Subscribe
Recent Posts
Eyjafjallajoekull and all that
Sustainability in the Service Sector - video
Are you part of the problem...
Book Review: Confessions of a Radical Industrialis...
We're coming over all web 2.0...
Archives
News & Views From the Front Line
Friday, 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.
Labels: eco-design, energy efficiency, rant
# posted by Gareth Kane : 12:13
0 Comments
Wednesday, 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.
Labels: energy, environmental consultancy, rant, waste
# posted by Gareth Kane : 07:30
0 Comments
Wednesday, 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!
Labels: green products, rant, sustainability, waste minimisation
# posted by Gareth Kane : 16:54
0 Comments
Thursday, 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...
Labels: carbon emissions, environmental consultancy, environmental consultants, rant
# posted by Gareth Kane : 17:38
0 Comments
Friday, 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...
# posted by Gareth Kane : 07:50
1 Comments
Friday, 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...
Labels: energy, fun, life cycle assessment, rant
# posted by Gareth Kane : 09:30
0 Comments
A highly accessible, practical guide to those who want to introduce sustainability into their business or organization quickly and effectively.
