No one raindrop thinks it's responsible for the flood

Over the last couple of weeks there have been some worrying headlines in the environmental ghettos sections of the various newspapers. For those of us paying attention it has been fascinating. Most of these are appearing now because Durban and the climate change talks are coming up. I’ll link to these shortly but first I want to talk about attitudes and ways of thinking.

The headline that had me thinking was not about ‘the end of the world as we know it’, as so many seem to be, but on a much more prosaic topic, local air quality. The headline in the Guardian is ‘UK government puts thousands of lives at risk over air pollution failures’. It’s an interesting article, one in a long line of news items I’ve seen over the years that have warned that lives are being shortened due to local air pollution, mainly caused by traffic congestion.

What this highlights is a problem of perception and power. It isn’t members of the government who are causing the pollution, although each will play their part, but all of us. It is all of us who drive, particularly in busy cities, who are putting thousands of lives at risk. None of us would intentionally harm anyone but our cumulative actions are doing this. There is a disconnect between our day to day decisions and the effects these have and it is difficult to see how the government, in our democratic country, can make us change. In fact, one of the interesting things to come out of this article is that under the localism bill central government will be passing the responsibility for paying the fines imposed by the EU to the local authorities. In effect our council taxes will pay the fines imposed in an effort to stop air pollution harming us. This doesn’t seem to be the best way of protecting us. The suggestions made by the environmental audit committee are ‘a new national framework of low-emissions zones and a public awareness campaign.’ Both of these are, of course, good suggestions but I’m fairly sure that most of us are aware that we contribute to air pollution by our driving and don’t change our behaviour despite that knowledge.

If we can’t deal with local air pollution where the evidence is obvious and the damage happening to people here and now the effect of trying to get people to take responsibility for their contribution for climate change is even more difficult. There have been concerted ‘marketing’ efforts to discredit the science behind climate change and it has become a divisive and polarised debate. To see this just look in the comments section following any environmental story. It tends to the level of playground ‘debate’. We continue to bicker about whether it is happening, who is to blame and who should deal with it.

The following stories have appeared in the last couple of weeks:

The small island states, whose land will be inundated by the sea, watch with a mixture of despair and anger as countries with higher land seek to put off coming to an agreement on what to do until 2018 or later. Perhaps Norway and Australia can take the refugees when it comes time.

Recent readings of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere have jumped by a record amount. ‘The figures for 2010 mean that levels of greenhouse gases are higher than the worst case scenario outlined by climate experts just four years ago.’

The International Energy Agency (IEA) warns that the world is likely to build so many fossil-fuelled power stations, energy-guzzling factories and inefficient buildings in the next five years that it will become impossible to hold global warming to safe levels, and the last chance of combating dangerous climate change will be ‘lost forever’. What gives this further power is that the IEA has always been a very conservative organization.

I am not totally despairing. I spend a lot of time speaking to companies and organisations that are working very hard to minimise their energy use and their waste production, not because of a green sensibility, although they have that too, but because cutting energy use and waste cuts costs and makes them more competitive. With the advent of BS EN 16001 and ISO50001, the energy management standards, the BSi did a survey and discovered that almost a quarter of businesses they asked did not know what their energy costs were as a proportion of their total costs. The government has recently consulted on a proposed requirement for more organisations to report on their energy use/carbon emissions. I hope that this will play a small part in improving our energy efficiency. As it is small repeated thoughtless actions that are causing the problems I am hopeful that many small positive actions will start to make a difference.

In the meantime, my personal actions are the only ones I can fully control and I do my utmost to minimise my carbon footprint, not least because it saves me money too. 

More on carbon

I do not apologise for being a little obsessive about carbon. I tend to think of myself as being a little ahead of a trend that everyone will, sooner or later, have to accept.

I use the word ‘carbon’ as shorthand for two linked issues. When we look at environmental issues there are usually linked problems, resource and pollution. Resource is to do with the tendency to take so much of a commodity that it is driven into scarcity. Pollution is the effect on the wider environment caused by the waste products of this overuse. When we look at ‘carbon’ the resource issue centres on the fact that we are using astonishing amounts of a finite resource, fossil fuel, to maintain our lifestyles. The pollution issue is the vast amount of greenhouse gases we are releasing into the atmosphere as a result of this.

In my job I talk to lots of people about environmental concerns. Everyone is aware of climate change but awareness of the fossil fuel depletion is almost non-existent. Last week I spoke to a group of a dozen young men in the construction industry, a sector that must be fundamentally involved in the movement towards a lower carbon society. They were bright and focused on doing the right thing environmentally but both completely unaware of the fossil fuel issue and suspicious of the reality of climate change. This week, unprompted, fossil fuel depletion was nominated by a delegate as the single most important sustainability issue at a workshop I was involved in and I was more than a little surprised. I’ve spent quite a lot of time wondering why people seem to be unaware of our predicament. People are naturally aware of the high petrol prices at the pump and increasing energy prices and yet seem not to connect this to a fundamental supply difficulty. George Monbiot recently pointed out that despite being very aware of the issue the last government was not publicizing it at all. The original document is also well worth a look bearing in mind that the IEA have since suggested that peak oil occurred in 2006. I haven’t seen a major change in emphasis with the coalition.

I wonder whether the government is also grouping the two issues as ‘carbon’. There is, potentially, a major resource crisis looming. Our energy security in the UK is falling. Last year we imported over 40% of our natural gas having been very comfortably self-sufficient until recently. This information can be found on the DECC website but is certainly not ‘in your face.’ In addition, making money from commodities has increased over recent years as the financial industry has pushed for and obtained (dangerous) levels of deregulation, so any increase in public awareness could escalate the problem – fossil fuels taken out of circulation to be used as money substitutes resulting in higher prices resulting in even more fuel taken out of circulation.

The results of the reluctance to talk about ‘peak oil’ and the public’s perception that climate change is a government scam perpetrated to justify taxing us at higher rates is that these linked emergencies don’t seem to be being addressed openly. Conspiracy theories abound on the internet but I do suspect that the government is trying to do the right thing (tackle the linked carbon issues) by introducing seemingly random pieces of a jigsaw of legislation. The reason conspiracy theories are so popular is that we all hope that there is someone somewhere who is competent and knows what they are doing. This is what I am hoping for here.

I recently wrote about the government’s Green Deal, which is a glimmer of hope, and this week I would like to mention the Defra consultation on measuring and reporting GHG emissions by UK companies, closing on 5^th July. In the report, ‘The contribution that reporting of greenhouse gas emissions makes to the UK meeting its climate change objectives: A review of the current evidence’ the authors note that the ‘reporting of GHG emissions is considered an important part of the GHG management cycle and a tool for embedding sustainability into a company’. I think that the hope is that a clear awareness of their emissions will remind organizations that, in a time of escalating prices, they are throwing away money on inefficiencies in their energy use and that should translate into a desire to minimize those costs with the desirable knock-on effect of a conservation of resource and a minimization of pollution.

If this is to be an effective measure the best of the four reporting options on the table would be the one that captures the largest number of organizations. For this reason alone I will be ‘voting’ for Option 3: Mandate under Companies Act for all large companies, as it will capture information on between 17,000 and 31,000 public and private companies. Option 2, Mandate under Companies Act for all Quoted companies, would pick up around 1,100 companies but not large private companies and Option 4: Mandate under Companies Act for all companies whose UK electricity consumption exceeds a threshold, would capture 4,000 or up to 15,000 with a lowered threshold. Option 1, Enhanced Voluntary Reporting, would have the disadvantage of all voluntary schemes; there is no level playing field and those who need to do it most will be most reluctant. In addition, if we appear to be taking the softly, softly approach to the issue there will be no apparent urgency to reporting.

My preference, when discussing anything at all, is to get as close to reality as possible. Philosophically, we cannot ever know what reality is. We attempt to understand what is actually real by building models, telling stories or, as they say these days, framing. Given that absolute reality is unknowable I still prefer not to have the ‘facts’ obscured. I don’t want anyone to reassure me that everything will be fine when it won’t. I want to be treated like an adult, someone who will recognise her responsibilities and act on these. Trying to make decisions based on incomplete information is part of life but having information ‘hidden’ from me does not reassure me at all and makes me distrust those who are supposed to be representing me. It would work far better for me to have our government say something along the lines of, ‘We have put too much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, we are having to use more and more expensive (in terms of money, pollution and energy input) fuel which is in increasingly short supply and we must cut back on our use of fossil fuels hard and urgently.’ Of course this would probably be political suicide and so I suppose I support what any government will be prepared to do, the slow piecing together of the carbon control jigsaw. If only it were more comprehensive and quicker coming into force.

The good news, the bad news...

Yet again, sorry for the hiatus in publishing. There seems to have been an awful lot going on here, mostly training, mostly about waste. This is great. Waste is one of our biggest issues as a society. It costs a lot of money to waste as much as we do.

But, what I want to write about today, whilst related to waste, comes at it from a different angle. I want to look at carbon in construction and, in particular, the influence the government’s proposed Green Deal might have to help both the construction industry and society’s need to transition to a lower carbon economy.

This is not new stuff, but I have been presenting at the EcoShowcase events for the last couple of weeks instead of Alison, and had to read up about them. Having done that I thought I’d take the opportunity to blog about them before they leak out of my brain again.

First of all a brief reiteration. Climate change is happening and we all contribute to it in our daily activities. At the same time, fossil fuel is depleting. There is only so much oil, natural gas and coal in the world and we’ve used the easy to extract stuff already. The rest of it is in deep water (Deep Water Horizon wasn’t drilling at the very edge of technical expertise for fun), countries that don’t like us much (and need their resources for their own burgeoning populations) or accessible only using hugely polluting and/or dangerous methods (gas fracking, tar sands etc). The UK, having been energy self-sufficient for years, now has to import gas. Over 40%. That’s a big fall from maximum production as recently as 2004.

So we have two predicaments. We are contributing to climate change and we consider our right to pollute non-negotiable. We are moving into an era where energy will be costly and prices will be increasingly volatile. The strategy the government seems to be pursuing is to try to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, which should also cut our emissions of greenhouse gases. This does not seem to be a wholehearted policy or to be terribly effective at the moment but it’s better than nothing.*

On the positive side there are a lot of competent people working on the Government’s behalf. They keep coming up with great ideas. A lot of these focus on the construction industry. Why?

Construction, as the government’s Innovation & Growth Team (IGT) point out, is a large and complex industry, ranging from huge construction groups undertaking design and highly technical operations to more than a million individual tradesmen working alone. Together the industry contributes around 9% to UK GDP and employs 2.6 million people. More importantly it influenced almost half of our total carbon dioxide equivalents in 2007 and around 10% of our national energy consumption is used in the production and transport of construction products.

Two major strategies that have been influential in promoting sustainable construction are the 2008 Strategy for Sustainable Construction and The UK Low Carbon Transition Plan, produced in 2009 by the last government. Paul Morrell of the IGT comments that, ‘Over the next 40 years the Low Carbon Transition Plan is virtually a business plan for the construction industry’. It’s an opportunity, just as long as the industry looks at it that way and doesn’t lobby (again) to have the requirements watered down.

The IGT, on the behalf of the government, looked at the readiness of the construction industry to deliver a low carbon future and produced their final report last year. There are three overarching actions identified:

• Decarbonise the business throughout the supply chain
• Provide new and refurbished buildings allowing energy efficiency
• Provide infrastructure to enable the supply of clean energy

They also identified a number of barriers:

• Information overload
• Industry structure
• The need for up-skilling
• The gap between the design spec and the actual performance of buildings
• The continued focus on initial capital costs rather than lower operational costs
• The need for workable methodologies for carbon accounting**
• Providing drivers to increase customer demand
• A need to address the current old and draughty building stock

The report is fascinating (and long) and is well worth a look, if only at the excellent Executive Summary.

So one of the clever ideas that has emerged is the government’s Green Deal. Work on energy efficiency for new builds is pretty much covered by increasingly tight Building Regulations, planning and, often, funding requirements through Code for Sustainable Homes and BREEAM, but in the UK we have large quantities of older properties. How do we encourage homeowners, landlords and business owners to improve their properties? Given that no-one has huge quantities of available cash at the moment, the upfront costs can constitute a major barrier together with long payback periods. The government has also identified lack of awareness, information overload and lack of confidence in information and a fear of being taken for a ride. There is an abiding fear of small contractors who will ride into town, bodge a job and disappear without trace.

The Green Deal, which is only available in proposal form at the moment, will be designed to deal with this. It is defined as ‘a framework to enable private firms to offer consumers energy efficiency improvements to their homes …and businesses at no up-front cost and recoup payments through a charge in instalments on the energy bill.’

The Deal is based on eight key principles. The first is the Golden Rule; the expected financial savings must be equal to or greater than the costs attached to the energy bill – i.e. it has to be at least financially neutral to the consumer. Then, the measures must be approved, advisors and installers must both be accredited, the provider must give appropriate advice within the terms of the consumer credit act and take account of the individual circumstances of the applicant, and the consent of all parties, particularly the bill payer, must be obtained. The debt generated by the work stays with the property so that the person benefiting from the work, if the property changes hands, is the person who pays the instalments but this must be disclosed to the new owner/leaser. Finally there will be a requirement to protect vulnerable consumers.

Further work will be needed before this idea is put into practice and potential shortcomings addressed. For example, those living in energy poverty at the moment are unlikely to be able to benefit from the clever funding method. Also, those (like me and one in four homes) living in properties with solid walls are unlikely to be able to pay off the high insulation costs (up to £15,000) using savings from their energy bills. Other options through new Energy Company Obligations are being considered.

The first Green Deals should hit the market in autumn 2012, all being well. That’s great although we might want to speed that along a bit. Just before presenting this at Reading I Googled the current concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. You may know that the Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change was based on the assumption that at 450 parts per million (ppm) we’d probably be uncomfortable but alright. James Hansen of NASA has since presented the opinion that 350ppm is the maximum that we should allow without long-term detrimental effects. The historical level, before the industrial revolution, seems to have been 280ppm. I was really shocked to see that the figure for May 2011 was 394.35ppm. I’ve since come across an article in the Guardian about this but it was in the environment section. Surely this sort of thing should be front page news.

*One of the major problems the gvt have with tackling climate change and resource depletion is that the economic model they (we all) use requires growth to provide us with prosperity. This means that the treasury and the environmental sections of the government are psychotically permanently at odds. They need to see a psychiatrist or, at the very least, a marriage guidance counsellor. And this is even before we look at the other issues embedded in the very idea of coalition.

** There is a consultation out at present looking at how to best report carbon for UK businesses. It can be found on the Defra pages here.

An atlas of pollution.

There is a fascinating datablog from the Guardian showing who is producing what carbon and whether the emissions are increasing or decreasing. The UK is the 10th largest emitter which is rather interesting, especially given our huge contribution to the historic build up of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The close up picture is here. The worst information is that even the global economic slow down has not reversed the increase in carbon emissions.

Low Carbon & Construction - Top Ten Thoughts from Alison

How are the construction industry going to embrace the challenge of the Government’s plan to work towards a low carbon economy in the UK? That is a question that has been considered in the recent report issued by the Construction Innovation & Growth Team working group. It’s a really interesting report, and I thought it would be useful to paraphrase a few of the key facts, findings and recommendations that have come out of it. Alternatively you can access the report here.

1. The UK is committed by law to reduce carbon emissions (Climate Change Act) and due to the significant emissions from built infrastructure, the construction industry have a big part to play in working towards the carbon reduction targets
2. The Government’s ‘Low Carbon Transition Plan’ should be seen as a business plan for construction over the next 40 years
3. Whilst the construction industry has a lot to think about at the moment, the focus on carbon provides a simple and rigorous focus for action
4. For companies in the construction supply chain, their task is threefold:

• De-carbonise your own business

• Build energy efficient buildings

• Provide infrastructure for a low carbon economy.

5. To do this, each part of the construction supply chain (client, designer, buyer/surveyors, site team, final user) needs to understand and accept their responsibilities for creating a low carbon economy
6. To achieve this, we need skilled and enthusiastic people in the industry
7. Currently, there is no accurate understanding of the scale of change required to meet these challenges
8. Carbon presents 4 key opportunities for the construction industry:

• Lots of work – newbuild and refurbs to meet stricter carbon requirements

• Reform the structure and practice of the industry

• Export products, knowledge and skills

• Enthuse future generations to work in a forward-thinking and exciting industry

9. There are barriers that may hinder progress, including:

• Over-regulation and confusing support from Government

• Silo-ism and lack of collaboration and communication in the supply chain

• Up-skilling

• The gap between design and implementation in practice of low carbon buildings

• Focus on initial costs versus lifetime value

• Lack of drivers for change in customer demand, which leads to inertia on the supply side

10. The report has just ONE key recommendation to Government: employ a competent person to make sure we can actually implement the UK’s Low Carbon Action Plan in the construction sector.

Paper towels vs air dryers!

A few weeks ago my colleague, Alison, identified the question, 'are paper towels or air dryers better for the environment?' as one of the most frequent queries she encounters. I don't have a scientific answer for you yet, just another link from the Guardian where Leo Hickman reports 'Dyson and Kimberly Clark in hand to hand combat over paper towels'. This is fascinating and well worth a read, not least because here in full view is a wonderful example of why you should be careful when looking at environmental claims. Essentially Kimberly Clark (KC), a major producer of paper towels (and tissues, loo-rolls, feminine hygiene products and nappies) has published research claiming that warm air and air jet dryers increase the hygiene risks. Dyson, the manufacturer of the Airblade, has responded by saying that their dryers have independent hygienic credentials and have a carbon footprint 70% lower than paper towels. I haven't studied any of the studies used to make these claims and you really need to in order to properly assess the validity of the conclusions drawn about the environmental claims. Dyson compares its environmental performance against 'virgin paper towels' whilst KC remarks that paper towels can be recycled once used. Both of these comments are valid but will affect carbon footprint calculations. Obviously both companies will choose the framing conditions to suit their products. How does an Airblade compare with use of recycled paper towels? How often do KC's paper towels get recycled?

The main point of issue, the hygiene performance, is also worth a look. The comments to Leo's article were very sensible (I haven't read all of them) and pointed out a number of things. One is that our hands are always covered on bacteria. Washing does not remove all bacteria. There is an interesting post here which tells you how to wash your hands and comments, 'the surfactant action of soap helps the running water flush the germs away. That's how it works. It's purely mechanical'. So, as someone in comments to Leo pointed out, the minute you touch the door handle on the way out your hand will be contaminated with whatever was on the last person's hand. Not everyone washes their hands effectively. Not everyone washes! This is not to say that the hygiene of the drying method is not important but that it is not the controlling factor for how clean your hands are when you get back to your desk. The differences in hygiene reported are immaterial in risk terms.

For what it's worth, my preference is to use an airjet, followed by one paper towel, followed by wiping my hands on my clothes, followed by a warm air blower. The clothes option only works when I'm wearing jeans and I haven't had the hygiene risks assessed.

Amusing carbon calculation

My lovely colleague, Catherine, forwarded a link to me showing that the carbon saved by the airline industry closing down for a week was more than that emitted into the atmosphere by the Icelandic volcano. Have a look here. I assume the calculation doesn't take into account the additional rental car and ferry miles for those who were abroad on business and desperate to get home.

Ocean acidification

We talk about climate change in most of our courses and awareness of the issue informs much of what we do. Despite this, we don't talk an awful lot about this very worrying aspect.

One of the reasons that the carbon dioxide we have emitted over the years since the industrial revolution has not produced the higher levels in the atmosphere that might be expected is that much of the extra dissolves into seawater. This is a problem because it changes the pH of the water, making it slowly more acidic.

Seawater has been slightly alkaline for a long time and the creatures and plants that inhabit the oceans are adapted to this. Changes are likely to cause problems. There have been two pieces of news about this within the last week. Reuters reported on the National Research Council's report here. ABC News report a problem with oyster hatcheries in the US. One of the predicted issues with ocean acidification is that shellfish whose calcium carbonate shells need alkaline conditions to form will not thrive in more acidic conditions. This seems to be starting to happen as can be seen here.

Legislation, legislation, legislation - A post by Catherine

The beginning of April was pretty busy in terms of legislation coming into force, so I thought I’d do a bit of a roundup on all the key pieces that will affect most businesses, as well as the odd bit which is a bit more specific!

The Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010 further extends the scope of environmental permitting to cover discharge consents, groundwater authorisations and radioactive substances authorisations. If you currently have a discharge or authorisation for any of these activities, you don’t have to re-apply, they will automatically become environmental permits. Revisions to waste exemptions, which we blogged about previously here, are also contained within these new Regulations. Check the Environment Agency’s table to ensure you register your new exemptions by the end of the transitional period.

The £8 per annum landfill tax escalator continues to raise the cost per tonne, and from 1st April the standard rate is now £48 per tonne for active waste, with inert waste staying at £2.50 per tonne.

The Carbon Reduction Commitment Energy Efficiency Scheme went live on the 1st April. If you have a half-hourly meter and used 6,000 MWh of electricity in 2008, you have between now and the end of September to register here. Last week there was a live question and answer session on the CRC with an expert panel, including representatives from the Environment Agency and IEMA, and you can read the discussions here.

The Flood and Water Management Act 2010 received Royal Assent on 8th April. The Bill was introduced partly as a response to the severe flooding of summer 2007. It places obligations on the Environment Agency to develop and maintain a national flood and coastal erosion risk management strategy. One of the more interesting provisions is the removal of the automatic right for new developments to connect to sewers, which is to encourage the uptake of sustainable urban drainage systems (SUDs). You can read the full text of the Act here.

From April 1st, duty rates for biodiesel and bioethanol increased to the same level as conventional petrol and diesel, but the Biodiesel Duty (Biodiesel Produced From Waste Cooking Oil) (Relief) Regulations 2010 means that biodiesel derived from waste cooking oil will continue to benefit from a 20 pence per litre duty until 2013.

With the date now fixed for the general election, it will be interesting in the coming month to see how the main parties play their ‘environmental’ cards, and what hints we’ll get for any future environmental legislation.

Generating the Future

There is a new report out from The Royal Academy of Engineering which aims to identify 'UK energy systems fit for 2050'. 2050 is, of course, the date by which the government wants us to have achieved an 80% reduction in carbon dioxide generated by the UK. It is also expected to be well past peak oil and heading quickly towards peaks for the various other types of fossil fuels worldwide. The UK is already past peak for our own oil and gas, as we have become aware over the last couple of years of bad winters when there has been increased concern over whether we have sufficient gas storage. Last July the Department of Energy and Climate Change produced the UK Low Carbon Transition Plan which can be downloaded from a link at the bottom of the page here. That was big picture, looking at why we needed to change our behaviour and outlining what different energy using sectors would have to do. This new paper looks a little deeper at possible energy generation systems necessary to achieve the targets set by the Climate Change Act.

It is no surprise that they comment that demand reduction will be essential and that all low carbon energy supply technologies will need to be used including nuclear, renewables and carbon capture and storage. It is also unsurprising that as a fundamental restructuring of the whole of the UK's energy infrastructure will be unavoidable, that the scale of the engineering challenge is massive. They note though, that as the last major investment in our electricity infrastructure was in the 70's and is reaching the end of its service life, investment in renewal would be required anyway which gives us the opportunity to develop an energy system that is 'state of the art'.

The paper concludes that this will require 'nothing short of the biggest peacetime programme of change ever seen in the UK'. They state that this transcends political ideology and call for a strategy informed by a high degree of whole systems thinking and be underpinned by critical evaluation of the economic, engineering and business realities of delivery across a system.

I would recommend having a look at the paper, it is very accessible. These are things we should be thinking and talking about now.

Practical EMS issues or The Thermostat Wars!

In the world of Carbon Reduction Commitments and huge energy spends our little organisation might seem to have insignificant issues. The impact of our carbon footprint is as nothing compared to that of the metals industry in Sheffield or the power generation facilities in Yorkshire or even Sheffield City Council. However, our energy use is a significant aspect under our 14001 system, our energy spend is a significant part of our outgoings, we are an environmental consultancy and, as noted in an internet funny that eased its way though the firewall, no single raindrop believes it is to blame for the flood. We spend a lot of time helping clients focus on their environmental impacts and, as a point of principle, we make the time to focus on our own.

We do have a number of problems when we look at minimising energy use. We lease our splendid old listed building. It is lovely in the summer when we can open the huge sash windows and let cooling breezes into the rooms. The ceilings are gracefully high, and the windows and doors provide astonishing amounts of ventilation. Even in the depths of winter. The boiler is not state of the art and none of the pipework has been relagged since the old asbestos lagging was removed. Oh yes, and the cellar is still contaminated with asbestos dust so we're not going to go down and put foam lagging around the pipes. Even worse for our measuring and monitoring, the meters are in the cellar. The leasor will be sorting out the asbestos issue when it's warm enough to turn the heating off for a few days. Not right now.

So working within this set of constraints there are still some things we can do to cut down on our energy use. We turn off the heating in the areas of the building not in use. The radiators in the meeting room are turned off at the end of each meeting. It's one of our little rituals. The corridors are not heated, except by the pipes between radiators. The radiator in the kitchen is turned off and the single thermostat for the building is kept low. The thermostat is in the building entrance hall which, given the drafts from the front door, means it will still keep the heating turned on even when set to ten degrees (C). It's supposed to be set at fifteen. I have been amused over the last few months to see what it is actually set at at various different times of day. Up to twenty five degrees on occasion. As I understand it you could set it to 100 and it would not heat the building up any better than when set to 15 which is why I don't particularly care that is being moved but it does give me some cause for thinking that we haven't got the energy minimisation message across.

There are always issues to consider when putting together an energy policy. You need your staff to understand and agree with what you are doing. Keeping the building uncomfortably cold means that people are going to sneak in electric heaters. This has health and safety implications because of the requirement to check the safety of equipment. It is also the least efficient way to heat a building, and expensive. If you need to 'police' your heating you are on to a loser; the policer is one person against many. We've seen this recently in the kitchen. As this tiny room is only used to make drinks and heat an occasional soup it has been designated an area where the radiator is kept off. We're in there for five minutes at most. Over the last couple of weeks it has been difficult to know whether to wrap up warm before going in or to strip off. I'm longing for the day when I go in and find one or other of the combatants under the worktop turning the valve on or off.

On the other hand, people who want to work in their shirt sleeves and want to heat a building to make it comfortable for that style of dress might be persuaded to consider a cardigan. I have an elusive memory that the National Trust had a 'Cardi' Policy, though I haven't been able to find reference to it on the internet, but I'm a firm believer in the 'don't turn up the thermostat, put on a jumper' message. I may be biased. Being a woman of a certain age and well padded to boot I often find it uncomfortably warm when my slender young colleagues are sitting huddled in their fleeces. As I have pointed out to them on occasion, they can put on a jumper but I can't respectably take any more clothes off.

So the moral of this story is that we need to reassess our approach and have a discussion where we all reach a consensus on our policy rather than just impose it. This may not be something that can work in a massive organisation but in our company, where we all know each other, it is something we can address. But in the meantime I'm also going to think about how to stop 20% of monitors being left on over the weekend. That's a waste from which no-one benefits.

Carbon tax to boost green spending?

The environmental audit committee says that, with the effect of the recession, carbon trading is not providing sufficient revenue for green investment and are suggesting a carbon tax. See story here: MP's propose carbon tax to boost green investment.