What is Consumption?

“Consumption is shaped by an array of complex, interrelated factors such as demographics, income and prices, technology, trade, policies and infrastructure, as well as social, cultural and psychological factors. Production activities across economic sectors, including extractive industries, agriculture, energy, transport and manufacturing, are directly responsible for the majority of the environmental impacts caused by the economy. However, it is private and public consumption that are the fundamental causal factors and drivers of change in production activities [1].”

European Consumption

Europeans consume a lot: Europeans consume 43kg per person per day; in comparison, the North American region 88kg and the Oceanic region 100kg per day. According to Friends of the Earth, the reason why the North American and Oceanic regions have such a high consumption rate is due to the fact that people in these regions live in larger houses, drive bigger cars and eat more meat [2]. However, that’s not to say that we Europeans cannot be let off the hook either, because within Europe sustainable consumption is still regarded as an ongoing problem and remains a key topic today. This was highlighted in a meeting organised by the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) and the Danish Consumer Council, and hosted by the European Environment Agency (EEA) this month [3]. The focus is on private and public consumption, because the things we buy contribute, directly and indirectly, through the product lifecycle, to climate change, pollution, biodiversity loss and resource depletion in Europe and other regions of the world. And as will be explained, next, within Europe, this could perhaps be better managed.

Consumption of resources per capita per day, 2000.

Despite resource extraction within Europe being particularly low, we nevertheless are largely responsible for and contribute to high resource extraction in other countries. This is because of the nature of our economy which focuses on services (e.g. banking, healthcare etc) and the lack of natural resources we have ourselves. Meaning, we rely heavily on imports and this results in high resource consumption. Our GDP interestingly is in fact able to withstand and actually sustain this higher and increasing demand. As an example, between 1990 and 2002, resource productivity increased by 30%. However, GDP also grew by the same order of magnitude and yet, no absolute reduction of resource use was achieved. Economic growth is outweighing gains in resource efficiency, and the “rebound” effect means that we are consuming more. In Europe, when looking at the average resource consumption of a European, a large proportion (60%) is dedicated to: housing and infrastructure, eating and drinking, and mobility. This demand is reflected well in the key statistics from the EEA meeting (see below).

The Rebound Effect:

“When enterprises use less energy and fewer materials to produce their products and services, the production costs decrease. Lower production costs, in turn, lower the price of the product or service. And lower prices for consumers mean that – with the same budget – consumers can purchase more of the cheaper product or other products. Rising resource efficiency therefore often increases the demand for natural resources. This rebound effect therefore means that there isn’t an overall reduction in resource consumption [2].”

The Meeting’s Key Points [3]:

• Resource use in Europe is increasing. Resource use per person increased by 9.1% in the EU-27 between 2000 and 2007, reaching some 17 tonnes per person annually. Of the 8.2 billion tonnes of materials used in the EU in 2007, minerals and metals accounted for more than half, while fossil fuels and biomass were approximately a quarter each. Could you purchase more resource efficient products?
• Europe can use resources more efficiently. 87% of EU citizens agree that Europe could use its natural resources more efficiently, and 41% think that their household produces too much waste.
• Europeans use more and more space to live on. The average floor area of dwellings increased from 81 to 87 m² since 1990, while the number of people per household decreased from 2.8 to 2.4.
• Europeans travel more kilometres by car. Although cars on average become more fuel-efficient, overall fuel consumption for private cars does barely go down, mainly because more kilometres are driven.
• An estimated 89 million tonnes of food ends up as waste each year in the EU. This is roughly 180 kg per citizen, wasted in households, manufacturing, shops and restaurants. In the UK, 25% of food purchased is thrown out, of which nearly two-thirds could have been eaten. Composting food waste can help reduce the amount thrown into our residual bins.
• Consumption indirectly uses water. For example, a cheeseburger requires 2,400 litres of water to produce, including the bread, beef and cheese. There are also indirect greenhouse gas emissions from our consumption. Staying with the burger example, producing the average patty results in more carbon emissions than driving 15 km in a large car.
• Current consumption leads to unsustainable waste levels. In 2008, every citizen on average threw out 444 kg of household waste, and indirectly generated 5.2 tonnes of waste in the European economy. And this is just in the EU – no data are available on waste generated from producing products and materials imported from other regions.

Conclusion

Even though technological dependence means we are improving resource efficiency, consumption nevertheless continues to rise. Resource consumption is increasing because of demand for both life sustainable and non-life essential resources (such as technology!). Better education with regards to recycling and lifestyle patterns could help this; in addition to better policy and resource monitoring from governments. Friends of the Earth, also suggest that another way that governments could strategise for sustainability would be to place emphasis on well-being, self fulfilment and life satisfaction rather than a focus on the benefits of material  wealth; although, this is easier said than done. But as mentioned, despite technology helping us, and a GDP which continues to sustain us beyond our resource demands of the past, it would seem that, perhaps, we are being increasingly greedy after all!

[1] http://www.eea.europa.eu/soer/europe/consumption-and-environment

[2] http://foeeurope.org/sites/default/files/publications/FoEE_Overconsumption_0909.pdf

[3] http://www.eea.europa.eu/highlights/unsustainable-consumption-2013-the-mother

Through better maintenance and low cost improvements, such as insulation or retrofitting controls, organisations, can make immediate savings. That’s not to say that the home environment cannot learn from this either. All modern boilers are capable of achieving an efficiency of at least 80%, by taking simple actions to impact their performance.

Here are some tips from the Carbon Trust [1]:

1. Boiler Maintenance: Over time mechanical components can become worn which can affect combustion efficiency. Therefore burners and their controls need to be checked at regular intervals and adjusted as necessary.
2. Minimise Heat Loss – Keep boiler insulation in good condition. All pipe work, valves, flanges and fittings in the boiler-house should be adequately insulated and valve mats/covers should be replaced after maintenance work. Make sure your home is also properly insulated.
3. Implement effective water treatment – The presence of impurities and contaminants in water make treatment and conditioning regimes essential to provide water of a suitable quality for the effective operation of steam boiler plant and systems.
4. Produce a maintenance manual – Detail records of work done, the person responsible, and when they were completed. The formalisation of maintenance in this manner should help ensure that tasks are carried out at the correct frequency and will highlight ongoing problems.
5. Consult your boiler manufacturer – Find out what the recommended TDS (Total Dissolved Solids) level is and compare this with your current operating regime.
6. Consider boiler replacement – In the longer term, if a boiler is more than 15 years old, or if it is showing signs of inefficient operation, it may need replacing. Capacity/size requirements, boiler compatibility and financial and environmental impact must all be considered in the process.

Guides are available which provide recommendations on how companies can cut their heating bills by approximately 10 percent simply by following and carrying out regular boiler maintenance. Whether or not you run your own business or are just a regular home owner, it is a good idea to learn some of these basic tips so that in the long run your boiler lasts longer, and you can also benefit from saving more. At the cost of less, you benefit more.

Considering the replacement: Domestic

As stated in another Energy Saving Warehouse article by Heather Chambers [see 2], there is no obligation for householders to replace inefficient boilers. However, as mentioned above, if is it 15 years old then it is highly recommended that the boilers are replaced because the boiler is likely to be G-rated; as opposed to current new built houses which have to be at least A-rated or 88% efficient.

Considering the replacement: Commercial

For commercial boilers the heating systems are more complicated due to a wider range of temperatures and heat emitters. The selection of boilers is determined by application and physical constraints. To meet regulated guidelines, see reference 3, or ask a heating engineer to advise you.

[1] http://www.carbontrust.co.uk/news/news/press-centre/2012/pages/save-efficient-boilers.aspx

[2] http://www.energysavingwarehouse.co.uk/news/317/20/Choosing-an-Energy-Efficient-Boiler.html

[3] http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/uploads/br/BR_PDF_PTL_NONDOMHEAT.pdf

In recent years, biology and architecture has aligned and the two are becoming increasingly more intertwined. Increasing carbon emissions and the threat of global warming mean that the green building sector is on the rise. In response, architects are becoming increasingly more innovative in their design schemes. They have found that through a combination of integrated natural and built environments, a number of positive results, including: reduced environmental damage, pleasing and innovative aesthetics, economical savings, and sustainability; can be achieved [1].

After all, hasn’t nature already proven itself to be a fantastic designer and developer of new innovative ideas? Every organism has to be as efficient as possible; to utilise effectively, its resources; and of course, in order to survive. Thus, when it comes to architecture, understanding biological phenomena could be both crucial and useful in creating designs for efficient building use – designs that nature has already perfected so flawlessly, through years of evolution.

But, as well as just understanding the external and internal structural lattices and matrices which formulate the organisms’ exoskeleton, architects must also understand the internal processes which come to shape how the organism has come into existence; by doing so, the buildings are then designed efficiently, just as nature strives to be. Analysing and appreciating both the aesthetics and the internal proceedings which develop structures are essential.

Frei Otto, for instance, is one architect who realised the importance of understanding both an organisms internal processes rather than simply admiring its’ structural components. He recognised that natural systems are self-stabilising. Changes in the internal or external environment have a direct consequence on the form, so why not design the final form by imitating the processes that create the form of natural objects? Consequently, instead of just copying what he saw, he wanted to imitate the internal processes by which nature arrives at its form – he referred to his organic manipulations as “self-formation constructions,” where “nature is not copied but made comprehensible. [2]“

Studying natural systems like bamboo, diatoms, radiolarian, birds, crabs, tents and all sorts of other materials and species, Otto’s epiphany came when he began examining the beauty and strength of spider webs [3]. If only, thought Otto, we could stretch man-made structures to such limits that we gain from better economical use of the material – this is where he turned to, soap. Scrutinising properties of soap film, he realised that the surfaces of bubbles are efficient natural machines; balancing strength and lightness, they find the largest possible shape using the smallest amount of material. The film stretches to accommodate both internal and external differences in pressure, but rarely falls apart. It is only at certain fixed point and beyond that the bubbles’ break. This, he realised, was exactly what his roof structure should do. He calculated the degrees of change along the surface of soap film, and used those figures to generate the same structural dynamics in soap, to apply to, the curvature of his roof; carrying through his ideas to the development stage, this lead to the development of the award winning, Munich Olympic Stadium.

Presented with the Royal Gold Medal for Architecture in 2005, Otto’s work has continued to inspire other leading architects such as Norman Foster.

Norman Foster, the designer of the London Gherkin, also turned to nature for inspiration. The ideas behind the London Gherkin came from a peculiar deep sea creature, known as the Venus’ Flower Basket Sea Sponge. Instead of mimicking the lattice structure of the sponge – which is in fact known for its fantastic geometric configuration which gives it its’ structural strength – he chose the sponge for its ability to filter water and nutrients efficiently, and for its ability to manoeuvre water through its lattice-like exoskeleton. Because, not only is the sponge structurally robust, but it provides these other internal benefits as a result of its design, which are transferable to the Gherkin. The London Gherkin: directs the flow of winds from street level and open windows along its spiral body, funnelling it through the buildings offices naturally, and reducing by almost half the need for energy-sucking air conditioning. This is exactly what Foster wanted to achieve [4].

This movement in search of “biomimetic” architecture has forged increasingly unlikely alliances between synthetic biologists, botanists and other scientists with artists, builders and materials makers to make structures that work with nature, not against it. By simply learning to identify with nature, we too, and not just the buildings, are working with it.

[1] http://designbuildsource.com.au/integrating-biology-into-architecture

[2] http://classic.the-scientist.com/news/display/53443/

[3] http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2004/oct/04/architecture

[4] http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/pure-genius/the-buildings-are-alive-in-biology-designers-and-architects-seek-answers/7310

Have you been following the current economic doom and gloom? If you haven’t then I don’t blame you!

The topic of the sovereign debt crisis which has engrossed Europe has been a rather gloomy one. With it came a new language which nonchalantly arose into fruition, for the very reason that it has bandied about amongst television and newspapers for almost too long. Terms such as “haircuts”, “bond yields”, stock market “rallies”, and even nicknames such as “Merkozy” became common vernacular. Speculation on who would default, involuntarily, also would ensue: Who will it be? Greece, Portugal or Spain? And how would we rectify this?

But, of the many areas affected – to date, and for within the foreseeable future – one area stands out in particular – the environment. Because, within the heat of it all: the figures, the graphs, and the stock market rallies; it is easy to forget the connections and implications our economic decisions make; particularly, when we are so concerned about avoiding a double dip recession, and when sovereigns around us are at the near point of collapse.

It was thus enlightening to note that Ban Ki-Moon, UN Secretary General, did not forget the opportunities that could arise of investing in environmental and sustainable measures. He opined that economics was tied to the environment as a, “global ecological suicide pact” [1]. And rightly so! It isn’t all about the money! For, it was the impact of poor decision making, poor regulation, and the opportunity of lucrative gains which caused this downturn anyway.

Therefore, in order to revitalise the economy – in addition to correcting past areas of financial vulnerability – some have described the economic downturn as an investment opportunity to finally tackle global warming and climate change. This article will describe the positives and pitfalls of the economic downturn on the environment. And it will address how we can better use and understand the environment to achieve short term economic and long-term sustainability.

Taking Advantage of the Downturn

Prior to the current financial crisis, proponents argued that the economic downturn could actually be used as an advantage for governments to achieve environmental targets. This is because, as the preconditions of the environment are tied to resource and consumption; it goes saying that a lack of demand in industry and manufacturing would result in lower emissions.

As well as a lack of demand in output, there will also be a lack of demand in services. Consumers will be thriftier; driving less, flying less, and willing to pay more attention to energy conservation within the home – overall, consumers will aim to consume less.

A scarcity of finance from lenders and a fall in consumer demand both domestic and abroad would also mean that organisations would look to reduce costs, and therefore, could achieve this by becoming more efficient; thus, complimenting the aim of reducing emissions around the globe. Waste for instance, becomes an important issue – see below, retailer’s initiatives, bullets 1 and 2.

1. Tesco and Marks & Spencer’s, are trialling new packaging that will keep fruits and vegetables fresh for longer – in order to reduce food waste [2].
2. Sainsbury’s are encouraging consumers to freeze food differently – up to the use by date – instead of, on the date of purchase – to reduce pre-mature food disposal [3].

While, a global contraction in economic activity is not exactly a long-term strategy, the challenge is to seize on this downturn to de-emphasize manufacturing in order to favour cleaner economic activity – re-energising the economy in a more sustainable light. So that once a rise in production and activity does ensue, it is less at the environments expense.

The Downside

On the other hand, an economic downturn may not present an entirely positive situation either.

Due to pressure on both private and public organisations and existing governments to spend less money, green initiatives and investments may not be so forthcoming. It is a conundrum, especially as environmental-economics continues to stress that nurturing sustainable methods is better in the long term for the economy. But instead, because of the immediate lack of finance available to firms, investments in clean technology and other initiatives may have to take the backbench; especially in cases where the only way to improve efficiency is the complete replacement of old systems – this is especially applicable to small firms with low funds: they may have no choice in the matter, regardless. A report from the Carbon Trust and Siemens supports this: It indicates that firms would struggle to find access to finance energy efficient investments within the 2012 year; despite the resulting cost savings that would help cover repayments [4].

In an attempt at cost savings, firms may look to take shortcuts, or may outright choose the unsustainable option. For example, by preferring cheaper less eco-friendly produce; taking advantage of cheap labour markets (imports and exports increase emissions); cutting green promotions which do not draw in finance (e.g. bullet 1); or simply, by disregarding the environmental choice altogether – even reneging on previous promises (bullet 2).

1. Tesco, weighing up whether to phase out carbon footprint labels: due to the high cost and time consuming nature of the process – this saw not much uptake from other retailers [5].
2. Government perhaps reneging on climate goals altogether? In the pursuit of shale gas [6].

If consumer demand and confidence is already low, and governments do not have confidence either – lack of investment and incentive will mean that research and development within the environmental industries will also start to suffer.

The Pivotal Point

The financial crisis and climate change share fundamental characteristics. Both are a consequence of speculative and narrow interests superseding the common interest, both evolved dramatically over the current decade and both have global implications. Both are also about risk and how it is priced and managed—and both have high consequences when risk management goes wrong.

As European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso stated, within 2008 – at the time when the economic downturn was in its beginnings – the troubles affecting the world economy should not be allowed to distract from more serious risks posed by climate change: “One thing we have learned from the financial crisis is that, if we ignore risk building up in the system, it is much harder to manage that risk. We must recognize it early and tackle it.”

In order to use the environment as an investment advantage: we must take into account environmental externalities within investment assets e.g. the price of carbon, or the price of choosing the alternatives (e.g. the above aforementioned, The Downside, examples) – so that the true value of the assets may be accounted for – and this way, governments and investors could then understand how the long term value of the assets changes over time; perhaps leading to better resource-allocation decisions by governments and businesses alike.

As former US President Al Gore, reminds us: investors who fail to realise the cost of environmental externalities could be making the same mistake as financiers who failed to realise the true value of sub-prime mortgages [7]. This is important, because, while the worst impacts of the financial crises are likely to pass within just a few years, the impacts of climate change could be felt for centuries. It is this long-term influence that needs to be understood better – although, some may feel that, perhaps, it’s already too late.

“Essentially nothing has changed in 20 years. We are not remotely on a course to be sustainable [8].”

[1] http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jan/28/ban-ki-moon-economic-model-environment

[2] http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/feb/07/tesco-new-packaging-food-waste

[3] http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/feb/10/sainsbury-food-freezing-advice-waste

[4] http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/news/2135568/report-warns-firms-refused-green-loans

[5] http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/news/2142302/tesco-drop-carbon-footprint-labels

[6] http://www.energyefficiencynews.com/uk/i/4663/

[7] http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/news/2152990/gore-ignoring-carbon-risks-repeat-sub-prime-mortgage-crisis

[8] http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn21465-earth-summit-is-doomed-to-fail-say-leading-ecologists.html

Yet in just less than a year after the incident, how is it that in the poll results of three different market research agencies, the UK support for nuclear is on the rise: and in some cases, eclipsing that of years before the incident. This is most intriguing considering that for the most part of the 2011 year, and more or less in most cases today, the rest of the world still retains its negative sentiment towards nuclear energy – post the Fukushima incident. It is as if the UK has reflected and lifted its downbeat feelings towards nuclear – despite the worldwide display which showed the risk involved when using nuclear – and the UK now, is in full support.

The Polls

The poll results being discussed here come from the following: The British Association Poll (UK Specific – August 2011) [2]; Ipsos MORI (UK Specific – December 2011) [3]; and GlobeScan (World – July – September 2011) [4].

The following reflect the responses gathered, and are organised into categories. The two UK specific polls were collated together under the categories: General Support, Support for New Nuclear Power Stations and, Gender and Demography.

The GlobeScan world poll results, being isolated on their own.

General Support

In two different reports, there is an overall favourability in support of nuclear power:

• In the British Association’s poll: 41% believe that the benefits of nuclear outweighed the risks; compared to a previous 38% in 2010.
• In the Ipsos MORI poll: Overall favourability towards the nuclear energy industry recovered to 40%, the same level as November 2010, and unfavourable opinion has slipped back to 19% from June 2011 (24%), although it is still a little above that of November 2010 (17%).

Support for New Nuclear Power Stations

More specifically, again in these two UK based polls, similar results ensued when asked about building new power stations.

• In the British Association’s poll: Support increased substantially to 23% (2011) from 9% in 2005.

• Within Ipsos MORI: Support for new nuclear plants to replace those being shut down has recovered from its June low of 36% and risen to a new peak of 50%, three points above the November 2010 level. At the same time, opposition has fallen from 28% in June to 20%. Overall net support for new build is now above that of November 2010.

Gender and Demography

It is interesting to note that, despite the differences in how these polls were collected, both polls showed favourability in support from men:

• In the British Association’s poll: Men were more than twice as likely as women to be in favour of nuclear, the poll suggests. 53% of men were in favour compared to 21% of women. Instead, a third of women want future energy investment to be in solar power where a similar proportion of men were in favour of investing in atomic energy.
• Within Ipsos Mori: There were differences between ages, sexes and socio-economic groups. 62% of men support nuclear power, compared to 39% of women. While 36% of 16-24 year olds support the technology, 60% of all those over 55 do the same. Lastly, 68% of those in the wealthiest socio-economic group support nuclear, with only 38% of those in the DE group following suit.

Globe

• The rest of the world, on average, believes that boosting efficiency and renewables would be enough to meet their needs: for instance, replacing most coal and nuclear energy generation (See above). In the UK (and the US, China and Pakistan), there was support for building new reactors; 33% to 37% (See below).
• Countries without operating reactors also showed strong support.

Results

The results were surprising considering the Fukushima circumstances: with the chairman of GlobeScan also acknowledging that the UK and US public view to be quite noteworthy [4]. But, nevertheless, despite the surprise in results, there is also a consistency amongst them. And this must be taken into consideration.

Robert Knight, director at the Ipsos MORI Reputation Centre, offers this opinion: “After the body blow suffered by British public opinion following the Fukushima incident, support for nuclear new build has recovered robustly in just a few months. It seems the public see Japan as a long way away and memories are short, but concerns about the future security of energy supply closer to home are ongoing and persistent [5].”

But this surely can’t be true. If in a global poll (although by a different pollster), other nations continued to show a lack of support for the industry; for example, pro-nuclear France – which is almost just as far from Japan as the UK. And not to forget, the remnants of local Chernobyl, was surely to reside in the minds of UK residents: a nuclear accident which occurred in nearby Ukraine, and is often the subject of case studie within schools and universities alike.

Damian Carrington, head of Environment for the Guardian, offers this suggestion: Nuclear power operators work extremely close with government in the UK – far too closely when it came to the public relations response to Fukushima. High-level employees of the nuclear energy companies are lent to government for free for years at a time. So it would not be that surprising if the official national support for nuclear power helped rebuild public confidence [5].

But, is this enough? Another explanation put forth by Carrington, and similar to the latter concern which Knight raised: is that, the UK is starting to come to the conclusion that nuclear energy could help with the transition from unsustainable to sustainable, lowering emissions whilst still managing to supply the energy demands of the UK. But why would this be UK specific?

Well, does this mean that the government did have a role in changing nuclear depictions? Or, alternatively, is the average resident more concerned about future energy supply? If they are, then, why do they see nuclear as the more viable option in comparison to renewables – which too garners a lot of public attention.

The debate with regard to nuclear energy remains a complex one.  Furthermore, none of these polls will give us the answer.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster

[2] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14847875

[3] http://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/2903/Nuclear-Energy-Update-Poll.aspx

[4] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15864806

[5] http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/damian-carrington-blog/2012/jan/18/nuclear-power-public-support-opinion-fukushima

]]> http://www.energysavingwarehouse.co.uk/learning-portal/uk-supports-nuclear/feed/ 0 http://www.energysavingwarehouse.co.uk/learning-portal/the-influence-of-football-clubs-to-promote-change/ http://www.energysavingwarehouse.co.uk/learning-portal/the-influence-of-football-clubs-to-promote-change/#comments Thu, 12 Jan 2012 14:30:29 +0000 http://www.energysavingwarehouse.co.uk/learning-portal/?p=382 Continue reading →]]> It is half way through the football season and many of you would have journeyed far and wide in order to give your loyal support to your team. As a regional or international brand as well as a club, football clubs have the power to be viable vehicles of social change. With a global reach, they can have influence over the lives of millions. Thus, while we follow our club for its sport, it is not unheard of to hear football clubs acting as philanthropic bodies to support charitable organisations or social causes. Yet, in addition to this, have you ever wondered what your club is doing to tackle change on environmental issues? Do football clubs even care? The answer is yes.

Whilst still managing to concentrate on the results, and the football, football clubs are also contributing in various ways to make a positive impact on the environment at the same time as improving their sustainability.

Promoting Football, Off the Pitch

A host of clubs have been linked with a variety of different initiatives, aimed at improving their environmental credentials, whilst still managing to concentrate on their football. Manchester United only just recently, topped the Environmental Agency’s “Energy Efficient Performance League Table”. A list which ranked 2,000 CRC (Carbon Reduction Commitment) organisations based on energy use management [1].

Tottenham Hotspur too succeeded in their campaign to tackle carbon. Signing up to the 10:10 campaign along with other businesses and individuals, they aimed to cut emissions by 10 percent over the course of just one year. Smashing the target by reducing emissions by 14 percent, Spurs cut their emissions by 400 tonnes over the past year and in doing so managed to curb their energy bill in the process [2].

The club deployed measures such as, motion sensitive lighting controls at training facilities, push taps to save water, and they reduced the heat setting for the training ground washing machines.

Chelsea FC, the first football club signed to London’s Green 500 Campaign, like Tottenham FC, also encourage better environmental performance practices such as the washing of football kit at lower temperatures [see 3].

Regardless of the lucrative funds received from being in the Premier League, other non-premier clubs have also shown that they can play their part. Ipswich Town in 2007 became the UK’s First Carbon Neutral Football Club. In order to achieve this, fans pledged to uphold energy efficient measures in their own homes! The undertaking of 14,000 pledges resulted in a total carbon dioxide saving of 3, 200 tonnes. The club itself also working hard; decreased energy consumption by 20% in comparison to the year before [4].

Not all ambitions go rewarded however. Manchester City wanted to partly power its floodlights with electricity generated by a 360ft wind turbine outside its stadium, but in 2008 it was blocked following fears that icicles might fall from its blades and injure passers-by. Similarly, plans by Deveronvale FC in Aberdeenshire to build a wind turbine were rejected in 2009 [5].

Thus, whatever the aims or goals of such initiatives; implementing proposals is not always easy. Furthermore, despite the rankings of a club’s environmental practices, football is not an area in which people will shop around for the best and most environmentally friendly club. Sticking and showing loyalty to one’s club is of upmost importance in the game. Although boycotts do occur, few if ever change their club indefinitely. Furthermore, it is the fans if anything that contribute highly to the carbon footprints of the clubs. In an analysis by Dr. Andrea Collins of Cardiff University, the FA Cup final between Manchester United and Millwall saw the average fan, that day, leave a carbon footprint seven times higher than the average UK resident [6]. As such, we probably won’t be seeing a boycott on the over use of flood lights any time soon; or boycotts, against the pitfalls of long distance travelling, from one set of fans to another; especially when football fans in the UK have shown that they are never one to refrain from travel.

The only thing that really matters, then, is that clubs at least are taking action. And that they continue to encourage others to do so too.

[1] http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/news/2123319/manchester-united-tops-crc-league-table-virgin-atlantic-sinks

[2] http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/news/2134009/spurs-scores-carbon-cutting-victory

[3] http://www.chelseafc.com/page/Social_Responsibility_Details/0,,10268~1658262,00.html

[4] http://www.itfc.co.uk/page/NewsDetail/0,,10272~1020556,00.html

[5] http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/green-living-blog/2011/nov/08/greenest-football-team-soccer-environment?commentpage=all#start-of-comments

[6] http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/6908507.stm

A consensus agreed by most climate scientists and the public to date and formally agreed by the nations of the Durban 2011 Climate Conference. From this it would seem that nations are starting to look ahead to the future; starting to take action against our own anthropogenic contributions; willing to protect our society against future change; and fighting for a more sustainable future. Thus, it may also seem irrelevant in modern climate change debate therefore to dwell on, past historic emissions. But in the past three UN Climate Change Conference meetings; in Copenhagen 2009, in Cancun 2010, and in Durban 2011; the topic of historic emissions continues to emerge. And furthermore, somebody is always to blame.

It is an indictment of the way in which current national interests and governments continue to be run. When calling for a unity in response so that a new legally binding treaty may be drawn up to limit carbon emissions it is sad that, histories, political grudges and subsequently contestation continues to ensue and be endorsed by, nations not willing to forget. Drawing out the process, these divisions in accord are noticed particularly between the developed, and the developing nations. In the context of historical emissions: the rich should pay in the near future for their past contributions to carbon emissions, global warming and perhaps (in the eyes of some), contributions which have resulted in current climates.

By using this principle to take into account past actions and previous responsibility it seems that some developing nations in particular are eager to hold their ground. India and China for instance in the recent Durban conference called for other nations such as the US, and nations in Europe, to be more accountable within climate agreements [2. 3]. If this consequence is to be taken into account, the developing nations may have a good firm ground in which to stand on:

Data Provided by the World Resources Institute (http://www.wri.org)

However, by looking at historic emissions as benchmarks for treaty agreements it may overlook the true interests of their nations and their ability to uphold the agreement. In the case of Canada, Peter Kent Canada’s environment minister claimed that Canada would not be able to uphold the treaty. He stated that Canada would struggle to meet the treaty (after having missed the first period of carbon emission cuts in line with the Kyoto Protocol) and it would equate to: “the transfer of $14bn (£8.7bn) from Canadian taxpayers to other countries – the equivalent of $1,600 from every Canadian family – with no impact on emissions or the environment [4].” And thus, Canada was formally withdrawn from the protocol last Monday.

Likewise from a developing nation’s point of view the realities of tough reform may not be so achievable either. As one Indian representative put it,”[India] is a country where half the rural population does not have a light bulb in its home, or a gas ring. So to describe this country as a large emitter is absurd – there’s no other word for it [5].”

It is for this reason that in the context of climate change holding countries socially and historically responsible will do no favours to anyone. Particularly as changes in climate, as a result of carbon emissions, is already occurring at an almost irreversible rate already.

Instead a mea culpa approach would be more efficient and applicable here; accounting for one’s own actions instead of the actions of others. By understanding and accounting for one’s actions, naturally, a consideration of one’s social and historic contribution, and responsibility, can be used to aid those under developed and who have less resource to tackle climate change. This was indeed an outcome of the most recent Durban conference which eventually led to, progression regarding the creation of a Green Climate Fund. A fund which would see US$100bn per year distributed to poor countries to adapt to climate impacts [6].

It is notions like this that will help the future development of climate treaties. Let’s just hope that in the next conference; accusations do not arise with regard to historic emissions again, causing a “war of words” and delaying the process to tackle climate change.

[1] http://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/75448744

[2] http://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/Africa/India-gets-its-way-as-climate-summit-in-Durban-closes/Article1-780872.aspx

[3] http://usa.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2011-12/05/content_14213729.htm

[4] http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/dec/13/canada-withdrawal-kyoto-protocol

[5] http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/aug/12/network-copenhagen

[6] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-16124670

]]> http://www.energysavingwarehouse.co.uk/learning-portal/historic-emissions-and-climate-change-whos-to-blame/feed/ 0 http://www.energysavingwarehouse.co.uk/learning-portal/subsidised-funding-for-weaning-the-world-off-fossil-fuels/ http://www.energysavingwarehouse.co.uk/learning-portal/subsidised-funding-for-weaning-the-world-off-fossil-fuels/#comments Mon, 19 Dec 2011 11:49:24 +0000 http://www.energysavingwarehouse.co.uk/learning-portal/?p=370 Continue reading →]]> An interesting debate occurred last week on the online forum of, The Economist [1]. The issue in question revolved around the following assertion:

“This house believes that subsidising renewable energy is a good way to wean the world off fossil fuels.”

Introduction

As the moderator of the forum explained, subsidies are certainly not the only answer capable of weaning the world off fossil fuels. The intention of the discussion was to shed light on the significance of subsidies to the renewable energy sector. It aimed to assess, whether or not, subsidies still have a part to play; or, whether or not, due to a history of poor vested opportunities (see below, The Playing Field), it should abstained perhaps for another day.

As noted, the discussion unquestionably assumes that the world does need weaning off fossil fuels. Taking a perspective against climate sceptics, the world must do so:

• To prevent a temperature rise of more than 2°C—an agreed and albeit arbitrary safety limit.
• To slash global green house emissions by at least 80% by 2050.

For the world’s demands for electricity will more than double, and if clean energy reforms are not underway, it will be almost impossible to prevent the temperature soaring. With the world’s population reaching 7 billion; and emerging and established markets continuing to guzzle various forms of carbon polluting fuels; this should come as no surprise. Thus, it is also prudent to assume a good possibility of catastrophic changes in the weather, rising sea levels, melting permafrost and so forth.

Proposer & Opposition

The proponent for the assertion, Matthias Fripp, argues that subsidised funding is needed in order to hit these targets and thus wean the world off fossil fuels.

Meanwhile the opposition, Robert L. Bradley, argues that the consumer free market should decide – the “winners and losers”.

The debate is quite interesting. Despite both participants conjuring up their own elaborate statements in order to win a majority vote, it seems that the commentators (the voters) have formed their own assertion and voted for it; rather than use the information provided for by the participants (and guests of the debate) themselves.

The reason for this assumption is that, the motion assumed the world does need so weaning. Yet, on common grounds, both the moderator and commentators alike agree that within this discussion: Mr Bradley may have wandered off on a tangent. Instead he chose to argue against climate change and global warming itself; and yet, he surprisingly still won the debate.

So, rather than re-summarise all the information which can be seen in the debate itself, instead, an attempt is made to highlight the issues raised by commentators which may have influenced the vote to go against the motion. Using the very information provided for by the contributors, guests and some worthy commentators, an effort is made to explain how subsidies could help wean the world off fossil fuels.

The Playing Field

Many commentators and one guest to the debate argued that if subsidies come into effect, the playing field would be tipped in favour of renewables.

Commentators argue that government intervention leads to: complacency, dispels new competition, and therefore leads to lethargic economic development. The guest speaker Jeremy Carl stated that as a result, investment should be made to R&D; instead of towards subsidies to renewable firms.

Solyndra, a US government backed firm, was chosen by opposition as the prime example of market distortion and its worth. Backed by a $535 million loan in 2009, Solyndra was soon unable to compete and in March 2011 filed for bankruptcy. The Solyndra bankruptcy consequently has been referred to as “the first serious financial scandal of the Obama Administration [2].”

Yet, as guest Ben Goldsmith and many other like-minded pro-motion commentators have pointed out; the playing field was never “level” in the first place.

Subsidies have flowed into the fossil fuel industry for years. It has been the pre-establishment of infrastructure, knowledge, available resources, and high profit margins (and subsidies) which has allowed fossil fuels to proliferate as well as it has; in comparison to renewables. Subsidies to renewable firms still dominate today. Combined with profits on a year to year basis, fossil fuel firms continue to venture further in reach for more sources. Is this a level playing field?

All energy is supported by public subsidy and none more so than fossil fuels. Global annual subsidies calculated by the International Energy Agency (IEA) reveal a great disparity in figures [3]. However, to contrast each other, subsidies to the fossil fuel sector have fluctuated. When oil was at its peak in 2008 – subsidies rose. When prices fell in 2009 – subsidies dropped. And in 2009 the G20 agreed to phase out subsidies. However, when the price climbed again, so did the subsidies in 2010. It seems governments are still keen to continue subsidising the fossil fuel sector.

Market Mechanism

Continuing with this notion of “playing field” consideration (and ignoring for now the fact that fossil fuels are heavily subsidised). Another important issue at the hearts of many commentators is that, by picking winners, markets will be distorted and the long term health of the economy will go into disarray.

However as advocate Fripp points out, without subsidies we would not have seen the falls in the cost of wind and solar energy which we have seen today. Furthermore, as can be seen in the successes of California and some regions of Europe; renewables are indeed on their way to achieving grid parity.

In support, guest Travis Bradford states, that firms like Solyndra go bust every year and the gap it thus creates will allow the best and the brightest to shine through. He claims that, by its very nature, policies will distort markets. But shouldn’t it be the role of governments to foresee where opportunities may lie in order to achieve better, economic and sustainable welfare?

He argues that governments should; in order to make investments of public money based on where future economic value will be created and long-term energy costs will be the lowest. Bradford concedes that, some investments may fall short, some investments will be more productive than others, and some investments may slow down markets – perhaps even stunting the development of capital by private-sector participants either temporarily or permanently (until the policy can be modified). But some subsidies will also overcome market obstacles and move us towards a more stable long-term equilibrium.  Bradford refers to this all as part of “Economic Darwinism.”

Because this forum has argued that the world does need weaning, it implies that by natural fit, renewables are the “winners” which should be invested in. For with the progress that renewables have made to date, it can be seen that renewables, and their technologies to make them dispatchable, will be much cheaper in the future than they are today, and will dominate fossil-fuel alternatives as well; particularly, when resources become scarce (see below, Ah Beng’s contribution).

Accounting for the Subsidies

If subsidies are to be taken into accountability; a different light could be shed. For the OECD and IEA suggest that subsidy reform would actually bring about immediate economic gains; rather than economic distortions (which many voters have expressed would occur).

According to the IEA, subsidies to fossil fuels are the subsidies which are actually most responsible for market distortions. They state that fossil fuel subsidies impose an unstoppable fiscal burden on government budgets and are weakening trade balances. For example, the IEA estimates that, in absence of reform, subsidies are likely to reach $600 billion in 2015. This is 0.6 percent of global domestic product! By removing inefficient fossil fuel subsidies they could instead be redirected in order to tackle more pressuring priorities [3].

Supporting the renewable industry makes it more ubiquitous and will soon pacify the rate at which we use fossil fuels. If history is to repeat itself, subsidies and tax breaks which have benefited oil companies for instance could instead be used to help the quest of renewables too.

Valuation

Raised by the opposition and also largely by outside commentators; a final issue of contention is valuation.

The problem here is that due to the fact that renewables are intermittent and “inefficient”, many oppose the subsidising of renewables because: “the greenest fuels are the ones that contain the most energy per pound [currency]”. Supporters of fossil fuels. it has been noted, have tended to base their arguments on the fact that at present – fossil fuels are a cheaper and more viable fuel for cheap and efficient energy production.

Yet are they really? One very simple reality which has often be raised and highlighted by environmentalists time and time again is the role of scarcity. This is important because if resources are scarce they no longer become cheap.

As Ah Beng, a fellow voter and commentator, has pointed out:

“Many who do not support renewable energy have pointed out that renewables suffer from “low efficiency.” I would like to explain why this is a red herring.

Efficiency of renewable energy is not a deficiency of technology or of the maturity of the industry. It is a deficiency of the resource. Renewable resources are low quality energy sources. The temperature gradients (geothermal), work gradients (wind) or radiative gradients (solar) are small compared to those that we can get from fossil fuels. By comparison, natural gas has an adiabatic flame temperature of 4200 degrees Fahrenheit can therefore have a theoretical efficiency of up to 90.1%. Theoretically speaking, we can extract far more energy from a fossil fuel, even at the lowest level of technology, than from any renewable source because the gradients involved are higher.

It is the ironclad laws of thermodynamics preventing renewable energy from being as efficient as fossil fuel energy or nuclear energy. But any comparison of efficiency between solar power and fossil fuels or nuclear is meaningless as a result. The issue with renewables vis-a-vis fossil fuels has nothing to do with efficiency. It is a problem of scarcity and resource availability.

What is the point of touting the advantages of efficient fossil fuel technology if there is insufficient fossil fuel to go around? [4]”

In connecting this to valuation, advocate Fripp raises and makes clear another important matter, relevant to this motion. In comparison to fossil fuels, renewables have the lowest emissions per unit of electricity delivered. They allow a power system to be built which serves two purposes, delivering energy where it is needed (and at a lowering cost), and avoiding climate change. By serving the second purpose, another aspect is also highlighted: valuation of the resource which cannot be obtained from its market or monetary value.

Long criticised by environmentalists, it has been commonly stated that economists fail to consider the broader values of goods and services. For in this particular motion, it is the value of the other externalities which may result from the use of particular resources, not just the economic values, which matter for global temperature rise and emission cutting.

These can include other values such as the cost of using the particular resource against the cost of:

• Biodiversity: Loss of wildlife etc.
• Health: Air and Water Pollution etc.
• Damage to Landscapes: For instance, the clearance of land.
• Social: Consequences of “oil” wars.

“Sustainable development really requires consideration of the ‘true’ importance of the goods and services which our decisions deliver or extinguish [5].”

If market prices only reveal how goods and services are exchanged; how could you weigh the costs of, loss of biodiversity (e.g. due to temperature warming) against damages to landscapes (e.g. clearance of land for energy – for solar panels or coal mining) for instance?

Should we be subsidising a scarce resource which may have other externalities? Or a renewable one?

[1] http://www.economist.com

[2]http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/plugged-in/2011/09/27/solyndra-illuminating-energy-funding-flaws/

[3] http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/docs/second_joint_report.pdf

[4] http://www.economist.com/debate/days/view/777

[5] http://w.rspb.org.uk/Images/Valuingnature_tcm9-230654.pdf

How do Biological Indicators work?

A biological indicator is an organism or biological response that reveals the presence of pollutants by the occurrence of typical symptoms or measurable responses between the organism and the environment – it is therefore more qualitative [1].

They deliver information of alterations in environment or the quality of environmental pollutants, by changing in the one of the following ways:

• Physiologically: Changes in the processes and functions of the organisms.
• Chemically: Changes in chemical composition or characteristics.
• Behaviourally: Changes in actions or mannerisms of the organisms.

What makes a good Biological Indicator?

Table 1: Regardless of the geographic region, type of disturbance, environment, or organism, good biological indicators often share several characteristics [2].

So, what is a Biological Monitor?

A biological monitor (bio-monitor) is defined as an organism that provides quantitative information on the quality of the environment around it. A good biological monitor will indicate the presence of the pollutant and also attempt to provide additional information about the amount and intensity of the exposure; whereas, as mentioned above, the biological indicator is strictly qualitative.

• For example, the very presence of lichen can be used as an indication of environmental stress; presence of the lichen is qualitative.
• Example two, if the chlorophyll content or diversity of lichen reduces and this is calculated – both the presence and severity of the air pollution can be determined. By how much is the chlorophyll (green pigment in plants) being reduced? By how much is diversity (number of lichen species) being reduced? These are quantitative responses which can be used to assess the quality of the air. Although again, the very presence of the lichen here is qualitative [2].

Hereafter, the term “biological indicator” is a collective team which can be used to refer to all of the terms relating to biological responses to environmental stress.

Examples of a Biological Indicator in Action

Air Pollution

Lichens (a symbiosis among fungi, algae and cyanobacteria) and bryophytes (mosses and liverworts) are often used to assess air pollution. They serve as effective indicators of air quality because they have no roots, no cuticle, and acquire all their nutrients from direct exposure to the atmosphere.

Here is a good case study example.

Relationship of elemental concentration within moss tissue against distance from the road in Alaska, USA. Each element is represented by different coloured dots (red, aluminium; yellow, zinc; green, lead; blue, Cadmium [2]). The greatest concentration occurred close to the road and declined with distance from the road, demonstrating a marked impact of overland transport of mined ore on the biota.

In the remote tundra ecosystem of Alaska, a mine exists called the Red Dog Mine. It is the world’s largest producer of zinc (Zn). This zinc is trucked along a solitary road, approximately 75km in length, to the storage facilities located on the Chukchi Sea. Hasselbach, and colleagues, wanted to investigate the affects this overland transport would have on the surrounding terrestrial biota [3]. Heavy metal content within moss tissue was compared at varying distances from the road (see above Figure). Metal concentrations in moss tissue were greatest adjacent to the haul road and decreased with distance, thus validating the hypothesis that overland transport was indeed altering the surrounding environment. In this example, lichens were used as biological monitors, using the quantitative measurement of metal concentrations within individual lichens.

Other Examples

• Soil Quality: The protection of soil has become a significant political and environmental objective. An important and implicit component of not just ecological but also socio-economic systems. Soil biota decompose organic matter, drive or mediate soil processes that supply nutrients, regulate water supply and trace gas emissions, modify soil structure etc. As such, they form a key cog which regulates farming, carbon control, tourism in the UK, and all matters from recreational fishing to bird watching. Many soil biological indicators exist which are used to assess soil quality within the UK [see 4].
• Marine Acidification: As covered by Alice Hands [see 5], as oceans become more acidic it is due to the formation of carbonic acid which alters the pH in the marine ecosystems. The effects of increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are likely to exemplify the acidity and cause many organisms to change chemically, biologically and physiologically. The understanding of these species and habitat changes on its ecosystems is important for understanding past and future change, and for understanding the roles coastal areas play in global carbon cycles. As mentioned by Hands, the studies of crustaceans with calcium carbonate shells or skeletons can be used to understand these changing carbon cycles.

Another organism which can be used is coral. Coral reefs are sensitive to not just saline conditions but also light, oxygen and nutrients [6]. Thus, they can be used as a biological indicator for not just water quality but also for overall ecological health. They are an important habitat and food source for the primary feeders of the animal food chain. Negative causative effects to primary feeders would have cumulative effects to animals higher up the food chain.

• Fresh Water Ecosystems: Defined as aquatic systems which contain drinkable water or water of almost no salt content [7]. Resources include lakes and ponds, rivers and streams, reservoirs, wetlands and groundwater. Important for the provision of drinking water, water for agriculture, and water for industry and sanitation. The world relies on its fresh water in addition to the food that fresh water systems are able to provide. Home to numerous organisms (e.g., fish, amphibians, aquatic plants, and invertebrates) many biological indicators are available. Unfortunately, despite the vast indicators which are available to us for aquatic systems, rivers and streams are still amongst one of the most endangered habitats in the world [7].

Learn more about environmental issues such as this through our learning portal.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioindicator

[2] http://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/bioindicators-using-organisms-to-measure-environmental-impacts-16821310

[3] Hasselbach, L. et al. Spatial patterns of cadmium and lead deposition on and adjacent to National Park Service lands in the vicinity of Red Dog Mine, Alaska. Science of the Total Environment 348, 211–230 (2005).

[4] http://www.ceh.ac.uk/sci_programmes/SoilAnimals.html

[5] http://www.energysavingwarehouse.co.uk/news/272/20/The-Increase-in-Ocean-Acidification-and-the-Associated-Threats.html

[6] http://www.epa.gov/bioindicators/coral/

[7] http://www.epa.gov/bioiweb1/aquatic/freshwater.html

A change of fortunes could be occurring amongst those that live in the highlands of North Scotland. Along rugged coastlines, the regions of Caithness and Orkney seem like an almost desolate place; sparsely populated with nothing more but rocky hills and unkind cliff faces in sight. It is for this precise reason that an experimental nuclear plant in 1995 was setup; yet, soon to be decommissioned – surprisingly, locals remain upbeat. Further still, the locals here are even challenging for the crown of clean energy king. How is this so and what is going on this north part of the UK?

Well, the reason for these bold aims and uplifting spirits is that the very harsh and seemingly unfavourable landscape, and environmental conditions which made this area of the north sparse in the first place, is starting to stir a furore amongst energy companies across the world. From the far reaches of Germany, America, Norway, Ireland, Singapore, England, etc, all are attracted by a move to the highlands which would favour green technological development. The north benefits from a geography which channels Atlantic currents into the narrow strait off Caithness, producing strong tidal flows and big waves [1].  Furthermore, as has already been established, high wind speeds in overall Scotland have also already favoured the establishment of on shore and off shore wind farms in these regions. It seems if involved in green energy creation, Scotland could not have provided a better location for developing green energy technology. The landscape and lack of industry which made parts of the north sparse in the first place, is finally giving something back to those who were most loyal to remain. The challenge, to make Scotland a potential clean energy hub may be just on the verge of the horizon.

Wind Farms

Wind power in Scotland is the country’s fastest growing renewable energy technology, with 2574 MW of installed capacity as of April 2011 [2]. Onshore and offshore wind farms exist around the region and more are yet come. The Scottish Government has a target of generating 31% of Scotland’s electricity from renewable energy by 2011, and 100% by 2020, which was raised from 50% in September 2010 [3]. The majority of this is likely to come from wind power.

The Scottish government fund of £35m is also to help up to seven companies find advanced designs for the next generation of ocean-based wind turbines for deep waters, 20 miles offshore. Turbines are to be up to three times larger than current designs and although many offshore wind farms exist already, these latest investment products are to be 20 miles off the shore, not a mere 1 mile, according to Alex Salmond, first minister of Scotland [4].

Marine-Energy Technologies

Due to the strong currents as previously mentioned, not much encouragement was needed, by the Scottish and British Governments, or the EU to invest in the area. Together, £23m was pooled together to establish a testing centre for marine-energy technology. This has benefited Scotland as currently, they are testing the latest in wave and tidal technologies. The success of which will, together with wind power, determine Scotland’s status as a powerhouse for green energy production. A feat which Salmond seems to think is achievable.

“Scotland’s potential as one of the green power houses for Europe is beyond question. We mustn’t let transient but severe economic circumstances deter us from that goal [4].”

For it was predicted that wave and tidal technologies would not be commercially viable until up to a decade away. This all changed when Aquamarine Power, a developer which has one of the most advanced wave power machines, had won fresh investment of £7m on top of an already pledged £18m by 2014 [4]. It is in the highlands of Scotland where marine energy technology is currently thriving.

The Economy

Local businesses are gearing up for a bonanza. The countryside around Thurso, Caithness, mainly occupied by sheep, also features some outlandishly large metal sheds which are contributing in their own way to the marine energy’s latest developments. They house manufacturing companies that have made a tidy living, and built up some impressive skills, doing problem-solving engineering at Dounreay and elsewhere.

For those who were affected by the decommissioning of the nuclear reactor, it seems that doom and gloom was never the forecasted outcome. Will Campbell, director of JGC Engineering, is building a computerised crane that will aid in the removal of nuclear rods from the defunct reactor [1].

A family-owned firm that can be traced back six generations to a blacksmith’s forge; business is still flowing. “In the last year, renewables work has started to come through,” he says. He has won several contracts from various wave and tidal turbine makers.

Allen Perrin of Numax, in another big engineering shed nearby, bubbles with pride about a piece of machinery costing more than £200,000 he has just built and installed on a prototype seabed-turbine for Voith Hydro, a joint venture between Voith and Siemens, two German industrial giants. “We completed it in five weeks and we had to wait for the Germans to arrive,” he chortles, adding that they also fixed an ill-fitting German component in 24 hours [1].

Other local firms provide transport, heavy lifting, port services and accommodation for visiting engineers also benefit from this kind of work. Duncan MacKay, a local marine-energy consultant, says that if all the energy companies’ plans come to fruition, something like 500 seabed and surface turbines will be installed within 18 miles of Thurso over the next decade. Because turbines are heavy and expensive to move, closeness to the final site is a big advantage for Caithness. As a result, many locals may be involved in taking part in this big project [1].

If Scottish companies can establish a lead in marine energy, much as Denmark did in wind power, it could be a big job and wealth creator for the country. Salmond boasts that the Pentland Firth will be the “Saudi Arabia” of marine energy [4].

Scottish Support

With perhaps a few exceptions, the Scottish majority seem to be in good support of the clean energy industries which are arriving to Scotland. Yet, similar to all new proposals, the siting of wind turbines in areas can sometimes also face protest; amongst those concerned with the value of their natural landscape.

Nevertheless, overall in Scotland, it is fair to say that the majority are in support of the wind farms. For instance, in Ardrossan, initially when applications for 12 turbines were submitted which would overlook the town, there was understandably, considerable concern. Yet a year after it was commissioned, one of the town’s councillors stated that, “the Ardrossan wind farm has been overwhelmingly accepted by local people – instead of spoiling the landscape, we believe it has been enhanced. The turbines are impressive looking, bring a calming effect to the town and, contrary to the belief that they would be noisy, we have found them to be silent workhorses [5].”

A 2003 survey of residents living around Scotland’s 10 existing wind farms found high levels of community acceptance and strong support for wind power, with much support from those who lived closest to the wind farms. The results of this survey support those of an earlier Scottish Executive survey ‘Public attitudes to the Environment in Scotland 2002′, which found that the Scottish public would prefer the majority of their electricity to come from renewables, and which rated wind power as the cleanest source of renewable energy. This ‘Public attitudes to the Environment in Scotland’ was repeated again in 2005 (See results below) [6]. Of course, it would be interesting to see the next results to come when tidal and wave power comes into question, or for when it does become commercially viable.

Happiness about living beside different waste, energy and transport facilities.

[1] http://www.economist.com/node/21526931

[2] http://www.scottishrenewables.com/

[3] http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Releases/2010/09/23134359

[4] http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/sep/27/wave-and-tidal-power-alex-salmond?intcmp=122

[5] http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/aug/12/windpower.alternativeenergy

[6] http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2005/01/20589/50847

]]> http://www.energysavingwarehouse.co.uk/learning-portal/scotland-the-next-green-energy-hub/feed/ 0