to deliver services - usually at no cost to the 'client'. For what it's worth here are my views on the limitations of this approach:

If you offer a service for free, human nature means it will not be valued by the beneficiaries. I suspect that the vast majority of the recommendations I gave business were not acted upon - not because they weren't great ideas, but because the 'client' had no stake in the process;

If the business case for energy efficiency/waste minimisation and water conservation is as strong as we all say it is, why should private industry get the services at the taxpayers' expense? And it reinforces the idea that 'the environment' is something society has to take responsibility for, rather than individual companies;

The quangos recruit a huge number of talented people, beat them down on price and then tell them exactly how to deliver the services. This delivery is so oriented towards delivering the targets that Government have set the quango, that any creativity or blurring boundaries is frowned upon;

The offer of 'free' services means that practitioners often have little choice to take part. So rather than having a competitive market in environmental/sustainability services you end up with a narrowly focussed nationalised service, undermining innovation and excellence.

You've probably guessed that I won't miss these quangos if they fail to survive without huge Government grants. That's not to say that the services were delivered badly - all these quangos produced some great literature and guides - it's the overall concept I'm believe is fatally flawed. And I guess that many in the industry will agree with me.

Tags: carbon trust, environmental consultancy, rant

Posted by Gareth Kane one response

29 May 2008

Carbon Trust 'could do better', but can they?

The UK's Committee of Public Accounts has criticised the Carbon Trust's ability to cut emissions as 'pretty small beer'. The committee has listed a number of reasons why the Trust can't be more effective (reluctance of senior executives, EU rules), but, in my opinion, they miss the big one.

The Carbon Trust, along with Envirowise and other similar business support organisations, works on the model of an 'expert' walking into a business, spotting a number of potential improvements, writing them up with some signposting to other help and sending the business the results. This is bound to fail for the following reasons:

1. The 'expert' spends most of the visit trying to understand the operations and has limited time to get under the skin of the business. As a result, savings opportunities tend to be drawn from a generic list.

2. The 'expert' is given no opportunity for trial and error, pilot projects or doing anything particularly innovative.

3. The business has little or no ownership of the solutions and is unlikely to implement them.

This doesn't just go for Government backed schemes, but much traditional consultancy. So what can be done differently?

OK, how about:

1. The 'expert' carries out a baseline assessment of the business's operations.

2. The 'expert' and the client put together an team drawn from the client's staff.

3. The 'expert' briefs the team on the baseline and trains them on what a low carbon business would look like (check out this month's Low Carbon Agenda for a generic model).

4. The team meets over an extended period of time to develop solutions, piloting them and monitoring their implementation.

5. The 'expert' gradually hands over the process to the team so it becomes self sustaining.

Trust me, that would beat the old model hands down. If you want to try it, give me a shout on 0191 265 9850.

Tags: carbon trust, change management, envirowise, low carbon agenda

Posted by Gareth Kane no responses

27 March 2008

Carbon Trust Label Revisited

I saw a presentation by the Carbon Trust yesterday on Teesside. It was excellent and the presenter was full of enthusiasm - helped no doubt by the fact the Trust was the only such organisation to get an increase in funding in the Budget.

Well I was a little disparaging last year about the Trust's carbon labelling of Walkers' Crisps. What I didn't fully realise is that the label is given on a 'reduce it or lose it' basis - so the main purpose is to cajole the manufacturer to reduce the footprint, not just label proclaim it.

Currently the label is only found on crisps, Boots' shampoo and Innocent smoothies. The Trust is working with a huge raft of new companies in 2 tranches, covering everything from strawberries to paving slabs. It looks as if this one could run and run.

Tags: carbon trust, eco-label

Posted by Gareth Kane no responses

20 February 2008

Oil exceeds $100 mark for the first time

The Guardian is reporting that the trading price of oil on the futures market has tipped $100 a barrel - the first time since trading began in 1983. This is obviously going to put further upward pressure on energy prices to the consumer and industry.

It is well understood that energy efficiency is the most cost effective way of cutting bills. Certain UK organisations can get a free visit from the Carbon Trust who will identify some quick wins. However, I recommend setting up a staff committee to brainstorm solutions and filter suggestions from other employees will deliver you a wide range of low or no-cost measures and better motivated staff to boot.

Tags: carbon trust, energy efficiency, oil prices

Posted by Gareth Kane no responses

23 January 2008

BREW funding to be slashed by 50%

I heard yesterday from good sources that the Government is going to slash the funds distributed through the Business Resource Efficiency and Waste (BREW) programme by 50%.

BREW is hypothecated cash from the landfill tax escalator. For the last three years has been used to fund organisations that help reduce industrial waste going to landfill such as Envirowise (waste minimisation), WRAP - the Waste and Resources Action Programme (recycling and markets for recycled materials), the National Industrial Symbiosis Programme (connecting companies who can use each other's 'waste') plus a number of related ventures such as the Carbon Trust (energy efficiency) and a variety of regional bodies. The idea is neat: take money off the biggest producers of waste (providing the 'stick' to reduce that waste) and use it to fund enabling mechanisms to reduce barriers to change (carrots).

As I understand it the national bodies will have their funding cut and there will be nothing for the regions.

Terra Infirma has benefited from the BREW programme: we have a contract to deliver Envirowise work, have obtained subsidies from Midas (the BREW funded North East resource efficiency brokerage) for our clients, and have attended Carbon Trust training, so I admit we do have a vested interest. However it is difficult to understand the logic of diverting landfill tax away from environmental programmes and into the general pot (or the Olympics if you want to be really cynical). It certainly plays into the hands of those who see green taxation merely as another stealth tax. A bad move all round.

Tags: brew, carbon trust, envirowise, midas, nisp

Posted by Gareth Kane no responses

3 October 2007

Environment Agency will require Resource Efficiency data from IPPC sites

The ENDS Report is, well, reporting that the Environment Agency in England and Wales is planning to make the reporting of Resource Efficiency data mandatory as part of Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC) reporting. Only a lack of funds is stopping them doing it sooner.

Resource efficiency* is about getting the most out of every unit of physical input (eg materials, energy, water) into a system. Car fuel consumption in miles per gallon is an everyday example of a resource efficiency measure - miles travelled (output) for every unit of input (gallon of fuel).

The UK Government is extremely keen on resource efficiency as it is very business friendly - increased efficiency will lead to a reduction in operating costs. They have created the Business Resource Efficiency and Waste (BREW) fund which recycles money from landfill tax into schemes that improve the resource efficiency of, well you guessed it, UK business. The schemes include Envirowise (waste minimisation), the Carbon Trust (energy efficiency), WRAP (recycling) and the National Industrial Symbiosis Programme - NISP (industrial symbiosis). The model is quite neat - industry pays for its sins (landfill) and gets 'free' advice on how to stop sinning as a result.

However, there are concerns about how far Resource Efficiency can take us towards sustainability. The high targets required (a Factor 10 improvement over 1990 is the best guess) are extremely challenging on technical grounds, and then there's the dreaded 'rebound effect' which I will discuss at a later date. In the meantime, with it being flavour of the month, British business had better get its head around resource efficiency PDQ and the organisations above are a pretty good place to start.

* Resource efficiency is also known as eco-efficiency

Tags: carbon trust, eco-efficiency, envirowise, industrial symbiosis, nisp, resource efficiency, wrap

Posted by Gareth Kane no responses

28 September 2007

Big Businesses Tackle Carbon Emissions

The Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP)'s fifth annual report into the carbon emissions of FTSE 500 companies shows that 76% of those who responded to its survey have put emissions reduction schemes in place, compared to just 48% last year. This is significant as the 383 companies who did respond are responsible for greenhouse gas emissions totalling almost 7bn tonnes per year - 14% of the global total. US businesses didn't fare so well, with only 29% of respondents reporting reduction schemes.

While this massive increase has to be welcomed, it doesn't reflect how effective these carbon reduction schemes are in practice. It still shocks me how much energy is needlessly wasted in industry - asking a production manager how often compressed air lines are checked, or whether he has a motor management procedure usually results in an red faced shuffle of the feet and a mumbled list of excuses. This is easy money to save - it is much harder to bring in additional sales to cover wastage costs.

In the UK, if you use more than £50k pa's worth of energy, the Carbon Trust may give you a free audit. They reckon they can save most businesses about 20% on their bill. Not bad for nothing.

Tags: carbon disclosure project, carbon footprint, carbon trust

Posted by Gareth Kane one response

Gareth's Blog

Follow Me

Recent Posts

Archives

Archives