Archives

rant - Terra Infirma


Browse All

28 October 2011

Is the renewable energy industry getting greedy?

Twitter and the green press is buzzing with the UK solar industry leaping up and down as they fear the Feed-in Tariff (FiT) is going to get cut by the Government. Apocalyptic predictions are flying about - the industry will crumble, investment dry up, the earth will end...

If you aren't an energy geek, the FiT is a premium rate for locally generated renewable energy and it was designed to ensure a healthy return for investors to encourage uptake. The (capped) cost of the scheme is paid for by all electricity consumers.

What's happening now is the price of solar panels is plummeting, so uptake is going through the roof (excuse the pun) - almost three times as much installed as expected - as people take advantage of the better return on investment (ROI). The Government is said to be considering cutting the FiT for a second time to maintain the original ROI.

FiTs aren't universally popular, even in the green community. Commentator George Monbiot has criticised the FiTs for shunting cash from people who are often struggling to pay their electricity bills to those who already have the money to invest in renewables. I wouldn't go that far - in fact I'm a big supporter of the FiT - but I think the industry still has to be mindful where that money comes from - and the current financial pressures on those householders.

If the Government does reduce the tariff to reflect the new, lower cost of solar, investors will get the same return as originally intended, more panels can be installed under the same cap and there won't be any further increase in consumer bills. So what's the problem? Who loses? How will this kill the industry?

Renewable industry players might have to take a little less profit than they had hoped (but no less than they were promised), but why shouldn't the FiT track the capital costs of technology? It is after all a subsidy, not a right.

There's a parable about a goose that laid golden eggs...

Tags: , , ,

Posted by Gareth Kane no responses

7 October 2011

It won't happen by magic...

I am very saddened by a large organisation I know well which has lost its way on sustainability. It had been rated best in class by independent evaluators, but the pipeline of green projects has suddenly dried to a trickle, employees are getting cynical and partners are getting frustrated.

What happened? A change in management bringing a change in management style. In tough times, they say, we must focus on a smaller list of priorities. The revised list has no mention of sustainability at all.

When they are challenged on this, the weasel words come out. Of course we are still committed to sustainability, it's a cross cutting theme, it's embedded in each of the new priorities, we consider it all the time, it doesn't have to be written down to be important.

Utter nonsense.

To do sustainability properly it must be embedded in the culture, systems, infrastructure, strategy and product/service of the organisation. That won't happen unless the leadership say "this is a priority for us, we want you to do it." Clear unambiguous commitment and direction is required.

To say to your staff and partners "we want A, B, C and D", and expect "E" to somehow happen by magic, osmosis or ESP is idiocy.

Tags: , , ,

Posted by Gareth Kane 4 responses

26 September 2011

Does Commerce Trump Charity?

I spent a very pleasant evening on Friday listening to Chris Packham at a Northumberland Wildlife Trust fundraiser (he's vice-president of the Wildlife Trusts). He may be 50 now, Packham retains all the enthusiasm, charisma and rebelliousness of the days when I watched him present The Really Wild Show back in the late 80s - and he isn't afraid to mince his words.

He started his talk with photos he had taken of Siberian tigers in the snow. This took him to the conservation of these beautiful animals and the shocking figures that a tiger is worth $100,000 to the poacher that shoots it, and $300,000 to the guy illegally selling its parts for medicine in China.

He went on to berate what he called "the tiger conservation industry" for hoovering up huge amounts of money, but failing to even slow the decline of the tiger. "The only thing I've seen that works is eco-tourism", he said "You've got to make the tiger worth more alive than dead to local people."

This is something I passionately believe in. In my opinion, much 'charity' is at best ineffectual and often makes serious problems worse - in effect when we sign a cheque we are buying a feeling of "having done something". If you look at international development, the third world countries which are breaking through like India are doing it by entrepreneurialism, not by accepting charitable handouts which can undermine local markets, trapping people in poverty. (If you are interested in this way of thinking, you must read "The Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid" by JK Prahalad - and before anybody gets angry, I'm not including disaster relief in this critique).

Bringing it closer to home, when I started in this career, a surprising number of businesses expected to be given environmental advice for "free" - paid for by the taxpayer in other words. For many years this was what I did - delivering projects where the beneficiary wasn't writing the cheque. Something I noticed early on was that the "free" advice I gave was rarely if ever acted upon, not because it wasn't any good, but because it was seen as free and wasn't valued. Thankfully we have largely thrown off the shackles of publicly funded business support and the bulk of Terra Infirma's turnover is now earned from those who are directly benefiting from our skills, experience and knowledge. We charge them quite a lot of money for this and guess what? Our clients value what we do.

Another great example is the explosion of solar energy in countries which enact feed-in tariffs, creating a market for small generators and undermining the monopolies of the big generators. Those markets are doing more  to ramp up renewable energy than virtually any other attempt I can think of.

The free market is by no means perfect, but I believe in working with what we've got. The challenge is can you harness markets for good? Can you make 'good' financially worthwhile and 'bad' expensive?

Photo © BBC

Tags: , , , , ,

Posted by Gareth Kane 3 responses

9 September 2011

Is this the worst green marketing slogan ever?

I spotted this billboard for a Hi-tec walking boot a few months ago and I used it on Wednesday's Green Marketing webinar as an example of how not to do green marketing. I am both a green consumer and a keen rambler, so I am a prime target for this product and its marketing message, yet it left me cold.

The obvious flaws are the uninspired imagery and the lack of any justification for the claim that this boot is in anyway greener than normal boots - and with rivals as ambitious on sustainability as Timberland, they'd need have to have a good story to tell.

But the real damage is done by that incredible strap-line:

"The environmentally considered walking boot".

Urgh! Apart from the dodgy grammar, and its sheer clunkiness, it means nothing. Where's the wit, where's the insight, where's the passion? Did someone actually get paid to produce this?

Tags: , ,

Posted by Gareth Kane no responses

15 July 2011

Living in the Real World...

When I first got started in this business I used to get patronised a lot. "It would be nice to [be greener]," these grey haired pillars of business used to tell me, "but we've got to live in the real world..." I don't get this so much - maybe those greyhairs have moved on, maybe my own emerging crop of grey gives me a bit more gravitas, or maybe attitudes have changed, but I still find it incredible how many people are stuck in the Milton Friedman/Chicago School of Economics mindset that the only purpose of a business is to make profit.

Look at some of big business/economic stories of recent years:

  • 2011 News International and the News of the World hacking scandal: serious ethical/legal failings have led to a 168 year old paper closing, share prices falling and a huge business deal put on the back burner indefinitely. [Oh, and literally as I type this, the Chief Executive Rebekah Brooks has stepped down].
  • 2010 BP oil spill: causing a huge environmental disaster then failing to appreciate the scale of the impact either on the ecology or local communities. What were they doing drilling so deep? Is oil getting harder to find?
  • 2007/8 Banking crisis: unethical lending and dubious unregulated "financial products" lead to a bubble which, as bubbles do, burst, causing huge economic and societal hardship. Governments have had to bail out the banks as the societal impact of letting them fail would have been devastating.

What's in common? The one-eyed pursuit of profit with no cognisance of societal or environmental realities leading to crises for the businesses themselves, never mind everyone else.

Let's wake up and smell the coffee. Business is a function of the economy which is a function of society which exists in the ecological world. And that, my friends, is the real world.

Tags: , ,

Posted by Gareth Kane no responses

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: , ,

Posted by Gareth Kane no responses

22 April 2011

How Stupid Is That? Green Business Blunders

Here's the sixth Green Business Confidential podcast, entitled "How Stupid Is That?", which is a bit of a rant about stupid green business blunders:

Audio MP3

Or, you can download it here and listen on your MP3 player:

GBC6 How Stupid Is That?

You can get the whole podcast series here.

Play

Tags: , , ,

Posted by Gareth Kane no responses

28 January 2011

Green White Elephants

I read in our local paper yesterday that a neighbouring council had just unveiled plans for a Green Business Incubator using £2.4million of European funding (and goodness knows how much match funding). I immediately put my head in my hands and started whimpering. Why my negative reaction, you may ask? Surely I support green business?

Of course I do, but these green business parks are usually vanity projects, driven by the desire to be seen to do something tangible to promote green business. When I'm feeling really cynical I suggest that the sponsor of the idea is too busy dreaming of the 'handshake in front of the billboard' photo in the press to ask the really hard questions.

My evidence? About 8 years ago my then team were commissioned to investigate green business parks of various types to determine what did and didn't work. A colleague trawled the web for examples across the world and sent out dozens of e-mails with a survey attached. We got worse than a poor result - a sizeable proportion of the e-mails simply bounced. Not a good sign. When he chased the others for replies he found that the parks had either died a death or had evolved into bog standard business parks (and they didn't really want to talk about the green thing...). We came to the conclusion that what didn't work was the whole concept - an inconvenient truth as our conclusions were dismissed by the sponsors of the work*.

Ever since, I have challenged anyone proposing such a park to name one successful working example**. No-one has ever managed to do so.

The broader point are that green businesses are simply businesses like any other. We don't need special business parks, or any other cotton wool. In most instances it doesn't matter if the company next door is a web company or a pizza delivery service. There are some cases where businesses may chose to co-locate, but it is rarely critical to their success.

Green business needs are the same as other businesses - demand, a suitably skilled workforce, a robust supply chain - and the bigger green businesses can help create some of those conditions. If the public sector wants to help, the best levers are to increase demand through green procurement, to level the playing field through the removal of perverse incentives and to accelerate the development of technology though targeted R&D support.

But at the end of the day, a green business is still a business - and doesn't need white elephants.

Notes:

* The sponsor seems to have attracted two potential tenants in the intervening 8 years but construction of those plants still hasn't started as of late 2010. The original estimate for the cost of the project was £25m of public money, but I have read that the overall project is about £135m. According to press reports the project still needs £2.2m of public money for access improvements.

** There are some great examples of business parks that have gone green by engaging their existing tenants, but that's a completely different, and much cheaper, proposal. "Evolution, not revolution" is the key principle for success.

Tags: , , ,

Posted by Gareth Kane no responses

29 September 2010

It's the economy, stupid

Back in the early 1980s, I persuaded my parents to part with the princely sum of £399.00 for a BBC Micro Model B. My initial reaction was to feel a bit let down - all that white-heat-of-technology talk around home computers and the best thing this one could do was putting you in charge of a crudely realised kingdom with a river, fields and mountains (at least until Elite came out, but that's another matter...). At today's prices, that £399.00 could buy you four, yes, four, iPhone 4 handsets, each with about a million times more processing capability and a cornucopia of sci-fi type technology (video, maps, access to vast stores of information) that the 11 year old me would never have dreamed of.

So what has this got to do with green business? Well it demonstrates a number of basic economic principles - new technology starts off expensive until a mixture of economy of scale and innovation makes it accessible to all. But reading some accounts, you would think that renewables, to take an example, were exempt from this rule. "They're too expensive" we keep hearing. Only because they are the exception, rather than the rule. Already, with demand increasing and manufacturing shifting to China and India, prices of solar panels and wind turbines are starting to drop.

By the way, I'm not saying that offshoring manufacturing is a good or bad thing per se, just that once again, in the economic world we live in, that's what happens and we shouldn't be surprised if it does.

Demand also derives technology improvements and recently we have seen breakthroughs in dye-based solar PV technology which could deliver lower costs, higher efficiency and lower carbon footprint. Likewise, electric vehicles are currently expensive, but that's because the extraordinarily lean supply chains that supply conventional vehicle manufacturers have not been built for electric vehicles yet. One manufacturer told me that an extra 1000 vehicles a year would cut his bill of material costs by 40%. 45% of the cost of an electric vehicle is the battery, so, given the innovations in mobile phone battery technology, we will eventually see massive improvements there.

The flip side of this is true too. I once sat through a presentation on a new biodiesel plant for the North East of England. I asked whether it would take waste oils as well as rape seed oil, but the presenter said that to make the economics of the plant would only stack up if they produced pharma-grade glycerol as a by-product so they needed to be very tight on the quality of raw materials. His company later went bust, allegedly because putting that amount of high grade glycerol on the market depressed the price. More supply, same demand = lower prices. Welcome to the real world.

I also have little patience for those who complain that environmental legislation or corporate social responsibility will cost business or the economy money. Hold on, what's a cost? It's an income for someone else in the economy - it's not lost. Environmental legislation protects the world we live in and creates new markets. What's not to like?

Whether or not you like the economy we live in, we live in it and that's a fact. If you run, or want to run, a green business, you'll quickly find you're not exempt.

Tags: , , , , ,

Posted by Gareth Kane no responses

17 September 2010

Blinded by methodology

This week, with great fanfare, The New Economics Foundation has released its latest ranking of 'clone towns' - all those town high streets that have the same old retail stores from the big chains. And the most clone-like town is... [drum roll]... Cambridge.

Cambridge?! Have they ever been there? I studied there for 3 years and have been back many times since, so I know it pretty well. The city centre is based around a thriving open air market around which mediaeval twisting streets meander off towards the venerable colleges and the river. The winding streets hold a cornocopia of interesting shops from tweedy gentlemen's outfitters to second hand camera stores. It couldn't be further from the average bland high street. Given the historic nature of the centre, what big chains there are are rammed into a couple of uninspiring shopping arcades and a couple of wider streets.

And herein lies the problem it seems. NEF were only considering high streets, so in Cambridge's case they seem to have chosen what looks like the average high street and disregarded the rest - ie the diverse majority. Their methodology, applied to that fraction of the city centre, concluded that it lacked diversity - quelle surprise. I asked them why their report didn't even mention the market and they replied they weren't considering markets. Which is a bit like saying a deaf person doesn't have a disability because you're not considering hearing in your analysis.

Why am I ranting about this? Because again and again I see people with blind faith in their methodology to the point of stupidity. Years ago I was invited to take part in a stakeholder consultation on which of 12 industrial sectors the Government should priorities for reducing hazardous waste. About 40 of us assembled in London and diligently went through the scoring process and came up with a ranking of 1 to 12. At the end they showed us the ranking their internal assessment gave which was almost identical but with no 1 and no 12 transposed. They aggregated the two sets of scores and ended up with a final ranking identical to their initial results. Their no 1 had not even dropped a single place despite us ranking it 12. "It looks as if you agree with us!" the organiser declared smugly. There was an uncomfortable pause, which I broke. I started off politely, but as they waffled on, I declared that the day had been a waste of time as our opinions could never change the result. They refused to accept this because they had developed a methodology and they were sticking to it.

In green business, the biggest risk is Life Cycle Assessment (LCA). We are constantly bombarded with studies that "prove" or "disprove" X, Y or Z and if you watch long enough you'll see plenty of proving and disproving of the same thing. My own experience of LCA during my MPhil on the subject is that it is highly dependent on the 'system boundary' you draw around the subject of your analysis and other assumptions you make. I developed an LCA model for very large products and tested using a ship. The model did its own sensitivity analysis and found that most of the input variables that had most effect on the results were highly uncertain assumptions I had made, for example the life span of the ship (which is dependent on scrap metal values as much as anything else) or the trans-atlantic journey I has assumed for it (which depends on world trade patterns). My model couldn't handle these factors, so my methodology (and its limitations) was driving the results, not real world data.

So basically this is a plea not to be blinded by methodology. The results of any analysis should always be put through a common sense filter - and if they don't feel right, check the methodology - paying particular regard to system boundaries. And if at the end of the day your methodology can't handle the real world then don't pretend it can.

And, finally, I don't care how much data is collected, aggregated and analysed, Cambridge is not a clone town. Go and see for yourself.

Tags: , ,

Posted by Gareth Kane one response

1 September 2010

What Makes Me Mad...

... OK, lots of things make me mad, like the Daily Express, wheel bender cycle stands and and people putting 'off' milk back in the fridge, but what really gets me exasperated in the sustainability field is useless advice, mindlessly pumped out to the masses. Here's a classic I saw on Twitter the other day:

If you reduce the amount of bottled water you consume by 2 litres a day, you’ll save around 10kg of CO2 each year.

Right, let's take a closer look at this:

1. How many people consume more than two litres of bottled water a day? A quick Google shows that the average Brit consumes 34 litres of bottled water a year - less than 0.1 litres per day. The Italians seem to top the list with 200 litres per person per year, just over half a litre a day.

2. 10kg of carbon a year. Back on Google, I get a variety of estimates of the average UK citizen's carbon footprint and if I average those, it seems to come in around 10 tonnes per annum. Now I reckon it is much higher, because few of these footprint measures include overseas emissions 'embedded' in the products we import and consume, but let's go with 10 tonnes. I don't even have to get the calculator out to see that this saving is 0.1% of our annual carbon footprint.

3. If you combine the two factors together - if the average person in the UK cut out all their bottled water consumption, they would save 0.005% of their carbon footprint. Hardly worth typing the tip, was it?

So the advice is effectively "stop doing something you're not doing, and you'll make a negligible difference". Great.

Coincidentally, 0.1% is about the proportion of our carbon footprint taken up with that other eco-pantomime villain, the disposable plastic bag. These two things are drummed into us - bottled water bad, plastic bag bad - that one daren't be seen with either, even though they are relatively insignificant from a carbon point of view. I'm not immune to these memes myself - I recently found myself at a Green Festival choosing a bottle of flavoured water rather than plain water as I didn't want to be seen with the latter, even though the former is almost certainly more carbon intensive.

So why the big rant? Because we get limited chances to communicate the green message and it kills me when that bandwidth is filled with such utter rot. If you want to green your lifestyle, you need to insulate your house, adjust your diet and change your travel patterns. Fairly straightforward, but usually avoided in favour of pointless tips.

And similarly with business, you must deal with the big ticket issues. Measure your footprint - no matter how crudely - and identify the hotspots. For many products, these hotspots occur in materials extraction and production and energy required in the use phase. So get on with tackling these rather than worrying too much whether your paper invoices should be electronic or vice versa.

There. Said it. Feel better now.

Tags: , , ,

Posted by Gareth Kane 2 responses

26 March 2010

Really Stupid Designs

You don't have to look far to see plenty of examples of designs that are really stupid from an ecological point of view. Take the humble hand-drier, here are some incredibly inept installations I have come across in recent years:

1. The drier being so close to the toilet door that you couldn't either enter or leave the room without setting it off, unless you were a contortionist. Result - the heater and fan motor kick in three times per visit. Good planning.
2. On a train, in one of these new-fangled all-in-one sink systems, I managed to get the tap and the drier to operate at the same time, so the latter was trying to dry a stream of water. Brilliant.
3. In a combined towel dispenser/drier/bin, you couldn't put a used paper towel in the bin without triggering the drier, drying your already dry hands. Genius.
I'm sure you could think of many more examples in other applications (post them in the comments if you do). We sometimes get caught up in a muddle trying to develop breakthrough new green products, but I can't help thinking there's a lot to be gained by simply eliminating really stupid design.

Tags: , ,

Posted by Gareth Kane no responses

10 December 2008

Five stupid questions I get asked about environmental consultancy

1. Why would a hard pressed business be bothered with the environment?

I reviewed 26 environmental health checks I carried out over the last two years for companies whose activities range from catering to pharmaceuticals. The average financial saving identified from waste minimisation, water conservation and energy efficiency measures was £175 000 per annum. Next question.

2. Would your clients reduce waste if it didn't save them money?

Frankly, I don't care. My job is to improve my clients' business performance by addressing their waste, energy, raw material and water issues either for direct economic/legislative benefit or to improve their environmental reputation. I don't expect them to start hugging trees or wearing sandals.

3. Are you not rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic?

My priority as a consultant is to meet my clients' needs rather than save the planet, but from an environmental point of view, in my career I have diverted at least a half million tonnes of waste from landfill into further economic use. Energy/carbon-saving benefits have been delivered on a similar scale. And there are thousands of other environmental consultants out there…

4. Is this not just a fad?

No. Environmental legislation has been tightening since the Clean Air Acts of the 1950s. They said it was a fad in the 60s, the 70s, the 80s, the 90s and this decade too. It ain't going away.

5. Should you really be profiting from the environment?

Why not? I'd rather make profit from preventing damage to the environment than causing it.

Tags: , , ,

Posted by Gareth Kane no responses

3 December 2008

The myth of the environment and recession...

...is that the environment and sustainability can only be addressed when there is plenty of money about.

Let's be blunt - the current economic situation is good for the environment - we are driving less, insulating our houses more, and are likely to buy less tat with which to disappoint our loved ones on Christmas Day. But saving the world shouldn't be about living in poverty.

On a business level, there are two proven ways of surviving an economic downturn. One is to cut unnecessary costs, the other is to innovate.

It constantly staggers me that companies immediately try to cut staff costs. OK, if you have far too many people standing about doing nothing, then you should have already got rid of them. But if you cut your workforce, you cut your ability to respond to the inevitable upturn when the recession ends. The same people see waste and utility costs as a fixed cost of doing business which is complete nonsense. And with the true cost of waste being about 10 times the cost of disposal, there are massive cost savings to be made which will make your business more productive, not less. We found an average of £175k pa savings in 26 businesses in a raft of industries - and you don't have to make redundancy payments for waste.

Turning to innovation - it is well known that markets for green products are expanding fast and, in some - say white goods or baby food - the eco- end of the market dominates the 'conventional' by a factor of 3-4:1. Other sectors will follow, if they get the quality and labelling issues right more than anything else. Is it a surprise that the new electric Mini has just been launched when the big 3 US car companies are staring the grim reaper in the face?

The sustainability agenda does have the scope to help a business through the economic downturn. It's a pity the myth makers don't understand that!

Tags: , , ,

Posted by Gareth Kane no responses

13 November 2008

Beware the old 'Bait & Switch'

I'm on the train back North having attended the Skillfair Consultants Conference in London - I go every year to learn from other boutique and solo consultants with a wide range of skills and services. One of the great grumbles at these sessions is the perception of the 'big name consultancies' as low risk compared to smaller operators, when the smaller operator will be cheaper, and, more importantly, you will always get the principal consultant working on your project.

The old trick of buttering up a client with senior staff until signing the contract and then appointing naive beginners to deliver the project is known in the trade as 'bait and switch'. I recently heard a first hand account (from the frustrated client) of a case where the client wanted to compare the carbon footprints of their numerous but similar sites. The well known firm they employed dropped a different team of juniors into each site (thus maximising fees in a short timeframe) and, lo, each team measured the footprint of their designated site in a different way rendering the comparison useless. Would a one-man-band have done the same? Very unlikely - it would be very inefficient to invent multiple methods - and they wouldn't stay in business for long if they were so incompetent to do so.

The moral of the story is that big isn't always better. Choose carefully...

Tags: , , ,

Posted by Gareth Kane no responses

8 August 2008

Are they crazy? Or do they think I am?

Maybe it's just because it is summer, but I'm getting lots of crazy offers from telesales people recently.

Typically the spiel is along the lines of:

"We're running this fantastic event about sustainable [procurement/strategy etc]. We've been given your name as you are a leading [reads something verbatim off the front page of our website - dead giveaway]. Would you be interested?"

The killer punchline, if I let the call run its course, is they usually want me to pay to give a seminar to a room full of people who are desperate to open their fat wallets, but who haven't a clue where to get help.

I now stop them in their tracks. "If you want me to deliver a seminar it will cost you £X 000".

My seminars are of value to attendees, therefore I charge. That's what I do for a living - exchange value for money. These people are looking for speakers whose sessions have negative value, otherwise they wouldn't have to pay to deliver them. You get what you pay for...

Tags: ,

Posted by Gareth Kane one response

25 July 2008

Lies, damn lies, but where do they get those statistics?

I was at an event the other week where a keynote speaker put up a picture of an ancient Landrover and said "This is my car. I'm eco-friendly as the emissions from vehicle production are much higher than those in use, so keeping it on the road is the right thing to do!"

"Rubbish" thought I (or words to that effect). But I gave him the benefit of the doubt and looked up some published stats, and as you can see the use phase comes to 80% and the manufacture 18%.

Toyota Gasoline Vehicle CO2 Emissions:

Driving 72%
Fuel production 8%
Vehicle production 6%
Material production 12%
Others 2%

But everybody knows this - who on earth told him the opposite?

Another one...

In May's ENDS Report, a Rosi Fieldson is quoted as saying "The more technologies that are put into a home, the higher the embodied carbon [ie that required to produce materials, components and build the house] becomes. Currently embodied energy is 15% of energy used over the building's life time .... In a zero carbon home this would rise to 80-90%."

Well either Dr Fieldson has been misquoted or she needs to go back to primary school to sort out her maths. It's a percentage! If you cut one part of the pie, the percentage taken by the other must go up because the two parts must add up to 100!

Strictly speaking the embodied energy of a zero carbon home should be 100% of lifetime energy, because the usage (non-renewable) energy is 0%. But it doesn't tell you whether the amount of embodied energy goes up or down...

I think I'm going to go and lie down in a darkened room...

Tags: , , ,

Posted by Gareth Kane no responses

Free monthly bulletin:

By Gareth Kane

Everything you need to know to integrate sustainability into the DNA of your business.

Submit button

By Gareth Kane

A highly accessible, practical guide to those who want to introduce sustainability into their business or organization quickly and effectively.

Submit button

Learn how to help your business go green from the comfort of your desk..

View events