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
Wednesday, 17 February 2010
Tuesday Training
Yesterday I was on the trains again, this time down to York to train environmental champions for a public transport company. It was another beautiful early morning - this time misty where Monday was crystal clear, Durham Cathedral appeared lit golden behind the rising and evaporating trails of fog. The two sessions went well and the feedback good.Since Monday, I've been mulling on an insight from Martin Blake of Royal Mail - what book value will high carbon buildings and infrastructure have in 5 or 10 years? Who will want to buy a 'dirty legacy'? This applies to today's client as well, although I'd thrown so much new stuff (ecological footprinting, carbon footprinting, climate change, sustainability, energy management etc) at the poor attendees that I thought this was one driver I would omit. As I write The Green Executive, I'm finding that sustainability is running deeper and deeper into the core of every organisation - everytime I think I've got it, there's another new angle. That's what I love about this job!
Labels: finance, green executive, training, transport
# posted by Gareth Kane : 07:00
0 Comments
Friday, 15 January 2010
The Big Picture (and the one bigger than that...)
I've been writing up my interview with Nick Coad, Environmental Director of National Express, for my next book The Green Executive. He gave a wonderful example of how you need to look at the big picture. National Express started on their sustainability journey by looking internally - risk reduction, eco-efficiency and their branding and reputation management. However it became clear to them that they were part of the solution rather than part of the problem. A shift to public transport use could actually increase the company's carbon emissions, but the net effect would be a substantial cut when you look at the bigger transport picture.So they started engaging with policy makers, other businesses and customers. But they found that the UK Government was more interested in improving the efficiency of each transport mode rather than modal shift - getting people out of high carbon transport modes and into low carbon modes. National Express's paper "More is Less" was proclaimed as visionary in the trade press and shifted the debate several steps forward to look at modal shift.
There is of course an even bigger picture to this. Why do we travel? The broadest definition of the reason is I can come up with is "to experience something that is geographically distant". But technology allows us to experience some distant things (conversations, sights, sounds, data etc) without moving. So the ultimate modal shift in this sector is towards teleconferencing and telecommuting.
And before anyone says it, I know there's yet another, quite enormous picture which is why do we want/have to do these things, but that's going a little too far into the realms of philosophy on a cold Friday morning in January!
Labels: carbon emissions, sustainability strategy, transport
# posted by Gareth Kane : 07:00
0 Comments
Friday, 17 July 2009
Green Wednesday?
And lo! It came to pass that the UK did publish a huge raft of low carbon strategies on one day in July. And as promised, here is my quick guide.1. Carbon Transition Plan
This is the over-arching document of the set. The overall emissions savings will come from:
- 54% - power and heavy industry - through the EU Emissions Trading Scheme
- 19% - transport
- 13% - homes and communities
- 9% - "workplaces and jobs"
- 4% - farming, land and waste
Much of what is in the plan is already known - the four Carbon Capture & Storage demos, more energy efficient housing, smart meters in all homes, but it is supplemented with help for "the vulnerable" - particularly elderly people so they don't bear the costs. One surprise, given the amount of debate on the topic, is that the Government is predicting the amount of nuclear energy in the mix will fall to 8% from its current 13%. Given that the overall pie is set to reduce, this is a significant drop indeed. The inclusion of farming is one aspect which is often ignored.
What is missing? The grid is apparently going to get bigger and smarter, but not regionalised. There is nothing about Energy Service Companies (ESCOs) or Combined Heat & Power (CHP). Offshored emissions from our consumption don't get a look in either - as usual there is a tight line drawn around the UK labelled "our responsibility: their responsibility". This issue will cause debate with developing nations in Copenhagen later this year as they bear much of the carbon burden of our lifestyles.
2. Renewable Energy Strategy
The Government is proposing that by 2020, renewables will represent:
- 30% of electricity generation
- 12% of heat
- 10% of transport
In terms of electricity, there will be a big investment in offshore wind, wave and tidal and sustainable bioenergy.
Feed-In Tariffs were the first thing I looked for and, hurrah, they're there. Except they've been re-named "renewable energy cash backs". While I can see that this might create a bit more public interest than the rather technocratic accepted term, especially the word 'cash', I don't like the term "cash-back". If you are selling renewable energy to the grid, then you're selling renewable energy to the grid, not receiving some sort of rebate. The name might discourage, say community interest companies or social enterprises who want to make some money. But whatever the name FITs will appear by next April and should stimulate the kind of boom in small scale regeneration seen in Germany.
There is a lot of discussion in the document of the Renewable Heat Initiative, but this appears to be a work in progress.
3. Low Carbon Transport Strategy
This one is rather woolly - the two main aspects are:
- low carbon technologies - more efficient vehicles, cleaner fuels, electric vehicle infrastructure and sustainable biofuels.
- better choices - low carbon public transport, more transport nodes, cycle racks at railway stations and 18 more cycle demonstration towns.
Aviation is one topic the green groups have been keeping a beady eye on and the strategy is rather vague here. The Government has said they don't want to see foreign holidays go back to the preserve of the middle classes, but they're being somewhat disingenuous as the big increase in air traffic has been the middle classes peppering their year with a series of city breaks. I always liked the idea floated by the Tories a few years ago that everyone would get one tax-free flight a year (the average Brit takes less than one flight in a year) and then there would be hefty taxes on further flights. This seemed a fair way forward, but it was hastily withdrawn under a barrage from the right-wing press (I suspect the measure would have hit journalists more than most).
Only a small part of the strategy involves 'no travel' options with a weasely statement that home working doesn't always have carbon benefits - it does according to the DfT's own research I read! Home working cuts out aircon, commuting and it encourages the use of local services.
In addition, I would like to have seen more statutory requirements to provide road space or alternatives to cyclists. What about making all footpaths in non 20/30mph zones dual use?
4. Low Carbon Industrial Strategy
This is probably the most dense of the four documents with a whole raft of bodies, quangos and existing schemes being utilised to encourage the low carbon supply chain. I've never been convinced the Government's approach has been correct on this one as it, as usual, revolves around competition for funding (previous R&D/Innovation funds have a 1/8 success rate which means the other 7/8 putting a huge amount of work into the application for no joy) and business advice which tends to follow a one-size fits all approach. I found it difficult to trace through all the finance options in this strategy and I guess most entrepreneurs would as well.
IMHO public sector business advice is almost an oxymoron. Yes, you can get the right people in to deliver it (and I do some), but they usually get caught up in red tape, rigid structures, byzantine rules and target chasing.
Basically green markets will follow demand. Governments can stimulate demand by public procurement, tax breaks for low carbon technologies and penalties for high carbon technologies. This will allow good ideas to penetrate the market (as opposed to those who some committee of quangocrats decides are most viable). Private sector investment will follow the market opportunities and the ideas to exploit them. There is some of all of this in the strategy, but again I found the options dense and difficult to evaluate for effectiveness, which tells its own story.
So, while there's nothing wrong with the intentions of this strategy, it should be sleeker, leaner and clearer and less dependent on public sector intervention.
Conclusions
I could be cynical and say there is very little new in these proposals - and I'd be right - most simply soup up current Government schemes to be bolder and faster in their delivery, or introduce well tried elements that the Government has been foot-dragging on for a very long time, like feed-in tariffs. But what is remarkable is the boldness, scope, ambition and coherence of the plan. Someone has been working very hard to bring all this together and they don't seem to have the caveats and wriggle room which have characterised such strategies for the last 10 years. So why the sudden boldness? Is this a Government on its way out saying "Well we're trailing so far behind in the polls we might as well go for it?" Or is climate change secretary Ed Miliband really a bold visionary, striding out across the low carbon landscape? Who knows?
The plans have generally gone down well with stakeholders, with the only dissent being the difference between the CBI ("more nuclear!") and the green groups ("no nuclear!"). The more reactionary press is trying to spin a "energy bill hike/green stealth tax" line on the fact that domestic energy bills may start rising in 2015 (before that, extra costs should be offset by energy efficiency savings), indulging in some cherry-picking/worse case scenario tactics, but after the shock-horror headlines, the strategies get fairly even-handed coverage.
So, overall, I would give these proposals an 'B+', not perfect, but a big leap forward from the 'C-' I would have given the Government before. To get an 'A' we would need to see more distributed energy, consideration of the UK's indirect carbon footprint overseas, clearer financial incentives and, just to make me happy, compulsory standards for cycle provision on highways.
Labels: feed-in tariff, government strategy, low carbon economy, renewable energy, transport
# posted by Gareth Kane : 06:45
1 Comments
Tuesday, 16 June 2009
Free: 101 Carbon-busting Tips
Now available from the resources page.You can't say I don't spoil you...
Labels: carbon emissions, energy efficiency, terra infirma, transport
# posted by Gareth Kane : 12:49
0 Comments
Thursday, 15 May 2008
Why environmental performance matters more, not less, in an economic downturn
Two things happened to me yesterday that made me think about this:1. someone asked me if they thought the environmental sector would be hit by the so-called 'credit crunch' and associated economic downturn.
2. I filled up my diesel car's tank with fuel for the first time in two months and nearly passed on on the forecourt when I saw the cost.
It is fairly obvious that a good response to an economic downturn is to cut costs. If you have a 25% profit margin, then every £1 you save in your operations is worth £4 of sales.
The biggest cost in most businesses is staff. But if you cut staff you have to pay redundancies, you lose the investment you have made in training and development, and you hit the morale of those you retain. Plus, when things improve, you will have to rush around recruiting and training new staff which is both an additional cost and a delay which could cost you market share.
On the other hand, there are only ever benefits from reducing waste, energy costs, water costs, transport costs, raw material costs etc, etc. So if things are getting tight, why not divert some of that 'redundant' staff time into identifying and eradicating environmental costs? If you do it right, they should more than pay for themselves - and you will continue to see the benefits when sales pick up with the increased margin.
Labels: energy, raw materials, staff engagement, transport, waste
# posted by Gareth Kane : 05:18
0 Comments
Friday, 9 November 2007
Can biofuels be sustainable?
ENDS is reporting that the Department for Transport has set up a watchdog, the Renewable Fuels Agency, to help ensure that biofuels used in the UK come from sustainable sources. This is timely with the Renewable Transport Fuels Obligation (RTFO) coming into force in April 2009, which will require 5% of all vehicle fuels sold in the UK to be biofuels.Biodiesel seemed to go from eco-saviour to eco-demon in record time. Originally held up as a carbon neutral solution to transport emissions, the pressure that growing the crops will have on food prices or pristine habitats. Uber green George Monbiot is particularly critical of the industry and his comments are worth reading.
Paul Mobbs, in his rigorous analysis of the global energy situation,
calculates there simply isn't enough land area in the UK to convert to 100% biodiesel. However, Peter Kendall, president of the UK's National Farmers' Union (NFU), says that there is enough agricultural land to deliver the 5% biofuel target without reducing food production. So maybe the new agency could ensure that the 5% target can be met in an environmentally sustainable way.Of course, as everyone agrees, making biodiesel out of old cooking oil is AOK. I've never seen an analysis of how much fuel could be produced from this source, but if you can get it, take it!
Labels: biodiesel, biofuel, george monbiot, mobbs, rtfo, transport
# posted by Gareth Kane : 12:12
2 Comments
Wednesday, 11 July 2007
Internet shopping: good or bad for the planet?
Internet shopping looks like another area where the "is it or isn't it good for the environment" debate will rage ad infinitum (cf carbon offsetting, biofuels).In his book Heat
, uber-green George Monbiot holds up internet shopping as a potential climate saviour, calculating from DTI data that every delivery van will take three private cars off the roads. But the Times reckons this might not be happening in practice, with the increase in emissions from vans exceeding the reduction in emissions from cars.The answer to this difference in opinion may come from internet marketing expert Graham Jones who was told unofficially that a whopping 80% of home deliveries fail. This leads to a constant flow of delivery vans trying to catch customers in, failing and taking the parcel back to the depot, taking it out again etc. I'm sure you have plenty anecdotal evidence of your own for this, so I won't bore you with my own tales of frustration.
Fundamentally, the problem is that the design of the service fails to meet the needs of the customer. Ideally we would all have large secure boxes to receive goods (actually I have, it's the house of the lady across the road), or, even better, we could stipulate exactly when we wanted the delivery to arrive. Is that really too difficult to organise when any backstreet garage can get same day delivery on car parts? If the so-called 'home delivery specialists' could crack this, then internet shopping could slash emissions from shopping trips.
Of course, this debate focusses only on the purchase of tangible goods. The big environmental benefit of internet shopping is the opportunity to buy products that never take a physical form - eBooks, MP3s, ringtones, movies on demand etc. While these require energy, it is almost guaranteed to be a fraction of that needed to manufacture and distribute the physical equivalent.
Labels: george monbiot, internet shopping, service design, transport
# posted by Gareth Kane : 09:30
0 Comments
Tuesday, 12 June 2007
IKEA shine a light for the environment
It was announced yesterday that IKEA are giving away 9600 energy efficient lightbulbs to their UK staff to encourage them to reduce their ecological footprints. This isn't the first big staff giveaway from the Swedish interiors giant - they gave everyone a folding bike at Christmas to encourage them to cycle to work. 90 promptly appeared on ebay, leading to some snorts of derision, but a 1% unappreciative workforce isn't bad by anyone's standards.IKEA first started down the environmental track in the 1980s. Their emergence as a lead retailer in Europe led to tall poppy syndrome as they started to get criticised for formaldehyde in their chipboard products, excessive packaging and use of PVC. Having initially flirted with an "eco-range", they decided it would be better to reduce the environmental impact of all their products. Adopting the "Natural Step"*, they started phasing out toxic materials, reducing formaldehyde and sourcing wood from certified sustainable sources. Their latest environment report is worth a glance as it is very honest about what they still have to achieve. This is obviously an effective approach as while researching this post I could only find positive comments, apart from anti-consumer/anti-globalisation groups complaining about the amount of product they sell.
* Terra Infirma doesn't recommend The Natural Step in general. The theory is sound, but in our opinion the methodology is over-complicated and difficult to communicate.
Labels: commuting, eco-design, ikea, lightbulbs, the natural step, transport
# posted by Gareth Kane : 10:00
0 Comments
A highly accessible, practical guide to those who want to introduce sustainability into their business or organization quickly and effectively.
