Reporting the environment

I recently came across an interesting report on the Register. It's a fabulous example of bad reporting, drawing conclusions that are unwarranted from the information.

The piece is titled, 'People have NO BLOODY IDEA about saving energy' and subtitled, 'Those keenest to be green are most ignorant - survey.' I guess they provide fair warning in their titling that this is not an objective report. It is, however, based on a fairly interesting piece of scientific research and the Register were good enough to provide a link to the original paper.

Having read both the Register's article and the original paper, 'Public perceptions of energy consumption and savings', I can agree what the Register reported was not incorrect but the spin they had imparted to a sober little paper was so strenuous it is probably still reeling.

What the original article says is that people are not fully aware of the energy used by their various activities, appliances or embodied in the products they use. From the information presented this is true.

I will even admit, sheepishly, that the contrasting embodied energy costs for glass and aluminium surprised me. I hadn't really thought about it but it seems fairly obvious that this would be the case once I had given it some thought. The melting point of aluminium is around 660C, for glass it is at least 1400C, depending on constituents. From this the Register concludes that 'as a true eco-person, you shouldn't be recycling glass, you ought not to be using it at all.' Well, yes. And no. Unfortunately, at present I am unable to find the sort of wine I want to drink in aluminium cans. Given that I am unlikely to stop drinking wine in the immediate future it is still better for me to send my glass bottles for recycling than not*.

The article continues, 'Again, when asked what the single most effective thing they could do to save energy, the most popular response in the survey was to turn off lights. In fact lighting accounts for a relatively small proportion of the average person's energy use and almost all of us could save far more juice (and carbon) in other ways - for instance by turning the heating down as little as a single degree, something which many extremely keen lightswitch nazis** refuse to do.'

I have an issue with this paragraph. I am not disputing that turning the heating down will save more energy than turning off lights, but there is also no reason not to turn lights off in a room not being used. The Register seems very keen on either/or choices. It might surprise them but it is quite possible to turn the heating down by one degree and turn lights off in unused rooms.

They go on to quote the original paper that states 'participants estimated that line drying saves more energy than changing the washer's settings (the reverse is true)'. My concern with this statement is twofold. One is that I always wonder when I hear such loose phrasing. 'Changing the washer's settings' could mean anything from reducing the temperature by 10 degrees to reducing it from 90C to 30C or more. Looking at the paper's Figure 1 it is quite possible that, depending on what that phrase means, line drying may be a better saver. Difficult to tell; the graph is small with a logarithmic scale. My other concern again is, what does it matter? Both of these are potentially high energy saving. Change the washer settings and line dry.

Never mind though, the Register goes on from this paragraph to state, 'Perhaps the killer revelation from the survey is that it is, in fact, the very people who are keenest and most active about reducing their energy consumption who are the most ignorant.' Despite the exaggeration and emotive language this is, in fact, the conclusion of the paper. People are optimistic that what they are doing is having a positive effect. Their perceptions are not as accurate as they could be. This is a problem if for example, you comfort yourself that the impact of your flight to Australia will be offset by turning the lights out and recycling your wine bottles. It may also be a problem if, as a Register reader, you can only take one action at a time so rather than turn your thermostat down, line dry your clothes, boil only as much water as you need and cycle to work you unplug your phone charger.

The lesson the Register takes from the information contained within the paper is, 'In other words, ignore that earnest friend of yours who recycles religiously, turns off the lights all the time, and unplugs the telly every night... They quite literally have no idea what they are talking about.' Well no, that's not what the paper said. The original paper suggested that better and more accurate information would help to reduce emissions and public information campaigns should focus on behaviours that could have a greater effect - forget the phone chargers and turn down the heating. They conclude, 'It is therefore vital that public communications about climate change also address misconceptions about energy consumption and savings, so that people can make better decisions for their pocketbooks and the planet.' The Register, on the other hand, concludes that we should 'ignore the many worth organisations - for instance the Energy Saving Trust here in the UK, which you pay for through your taxes - which have made us all so ignorant.' I took a quick look at the EST website. The top ten tips did indeed include the admonition, 'Don't leave appliances on stand-by and remember not to leave laptops and mobile phones on charge unnecessarily'. It also, however, suggested sorting out dripping hot water taps, fully loading our washing machines, boiling only as much water as needed, changing to low energy bulbs, turning lights off, closing curtains at dusk and draught proofing, turning your water thermostat down (also reduces the risk of scalding small children) and turning your central heating thermostat down. The information on the site would be improved if each tactic was rated on energy saving effectiveness but the tips given were all generally good and do not seem to me to be making us ignorant. The worst that could be said is that it is not as informative as it could be.

I wonder what the Register gains by subverting a worthy piece of research. It makes no sense to me.

*Ideally glass bottles should be reused. My milkman very kindly takes my glass milk bottles back for reuse. It doesn't need vastly more energy to take them back because he was coming to my house to deliver anyway.


**As a rule of thumb, use of the word nazi in an article not talking about the german fascist movement of the mid 20th century is an indicator of a lack of objectivity.

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.