Zero-carbon homes

These don't appear to be doing too well at the moment according to this from EDIE.

Just 15 new homes that meet the Gov's definition of zero-carbon have been built in the last 12 months, despite the backing of £15 Million of taxpayers money.

Hmmm, perhaps they need to think about redefining just what zero-carbon actually means?

Meanwhile, there are those (see this piece from AlterNet.org) who think that total decarbonisation is the only possible way forward. Sounds rather overtly radical to me, but what do I know?

See, oh... who cares? If it has carbon in it something will stick

Keeping up with carbon jargon

All I know is an awful lot has already been committed to stuff based on definitions no one has yet to agree on, let alone understand or get behind.

Rules without rulers.

I found this interesting:

ASA - British Sky Broadcasting Ltd t/a Sky

Mainly because, amongst all the rest, of this: '...We understood that there was no generally accepted definition of carbon neutral but that the claim could be evaluated against generally accepted best practice. '

Might it not be a plan for consumers to have one... that makes sense.. and they can trust?

For now, that term means diddly squat to me and washes over like sensible enviro policies on a Government Minister.

I'm also gathering, from look at other judgements, that being told not to run an already expended campaign again is hardly the greatest motivating penalty to not repeat again. POOR Show.

Can't be licked... or hard to swallow?

Green initiatives: Matthew Neilson of the Royal Mail

Whenever I see the prefix 'Carbc.. sorry, Carbon' in marketing materials I do start cranking an eyebrow, especially when followed by offsets, neutralities, etc. I frankly still have no clue what they really refer to, or mean, in the great enviROI+ scheme of things. Until that becomes clearer, I often feel 'Climate friendliER' may be more accurate, especially on a factual basis.

Of course there are oodles of initiatives that are better than nothing, especially vs. what could go down, but very often the plain and simple fact is not doing anything in the first place, especially involving new stuff being made and then going places, is perhaps the 'purest' enviro-solution.

As mentioned that's hard to avoid even with a lot of consumer-based marketing I know, but worth bearing in mind when the eco-labels get licked and applied, especially to my nth 'we're in your area' double glazing DM pack.

And when it comes to fellow public servants HMG, I idly glance at the plastic bag my 2008 Tax return just arrived in. Hope Somerfield will be happy to accept it in their recycle bin:)

Words and Deeds

I was just catching up on my Sunday reading online, after a most productive day making some kitchen units and pottering in the garden in the sun.

This little effort caught my eye.

It seems that while villages can still score a bag-ban mention (latest is in Norfolk) we have now moved to country level in the green competition stakes.

Well, I can think of worse things to strive for.

It was an relatively interesting piece I guess, but really the accolade rather seems to boil ('scuse pun) on whether you are sitting on top of a volcano or have near limitless hydro on tap. Basically how you make your 'leccy. And having lucked out on that score, you can offset your ethics away and buy anything you fancy, secure in the knowledge that the overall tally will look better than the next person..

Anyhoo, the Indy has kindly provided some ideas on the same page for what form of transport you might opt for where your home might be.

HSBC Bank is carbon neutral!

Add.. er (Pre?)endum/Prefix (by Junkk Male): I have reloaded this post, from its original origination date of 6/07/07 (why do Americans insist of flipping the dd/mm? It took some finding), for a few reasons:

1) It has to be the most commented/followed up upon (interestingly). Sorry HSBC.
2) I am impressed it is still being commented upon after all this time, but worry many might miss it in archive (I get a notification; I'm not sure if others do).
3) It has attracted a lot of very thoughtful, considered feedback, which is just how I like things here to proceed. The most recent is typical and most welcome. Check 'em out.

I think not! That's a claim waaaaaaay too far!

Further to the post earlier about 'green banking' (below the Live Earth post), HSBC now claims to be carbon neutral! From Carbon Free news.

"HSBC says it is the world's first major bank to become carbon neutral and has committed a further US$90 million over five years to reduce the bank's impact on the environment through a series of initiatives ...."

That's a hell of a claim, and seeing as there is no clearly agreed definition of carbon neutral - I'd love to see just how they attempt to justify it! Is every branch and office now generating its own renewable energy? Or does every branch and office now only use electricity from renewable sources? Does no-one travel? Are all new branches and offices built to be super energy efficient? Are all existing branches and offices being updated to be super energy efficient? Are all consumables and replacement equipment items that they purchase manufactured to zero carbon emission standards?

I'll bet they can't answer yes to any of them!

The only possible way they can justify this claim is by using considerable carbon offsetting, by paying someone else to recompense for their carbon emissions; which, as we have already pointed out on several occasion on this blog, is akin to ordering a diet coke alongside your double burger and claiming it to be part of your dieting program!

Greenwash, green-bullsh*t, green-veneer, green-smoke and green-mirrors. A veritable green smorgasbord of false, sickly green tosh. What's the betting that they are claiming to be carbon negative within a few years time?

ADDENDUM (via JunkkMale):

HSBC gives key marketer ‘golden handcuff’ offer - may explain something (or not), about the state of ads (especially 'green' ones) these days, if bankers are running the marketing.

ADDENDUM 2 (JunkkMale):

To add a hyperlinked URL to the comment posts

ADDENDUM 3

HSBC on climate change and Stern - well, they are devoting a lot of people and stuff to talking about it!

Xmas cheer

Well, it tickled me. A poster on an eco-forum asked the following about 'carbcon ratings':

I notice that the terms ‘carbon positive’ and ‘carbon negative’ are being used to mean the same thing (i.e. net absorption/reduction of CO2). Those using the term ‘carbon negative’ seem to be clear that ‘carbon positive’ is what fossil fuels are...

If we want to create a company that goes better than ‘carbon neutral’, how should we describe it? And does anyone know whether the understanding of these terms varies by geography? (e.g. US vs Europe vs Asia)

I was moved to reply:

How about 'carbon cautious'?

It ticks all the right boxes (a major plus already, at least in the UK/EU), being rather meaningless, pretty vague and in fact can be whatever anyone wishes to take from it.

Certainly an entire new industry and set of government departments could easily be created around it on this basis, especially in complement to all the rest doing roughly the same thing. In fact, one could probably score a nifty grant for it all. Especially to translate it all into Mandarin or Urdu come the next Kyoto/Bali round.

That aside, it may actually be a tad more accurate. At least it could be argued to not make any definitive claims (which in any case are often hard to weigh, at least on a consumer level. I have often cocked an eyebrow at some claims of 'positivity', as most new activities are almost inevitably worse in terms of enviROI (which is what I apply) unless directly creating some purely mitigating result) whilst conveying a truly warm and fuzzy sense of at least wanting to do the right thing.

However, as your question has ably demonstrated, a positive can as easily be a negative. So I look forward to how those better informed will explain it to us all. But then it would seem equally inevitable that it will all rather depend on which measure they have been tasked to endorse.

Live Earth - 2

Further to the original post [and I am sure what will not be the last] on the subject of Al's music industry supported global warming awareness raising campaign, I spotted something that is a genuinely nice example of publicity for a real home spun, rather than government or quango sponsored, 'let's go green' campaign.

The village of Ashton Hayes (Cheshire) started the UK's first Carbon Neutral Village project back in Jan 2006. Although they have since been publicised across many parts of this planet, a 10 minute eco-documentary film of their project is going to be screened as part of the Live Earth bash, possibly giving them, with a potential audience of 2 billion, the title of the planet's best known 'global village'.

Full story on CheshireOnline.

Big up for Ashton Hayes, and deservedly so.

A Eureka Moment That May Let You Paint Your House Infra Red

How do you fancy painting your house to generate your own electricity? Sound a bit far-fetched?

Well, human ingenuity never ceases to amaze, even if prompted by a chance discovery. Research into solar nanotechnology now suggests that within 10 years or so you may be able paint your house with pigments containing 'Quantum Dots' which will convert the sun's infra red emissions directly into electricity. Because this technology works on the infra red spectrum, it remains efficient even during cloudy and overcast weather.

See Solar Paint at bookofjoe for the full story.

"I'm gonna paint that [Electric] Bill right out of my life"

Not a lot of people know that..

I just had a press release from an agency that's not about a thing. It's about what 'we' think about things Climatic, niftily entitled 'Climate What?'

Now, as I continue to struggle with finding the time, or the money to find the people with the time, to help me upload this stuff on our steam-driven site's admin system, I figure why not pop it here on the blog for now?

What caught my eye was that these guys have paid (using bmrb and a sample size of 1,000, which is fair, though having sat through too many focus groups in my ad days how the questions get asked is pretty key, and you seldom know that background) to have confirmed what I have suspected for a while, namely that, despite all the gazzillions being spent and acres of media devoted to it all, most still haven't got a clue.

Or as they say (which is shorthand for I can just cut and paste from now on):

Coverage in the media has never been so high, with the term 'carbon neutral' by all acccounts appearing in the UK media almost 500 times in the past two weeks alone (how do you check that?). However the complex message of climate change and environmentalism is still not being properly communicated to the public.

A recent Environment Agency poll has stated that, despite the hype, less than half of the people in the UK are changing their behaviour to reduce their carbon footprint, and that less than a quarter of these are recycling. Their figures also reveal that 73% of the UK population do not understand what is meant by the term 'carbon neutral'.

"Our findings show that there is still a huge gap in public understanding about the terms used in the media, by government and by big business", says MD Sara Tye, managing director.

Which makes me wonder what the heck the disconnect is, especially when we are seeing bazillions being poured into all sorts of enviro-comms efforts with, seemingly, so little effect. Maybe that odd notion we at Junkk have often floated may be something to do with it, namely scare, guilt, nanny and fine don't quite cut it. A little fun and incentive could go along way, if done right, but the protagonists mentioned don't do that too well, and even if those they commission can, the dead hand of a committee will always lurk in the background.

I'll also nick the following bit (nothing like choosing facts you like) for my own presentation to the VCs next week, but apparently for those companies with an environmental policy (not too sure myself what that actually translates into, but hey) there is a 'potential market of more than 9 million ethical customers who are willing to put their money where their mouth is'.

However, the newly motivated eyebrow-twitching journalist would like to know more about the 65 % of the respondents in the study who do understand what 'carbon neutral' means, and said they would pay more for products that they knew were going to help the environment [my italics].

As we've discussed here many times before, there is a subtle, but yawning gap between not doing as bad as you might, and actually doing good. And while better is better than nothing, education does need to get to grips with the total ramifications of the purchase of a product or service. Otherwise we will soon find ourselves with something like, oo, say... ethical space tourism: 'I blasted 6 billion litres of greenhouse gasses to get up here, and all I needed to do was plant a forest the size of Belgium to buy it off!'.

What I did rather like was my age range (45-54. Not telling you where in that, though) is the savviest, and would be prepared to pay a premium if they knew it was helping the environment (note my bold). Apparently only 24% of the 25-34 age group understood the term carbon neutral, despite being the most likely to be willing to pay more for carbon neutral products. Which leads me to ponder whether greens wash best with those more inclined not to ask awkward questions. Or care. Green is in danger of becoming a fashion item, and consequently just as easily dropped later on.

And without trying to get to Ecky-thump as to why, it seems there is is something of a North/South environmental awareness divide. Only 18 per cent of residents in Yorkshire/ Humberside are carbon neutral savvy. This contrasts with the 32 per cent of the population living in the South West as the most eco aware area of the UK. Maybe those Priuses are not so good on the Dales?

WHAT IS CARBON NEUTRAL?

Without attribution I'm taking this definition slightly on trust, but it seems to be fair enough, but of course we get into the detail of further terminology such as 'offsetting', which opens up whole new cans of worms. (I'm seeing Heather Gorringe of Wiggly Wigglers today, by the way).

The term Carbon Neutral can be applied when an activity has a Net Zero Emissions of carbon. This can be achieved through an investment which offsets the carbon produced by the relevant activity. This offsetting is most often achieved through Carbon sequestration which is the term describing processes that remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere by capturing and storing carbon (while releasing oxygen) both naturally and artificially.

Of course I have come up with enviROI, which Carbon Neutral can loosely be factored into. No wonder the general public is often confused!