Category Archives: Climate Change

Letter to No 10 opens up energy prices and climate change policy discussion

By David Bicknell

It seems as if with the party conference season not far off, discussions are taking place around the edge of government over energy policy, which may have some implications down the line as far as business energy costs and climate change legislation are concerned.

It follows a leak to the Daily Telegraph of a note to David Cameron  discussing the impact of energy and climate change policies on energy prices, Although the focus of the letter is on consumer energy prices, it is possible that a wider review may also need to examine the effect of government policies in the form of climate change legislation on businesses.

The letter suggests that four policies stand out as having the most significant impact on household energy bills: carbon pricing (both the carbon price floor and the EU emissions trading scheme), the new Energy Company Obligation, the Electricity Market Reform package and the Renewables Obligation.

The letter goes on to ask whether policies can be opened up, particularly support for relatively high-cost technologies such as offshore wind, in a way that minimises cost and disruption to investment.

It’s possible that, as the Guardian suggests, the leaked letter is part of a sabre-rattling exercise ahead of the conference season. On the other hand, with consumers strapped for cash, energy prices on an ever upwards spiral, and businesses struggling in a stagnant economy, a healthy debate over energy policy is  perhaps not a bad idea, though, as the Guardian headline puts it, that risks pitting fossil fuels against renewable energy.

There is some more background to the story here:

http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/james-blog/2106683/10s-criticism-decc-lacks-credibility-energy-ideas

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/damian-carrington-blog/2011/sep/05/greenpolitics-energy

Carbon Disclosure Project report discusses energy saving and low carbon benefits of Cloud Computing

David Bicknell

One of the most informed and engaging writers around sustainability and business is Andrew Winston, who writes a blog called Finding the Gold in Green and writes for the Harvard Business Review as well.

His blog discusses  a new report from the Carbon Disclosure Project about the sustainability benefits of Cloud Computing

Here’s the intro to the report:

Across business, executives are looking for ways in which they can operate more sustainably and thereby increase their competitive edge. Information Communications Technology (ICT) is seen as a key area of focus for achieving sustainability goals. This report shows that business use of cloud computing can play an important role in an organisation’s sustainability and IT strategies: improving business process efficiency and flexibility whilst decreasing the emissions of IT operations.

This study used detailed case study evidence from 11 global firms and assessed the financial benefits and potential carbon reductions for a firm opting for a particular cloud computing service. It also demonstrates how projected cloud computing adoption could drive economy-wide business benefits from a financial and carbon reduction perspective in the US.

The results show that by 2020, large U.S. companies that use cloud computing can achieve annual energy savings of $12.3 billion and annual carbon reductions equivalent to 200 million barrels of oil – enough to power 5.7 million cars for one year.

The report also delves into the advantages and potential barriers to cloud computing adoption and gives insights from the multi-national firms that were interviewed.

Engaging with the disengaged on sustainability

By David Bicknell

Sustainability has made it onto the business agenda of most large organisations. Admittedly some organisations treat the sustainability reality more seriously than others:  some will use it as a competitive enabler, or to beef up their brand identity. Others will use it as a means of cutting costs: i.e. ‘talk green, mean lean.’

Whatever their commitment, there are precious few organisations that have not had some discussions about either sustainability in their supply chain, or their corporate social responsibility, or  how they can engage with their customers on green issues.

Sometimes, however, ‘engaging’ is easier said than done. Preaching to the converted is fine – but it’s the unconverted that need to be enlightened. This was the subject of a recent event in Reading hosted by Clarkslegal and organised and moderated by C8 Consulting.

The attendees included Connect Reading, Kyocera Mita, Global Cool Foundation, Locus, Reading Borough Council, Ennismore Partners, The FD Centre, Integral, Jacobs Engineering, Reading Football Club, Graft Thames Valley, CBS Business Interiors, Thames Water and the Campaign4Change.

One of the key topics discussed was the need to find a way of making sustainability desirable. As Global Cool put it, ‘Climate change doesn’t have an awareness problem. But it does have a marketing problem. Almost everyone is aware of the climate issue, but only a minority are changing their lifestyles to reduce carbon. Remember the old adage, “If what you’re doing isn’t working, do something else.”

Companies sell products which are fabulously profitable. But they do it not by talking about profitability, but by showing how cool and desirable the product is. The same must go for sustainability. That means not talking simply about sustainability – because most people aren’t interested – but showing how lifestyles and products which happen to be sustainable, are in the ‘customer’s’ interests.

Another issue discussed is the challenge of getting SMEs engaged on sustainability. The problem is that in today’s economic climate, most SMEs are running around just trying to keep their businesses afloat. Sustainability – or ‘green’ – just doesn’t register. Even the various loans, grants etc available pass them by, because in many cases, they have to spend to get matching grants ‘to save’.

The idea was mooted that maybe SMEs might have more clout – and more interest in what they could save off their energy bills – if they had a bigger voice. One large voice composed of a million smaller voices carries more clout than one single voice. It’s the difference between a choir and a chorister. Perhaps this model for SMEs demands more exploration. For the moment, however, the sustainability – and potentially lower cost – message is being drowned out by the ‘bigger drumbeat’ for the SME –  of customer retention and acquisition – and survival.

More thoughts on this subject to follow.

Why CIOs can become corporate sustainability heroes

By David Bicknell

Technology has always been a driver of business change. Indeed it’s been said that the best Chief Information Officers (CIOs) are looking beyond the tactical duties of their  jobs to “enable new business models and help the CEO use technology as a  competitive weapon.” And that certainly applies to the most successful corporate sustainability programmes.

An excellent recent blog post by Heather Clancy on ZDNet recently summed up the challenge – and opportunity – facing CIOs – in both the public and private sectors.

Clancy suggests there are several reasons the CIO should be central to advancing the corporate sustainability cause. She explains them like this:

* IT is the one role within most companies that touches every division. One of the fastest growing software application categories today is  enterprise carbon and energy management. You can think of this sort of like ERP for electricity and greenhouse gas emissions data. I firmly believe that these features will quickly become integrated into the common operational tools use to run companies. That’s because what good is this data if it isn’t considered in context? The only way to get the complete context, of course, is by exposing that information across the company. That’s where the CIO comes in.

* CIOs are used to working across many different divisions in a “dotted line” role. Mark Greenlaw, the former  CIO-turned-sustainability executive for Cognizant, said one big example of this  is the insight that the IT team can bring to facilities managers who are trying to cut the electricity associated with lighting, drive smart building technology investments or address data centre power management issues.

CIOs know how to CYA. What team outside the legal department has borne the brunt of covering your company’s ass when it comes to  privacy mandates, corporate disclosure rules and other compliance measures? Yes, the IT team. Right now, many companies report their progress toward environmental, diversity and social goals voluntarily, but it is easy to foresee a day when that might become mandatory. There is no way that businesses can get around that challenge without using technology to collection and report that data — on a much more real-time basis.

* CIOs have been programmed to think sustainably. Greenlaw said he has called upon his knowledge of how to pitch large capital projects, a skill he exercised often as CIO, as a means of investigating the technology investments that Cognizant might make to operate more sustainably. Those investments run the gamut from alternative energy technologies such as wind generation to the business value of long-term service agreements to the appropriate lighting retrofit approach.

* Increasingly, the lines between business technology and information technology are blurring. There is probably no bigger potential example of the convergence of purpose-built business technologies and what we have been trained to think of as IT than building management systems. Although building management systems aren’t under the direct control of IT, there are myriad ways information technology can help optimise their performance—and more are emerging every day.

You can read Clancy’s complete piece here.

It’s also worth reading this excellent piece on sustainability heroes by Jo Cofino in the Guardian.

M&S, Ford reports discuss profitability from sustainability, show water usage now a concern

By David Bicknell

I came across an interesting piece regarding the savings Marks & Spencer (M&S) says it is making from its sustainable development initiative, Plan A.

According to this article, initiatives such as being more energy efficient in stores and distribution centres saved £13.5 million last year. It also saved £2 million by using less fuel, £1 million by recycling or reusing clothes hangers, and £11 million on reducing the amount of packaging it uses.

M&S’ total carbon emissions have been reduced by 13%, down by over 90,000 tonnes CO2e from 2006/07 whilst its sales floor footage has continued to grow.

There is a useful story here

You can read more from M&S itself on Plan A progress here

Another familiar name that is reporting on its sustainability initiatives is Ford. It released its annual sustianability report last week, with the highlights being:

* Carbon dioxide emissions for the 2010 model year have been reduced by 10.5 percent for U.S. products and 8.1 percent for European vehicles, when compared with the 2006 model year

* From an operational standpoint, Ford managed a 5.6 percent reduction in carbon dioxide emissions between 2010 and 2009.

* Ford has set a new goal for facility’s related carbon dioxide emissions: A reduction of 30 percent by 2025 on a per-vehicle basis.

One of its key concerns is around water usage, as this report from Smart Planet makes clear.

You can read Ford’s sustainability report here. There is much detail in a well laid out report, though at first sight, not a lot of references to any notable Green IT or technology developments beyond Ford’s core car business.

UK Roadshow to Showcase Green Technology for Overseas Markets

By David Bicknell

Peterborough will play host on July 5th to a roadshow showcasing solutions in the green IT or ‘greentech’ technology sectors.

The UK Trade and Investment (UKTI) GreenTech Road Show will bring buyers and decision makers from markets including Australia, Bulgaria, China, Hungary, India, Kuwait, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Turkey and UAE into the UK to look at the UK’s capabilities across the spectrum of ‘green’ technologies. The delegates have specific interests in green energy production, energy efficiency, green building technology, cleaner production technologies, waste management and water and wastewater treatment.  

The event will be a regionally focused day dedicated to developing interactions between UK suppliers and the visiting ‘buyers’ and UK Trade & Investment officers.

The morning will offer briefing sessions aimed at UK companies that are relatively new to exports and will offer advice on export services available from UKTI. Advice will be on hand from UKTI regional contacts and Trade & Investment Officers based in overseas embassies, as well as details of how UKTI is promoting the UK’s Low Carbon know-how around the world.

The event, to be held at the Bull Hotel, will also feature ‘Meet the Buyer’ sessions in the afternoon, giving greentech vendors the opportunity to book 1-1 meetings with either the overseas buyers or Trade & Investment Officers. 

Places on the GreenTech Road Show are free of charge. For more information, email garry.poole@uktradeinvest.gov.uk

UK to cut emissions targets by 50% by 2025

By David Bicknell

Here are the details of the Government’s statement on carbon emissions, made by Energy & Climate Change Secretary Chris Huhne, taken from the Department of Energy & Climate Change website:

“The Climate Change Act 2008 sets a target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the UK by at least 80% from 1990 levels by 2050. The Act also requires Government to set carbon budgets, which are limits on greenhouse gas emissions in the UK for consecutive five year periods. These carbon budgets must be set at least three budget periods in advance. They are designed to put emission reductions on an appropriate and cost-effective pathway to our 2050 target.

“The first three carbon budgets were set in 2009, following advice from the independent Committee on Climate Change. The Fourth Carbon Budget – the limit on emissions for the five year period from 2023 to 2027 – has to be set in law by the end of June 2011.

“As advised by the Committee on Climate Change, the level we propose setting in law would mean that net emissions over the Fourth Carbon Budget period should not exceed 1950 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent. – a 50% reduction from 1990 levels.

“As required by the Climate Change Act, once the Fourth Carbon Budget has been set in law, we will publish a report setting out the policies and proposals required in the medium-long term to meet the budget, building on the strong foundation provided by our existing policies. This will take the form of the revised government carbon plan later this year, following the publication of the interim version in March.

“..the Committee on Climate Change advised that we should aim to meet the Budget through emissions reductions in the UK rather than relying on carbon trading, such as under the EU Emissions Trading System or the purchase of international credits from projects abroad. We will aim to reduce emissions domestically as far as is practical and affordable. But we also intend to keep our carbon trading options open – to maintain maximum flexibility, and minimise costs in the medium-long term. Given the uncertainty of looking so far ahead, this is a pragmatic approach.

“Under the Climate Change Act, emissions reductions by the UK’s industrial and power sectors are determined by the UK’s share of the EU Emissions Trading System cap. This protects UK industrial and power sectors from exceeding EU requirements. However if the EU ETS cap is insufficiently ambitious, this could mean placing disproportionate strain on other sectors outside the EU ETS such as transport.‪

“To overcome this and to provide clearer signals for businesses and investors, government will review progress towards the EU emissions goal in early 2014. If at that point our domestic commitments place us on a different emissions trajectory than the Emissions Trading System trajectory agreed by the EU, we will, as appropriate, revise up our budget to align it with the actual EU trajectory.

“In line with the Coalition Agreement, Government will continue to argue for an EU move to a 30% target for 2020, and ambitious action in the 2020s.

“As part of the transition to a low carbon economy, we need to ensure that energy intensive industries remain competitive and that we send a clear message that the UK is open for business. Before the end of the year we will be announcing a package of measures for energy intensive businesses whose international competitiveness is most affected by our energy and climate change policies. Rising electricity costs pose a key risk to these sectors which are critical to our growth agenda. We will, therefore, take steps to reduce the impact of government policy on the cost of electricity for these businesses, thereby allowing them to continue to play their part in delivering our green industrial transformation. In this way, we will ensure that that these sectors remain internationally competitive and we send a clear message that the UK is open for business.”

There’s Always an Alternative View on Climate Change…..

I suppose that on the day the Government outlines new targets for addressing climate change, it’s inevitable that there would be an alternative view – and there is: from Lord Turnbull in the Daily Telegraph today.

We’ve heard many of these arguments before, but Lord Turnbull discusses them like this:

“First, the science is nowhere near as conclusive as it is presented. Though there is no disagreement that CO₂ is a greenhouse gas, there is no consensus on the relationship between CO2 and temperature. Many scientists also challenge the dominant role assigned to man-made CO2, arguing that other variables such as the sun, cosmic rays, oceans and clouds have been underplayed. Given this, it is unwise of the Government to have placed such heavy bets on just one interpretation of the evidence

Second, there have been failings in the governance of science. Senior figures in our scientific establishment, rather than promoting challenge, have sought to close the debate down and tell us the science is settled. The gap between the IPCC’s huge responsibilities to advise on one of the biggest issues of the day, and its competence to do so, is now so vast that it should be scrapped and replaced.

Third, the framework provided by the Climate Change Act takes no account of what other nations are doing. For a country like the UK, which produces only 2-3 per cent of global man-made emissions, this makes no sense. If we push too hard on decarbonisation, we will suffer double jeopardy: our energy-using industries will migrate and we may still need to invest heavily in adapting our infrastructure.

Fourth, the way in which the policy responses are being prioritised makes no sense. In a logical world, one would start with those technologies that are most effective in terms of cost per ton of CO₂ abated. But the EU renewables policy denies this logic. One set of technologies – in particular, wind – is guaranteed a market share and an indexed price regardless of how competitive it really is. Taking account of wind’s intermittency, its cost per kilowatt hour (kwh) exceeds that of other low carbon sources. Wind capacity should not be confused with output.

Fifth, current policies are hugely unfair. Those with large properties or landholdings on which to install solar panels or wind turbines can earn 30p-40p per kwh, which is retailed at around 11p. The loss is paid for by a levy on all households and businesses. If you live in a tower block in Lambeth, you don’t have much opportunity to share in this.

Finally, policies are failing to adapt to change, notably the impact of shale gas, which can make a huge contribution to carbon reduction with little extra cost.”

Lord Turnbull suggests that “in responding to the advice from the Committee on Climate Change on the next set of targets, the Government has an opportunity for a rethink. Instead, it seems likely that the requirements of keeping the Coalition together will take precedence.”

I don’t agree with Lord Turnbull’s analysis on climate change, though I do agree that there are probably some Coalition politics involved in today’s announcement. It will be interesting to see how the Coalition puts its argument later today.

Cabinet agrees Climate Change ‘Green Deal’ – UK ‘world leader’ in cutting carbon emissions

By David Bicknell

The Coalition is expected to announce this week that it has agreed a far-reaching, legally binding “green deal” that will commit the UK to two decades of drastic cuts in carbon emissions. The package, reported last weekend in The Observer, will, it is claimed, place Britain at the forefront of the global battle against climate change.

Huhne is now expected to tell parliament that the government will accept the recommendations of the independent committee on climate change for a new carbon budget. The deal puts the UK ahead of any other state in terms of the legal commitments it is making in the battle to curb greenhouse gases.

The new budget puts the government on target to meet a reduction by 2050 of 80% of carbon emissions compared with 1990 levels. The committee has said that to reach this carbon emissions should be cut by 60% by 2030.

The article says ministers believe that major companies involved in developing offshore wind technology – such as Siemens, Vestas and General Electric – will now be keener to invest in Britain, knowing it is committed to a huge expansion in renewable energy. It is also hoped that the commitment to renewable energy – the committee says 40% of the UK’s power should come from wind, wave and tide sources by 2030 – will stimulate new industries.

These would include the development of tidal power plants, wave generators and carbon capture and storage technology – which would extract carbon dioxide from coal and oil plants and pump it into underground chambers. All three technologies, if developed in Britain, could be major currency earners.

The committee’s report says the new carbon deal will require that heat pumps will have had to be installed in 2.6m homes by 2025. It also says that by the same date 31% of new cars, and 14% of those on the road overall, will be electric. Experts say a total of £16bn of investment will be needed every year to meet the commitment. Some of this money will be raised through increases in electricity prices.

It is interesting to see that there is a mention of electric cars. No one, however, seems to have yet spotted the potential of electric bikes. One newly announced scheme, ComOOt, which would help London-based companies reduce their mushrooming subsidised travel bills for their commuting employees, has so far failed to make it onto the radar screen of a Transport Department blinkered by electric cars, and with a fanciful notion that the infrastructure will one day be in place to support them.