When targets achieve the opposite effect

Seems like the lack of thought behind setting targets has created yet another snafu where the exact opposite of what the target was required to do is happening.

In this particular case, as reported in the Telegraph, councils are rejecting more planning applications purely in order to guarantee that they win the maximum central government grants available.

"More local authorities were meeting the 13 week target set by Whitehall by simply rejecting an application or encouraging the developer to withdraw it. This meant that they qualified for the grant money."

At a time when the building development market has collapsed because of the recession, this is simply absolute madness!! And perhaps I now understand why a guy I know has had his application for a large wind turbine turned down, despite the fact that he lives high up in a remote spot, and none of his neighbours (a handful within a three mile radius) objected!

Talking of targets ........

..... isn't it odd to note that our Gov is still failing to meet its own emissions reduction and renewables targets?

Reported on 24Dash.com.

A case of a classic own goal? Or yet another example of 'don't do as I do, do as I say'?

Here's the Telegraph's take on the same story.

Ready, aim.. missed. Off to another meeting, guys!

The strange science of setting targets

If it's anything, it's an art. If a rather dubious one. The Damien Hirst of social breast-beating as a veneer over rampant self-interest, where you might get to fool the 'smart set' to fork out bazillions for a rotting corpse as it keeps a lot in work even if no one actually benefits.

On the one hand, I accept the need for measures, whereby you can assess what you are aiming for (and have agreed with others), how you're doing en route (in case corrective actions are needed) and how well all involved performed in meeting them.

However, these days, when I hear the word 'targets', and all the associated waffle from those with a box-ticking, bonus-addicted, media-ratings reason to deal in them, I rather switch off.

Perhaps because they, and the industries surrounding them, have been totally discredited?

And the joint award for irony and best use of funds goes to..

Sweet home Alabama?

I appreciate the underlying humour that prompted this, but was more interested in the simple facts of.. 'The council spent £15,000... The leaflet was meant to thank residents for helping the city achieve its 2007-2008 recycling target early.'

Let's get our heads round this. They spent an extra £15k to thank folk for helping meet a target early.

And a side order of getting your own house in order with that...

Fish on film: can it stop the waste?

Phew, at least they aren't targets. Think of the waste then!

Pledge, target... what exactly are they for?

Its green medal hopes are lost but Beijing must race on - Failure to meet the Olympic cleanup pledge will embarrass China.

I wish I could run my business as most governments (are alloweed to) run theirs.

"So... what I said wee'd do to get the job hasn't happened. Oh, and it's tripled in price, ta very much'.

Break out the bubb... er.. choc... er... !

Retailers and brands hit target to end packaging growth in the UK

Wonder what all will do with their bonuses if there is precious little they should be buying or travelling with it all on... if they are serious.

Ready, aim... er... well, that went well, I think

Great thing, aiming.

G8 aims to halve greenhouse gases

I do recall this all, or something very similar, before, however.

Wonder how many BBC journos flew along to take us for the ride, too.

Indy - An agreement with no commitments

Guardian - Global polluters agree need for cuts in emissions - but not how or when - You know, on that basis, there is a lot I am happy to agree to, too.

BBC - Summit approves climate 'vision' - Yes, it's that vision thing. Needs looking at.. into.

Telegraph - NEW - BBC throwing out food - I do wonder what else they might be accused of, mind

Telegraph - NEW - Let's hope Gordon Brown clears his plate at the G8 - Bless

You can't build on Greenbelt ......

..... well, errrrr ...... except when you get the Gov's approval to redraw the boundaries so it is no longer classified as Greenbelt! Full disgraceful story from the Telegraph the other day.

"The move will see the land redesignated so it can be sold to developers to try to meet ministers' house-building targets. Official documents warn that the process "will result in significant change" for local communities."

Oh, so its being done so that yet another set of ministerial targets (probably erroneous) can be met. Sorry, but don't these chumps realise that once land has been built on you can never change it back (OK, 'redesignate' it) to Greenbelt!?

And I just love that term they use - 'redesignated' - I seem to recollect that there was a similar term for this back in the old days when parliamentary constituencies regularly had their boundaries changed - wasn't it called gerrymandering?

Targets, Targets & More Targets.....

.... and the majority of them will NOT be met.

I didn't have time to post this from the Telegraph last week but it really does need exposing. It is highlighting a report from the Policy Exchange think tank.

"Two thirds of the key climate change targets made under Labour were now unlikely to be met."

"They found that rather than being an honest motivator of achievement, where failures were acknowleged and lessons learnt, a pattern of "creative accounting" had emerged where targets looked in danger of being missed."

"The report concluded that the sheer number and complexity of targets made them easy to forget or miss and therefore they lost their motivating force."

Not a bulls eye in view - no real surprises there then!

The Fat Bush Theory

Is described in the International Herald Tribune. It is an hysterically funny analogy to explain Dubya's stance on reducing the growth rate of greenhouse gas emissions.

I wish I'd thought of it first!

Reasons. No Excuses.

Any system that results in this is broke, and needs fixing, fast: Airline in row over free tickets on extra flights

While I concede that such as plastic bags are 'an' issue and may well be worth addressing, even just in terms of public awareness (though getting them to do the right thing with reusables would be optimal), things such as the above are what our political masters should be addressing.

Indy - A stunt that exposes the truth about corporate greed - I am not alone!

NEWS/GO3 PR - We're 'on track', apparently

Like so much here that involves a track, or conveyor, works out so well..

PR (from DEFRA) as provided, with no edit or further comment at all from me:

UK on track to meet kyoto targets as emissions continue to fall

Environment Secretary Hilary Benn today said that the UK is making progress on cutting Greenhouse Gas emissions, but there is still much work to do.

Provisional statistics published today for total UK Greenhouse Gas emissions for 2007 showed a drop of two per cent over the previous year, with 639.4 million tonnes carbon dioxide equivalent, down from 652.3 million tonnes in 2006.

They also show that in 2007, UK net emissions of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) were provisionally estimated to be 543.7 million tonnes. This was two per cent lower than the 2006 figure of 554.5 million tonnes.

The decrease in CO2 emissions resulted from fuel switching from coal to natural gas for electricity generation, combined with lower fossil fuel consumption by households and industry.

Secretary of State for the Environment, the Rt. Hon. Hilary Benn said:

"These figures show we are making progress in cutting emissions and are on target to go beyond our Kyoto targets. But there's much to do at home and abroad if we are to going to avert dangerous climate change.

"We need to see a major change across the whole of the UK economy if we are to meet the ambitious emissions reduction targets set in the Climate Change Bill. To aid this, the Government will develop carbon markets and promote the development of low carbon technology, while continuing to work to get international agreement on global emissions targets.

"But while the Government can provide encouragement and incentives, we also need individuals and businesses to do their bit to cut their carbon footprint because it's only by all of us tackling climate change that we will achieve success."

Energy Minister, the Rt. Hon. Malcolm Wicks said:

"Today's figures show that we are on the way to a low carbon future. Energy efficiency, more renewable energy, new nuclear and carbon capture and storage technology will all play a key part in ensuring that greenhouse gas emissions continue to fall."

Notes to editors

1. All the statistics released today are estimated in accordance with the rules agreed internationally for reporting to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the Kyoto Protocol and the European Union. As a consequence the statistics include domestic flights but not international flights since there is currently no internationally agreed method to take account of international aviation emissions.

2. These provisional emissions estimates will be subject to revision when the final estimates are published in early 2009; however, they provide an early indication of emissions in the most recent full calendar year. The majority of provisional estimates are within 1 per cent of the final figures.

3. The figures for 1990 to 2006 in this statistics release are from the National Atmospheric Emissions Inventory (NAEI), produced for Defra and the Devolved Administrations by AEA Energy & Environment. Additional results will be released as they become available, including a full report published towards the end of the year. For further information on the UK Greenhouse Gas Inventory, see the NAEI web site.

4. The climate change indicator is one of the 68 indicators supporting the Government's Sustainable Development Strategy.

5. There are uncertainties associated with all estimates of greenhouse gas emissions. However, although for any given year considerable uncertainties may surround the emissions estimates for a pollutant, it is important to note that trends over time are likely to be much more reliable. It is also important to note that the provisional 2007 estimates are subject to a greater range of uncertainty than the final figures for earlier years. For more information on these uncertainties see the Digest of Environmental Statistics.

6. Further details of the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme can be found at the EU ETS section of the Defra website.

A foot! Let's see if we can hit it!

Oops! Govt fails to meet its sustainability targets

Can't help but feel the word 'again' might be missing here.

Targets. Gotta love 'em. Keep lots of folk in business setting them, assessing them and then explaining why they don't matter or rejigging the rules for another stab. Plus guys like us passing comment.

One thing... 'wasn’t you: it was government.'

Like many, I'd like to divorce me from t'other. But sadly, once such as the EU fines kick in for missing them I rather suspect it will be us who fork out.

Sad face again:(

No suprise at all

Given that our Gov cannot even decide what actual CO2 emissions are (see previous post), it comes as no surprise, too, that they are failing to meet their own internal CO2 emission reduction targets, as reported in the Guardian.

"Apart from the Ministry of Defence, which significantly reduced its emissions in 2005/6 following a part privatisation, central government now emits 22% more than it did in 1999, according to the sustainable development commission."

Looking good to achieve the set targets then? (Even though they are probably not sure what the targets actually are.). I think not!

"It recommends that each department urgently reduces its annual energy budget and only uses air travel when there is no alternative."

Hahahahahahaha! Sorry, I'm rolling about laughing at that one! It seems to me that when it comes to the great and good in our Gov, air travel IS the chosen option at ALL times EXCEPT when there is no flight available to a specific destination.

To be fair, sometimes there really is no option; after all, it a damned long way by train from Kings Cross to Bali or Washington.

ADDENDUM 1 (from Junkk Male):

To be fair, it seems they are on the case. PR as provided in full, with a few highlights and comments by yours truly:

New centre of expertise for cutting carbon emissions across Whitehall

Government response to Sustainable Development Commission's Sustainable Development in

A new Centre of Expertise is to be set up to help Whitehall departments achieve their targets for reducing carbon emissions and waste across the government estate.
Details of the Centre of Expertise for Sustainable Procurement (CESP) were unveiled as the Government published its response to the Sustainable Development Commission's latest report on how the Government is meeting its own sustainable objectives for tackling climate change.
Today's annual Sustainable Development in Government (SDiG) report by the independent watchdog and adviser on sustainability shows a small improvement in the Government's overall performance against its key ‘eco’ commitments – including a four per cent fall in carbon emissions across the estate by the end of 2006/7. However, the Commission called on departments to urgently build on initiatives already taken to ensure targets can be met and to demonstrate that the Government is leading by example on sustainability.
The CESP will be set up within the Office of Government Commerce (OGC) alongside the Government's Chief Sustainability Officer – a new post to be appointed to take forward a culture of change across all departments in sustainable operations and procurement.
Cabinet Secretary Sir Gus O'Donnell, who took personal charge of work in this area last March, has made sustainability of the government estate one of his four priorities for the civil service. Sir Gus said:
“The Civil Service must be fully committed to sustainable working, reflecting the increasing priority placed on environmental responsibility by the public we serve. We must find new and innovative ways of raising the bar for sustainable working, planning and procurement.
“There is still a long way to go but the establishment of the Centre of Expertise for Sustainable Procurement marks the culmination of significant progress over the last twelve months. This central co-ordination and guidance will help all government departments work to deliver sustainable working practices for the future.”
Environment Secretary Hilary Benn said:
“In the year that has elapsed since the period covered by this report, departments have been working to cut emissions, waste and water use and to increase recycling levels.
“The measures we're announcing today will help us to do better in the year ahead.”
Nigel Smith, Chief Executive of OGC, also spoke about the way forward to ensure sustainable practice and procurement. He said:
“Government is taking the issue of sustainability very seriously, but we recognise that we need to do a lot more in order to meet the targets we have set ourselves. We can only do this if we build on the best practice that exists across Government, and if we have good and robust information, so that we know what's happening, what impact our actions are having and where the gaps are. I'm therefore delighted that the new Centre for Expertise is to be established in OGC, and that all Departments are committed to supporting its work.
“OGC has a strong track record in achieving quantifiable results across Government, based on robust data, clear standard-setting, and close and collaborative working with Departments to achieve delivery. We believe we are now well-placed to lead real change.”
The Government accepts in principle all the recommendations made by the SDC, and among the steps that will now be taken are the following:
* From April 2008 all departmental heads will have a specific objective to meet Sustainable Operations on the Government Estate (SOGE) targets, against which their performance will be assessed
* A major Green Government IT programme will be launched in the summer - Another one?
* From 2010 all central Government departments will be included in a pioneering emissions trading scheme, the Carbon Reduction Commitment (CRC), which will compel them to improve their energy efficiency. This mandatory emissions trading scheme will cover around 5000 public and private organisations, including government departments, retailers, banks and local authorities, which combined account for 10 per cent of the UK economy's emissions
* Action to achieve the work space efficiency standard of 12 square metres per FTE will be published in April 2008
* From this summer all new vehicles used by ministers and permanent secretaries (except a small number exempt for operational reasons) will have carbon emissions below 130g/km
* The use of bottled water for meetings and other official business is to be phased (er, can't they just, um, stop?) out across the whole government estate by the summer
In its response to the report, the Government accepts the need for more better and more accurate data against which the progress of departments can be measured. A major validation exercise to upgrade the quality of data provided to the SDC and the baselines used to assess performance has been undertaken in the past two months.

1. The 2007 Sustainable Development in Government (SDiG) report, published today, assesses the performance of central Government operations for 2006/07 against the targets of the Framework for Sustainable Operations on the Government Estate (SOGE).

2. The Government's formal response to the 2007 SDiG report can be found at

I must confess that I only just got around to this by virtue of rolling on the floor laughing silly at the notion of the creation of another 'Centre of Expertise', mind. That those highly talented, highly paid folk in various departments need yet more folk in new ones to help them all do, er, less, is choice.

Addendum 2: (Dave)
Ooooo-errr. A response from Hilary Benn, no less, to an earlier article claiming that our Gov was issuing 'misleading' figures on the overall UK's CO2 emissions. "It is nonsense". So that's OK then.

If we don't know what our emissions are now ....

... how the hell can we commit to set reduction targets?

This from Public Servant Daily defines the problem. It seems our Gov is consistently using two different measures for calculating CO2 emissions, neither of which agree with each other (by as much as 12%!!). Sooooo, OK, just how on earth are we supposed to achieve our targets then?

Oh well, they are only targets, aren't they. And targets, being entirely movable, malleable and stretchable, don't seem to be of much relevance (other than in self promotion and in the 'crowing' stakes) in the great Gov scheme of things nowadays.

I suppose if you are not even sure where the football pitch is, it doesn't really matter how much you move the goalposts.

There's also whether they add up

It was about, I believe, drug programmes, but as easily can apply to every aspect of current government policy.

In a rather matter of fact BBC news piece there was the choice insight that 'all that matters is the numbers who sign up, rather than whether anything effective gets done [with them].'

This target-based, box-ticking culture is spiralling us ever downwards.

More talk, and more targets

An interesting article from The Indy, highlighting the fact that the new housing minister, Caroline Flint, will announce later this week that ALL new 'non-domestic' buildings must be zero carbon by 2020. On top of the existing commitment to ensure that all new domestic properties are zero carbon by 2016 (strange, I was convinced that they said 2012 when that was first announced), that's an extremely ambitious target.

Let's see. Targets set by pols tend not to be overtly fixed and have a common habit of changing over time. And I find it rather odd that this sort of announcement comes when the grants system for renewables seems to have been deliberately halted.

By the way, this article suggests that we were wrong about how many new builds had qualified for Ol' Golden's much lauded stamp duty exemption, they reckon it is only three!
_________________________________________
n.b. I will be exhibiting SolarVenti in the Green Shoots Pavilion at the EcoBuild show for most of this week. Peter, I am sure, will continue to dig up interesting items for your perusal whilst I am away.

If this wasn't so funny.....

....... it would actually be rather sad. And I know it's not really enviro, but this just has to be seen to be believed.

I am talking about this from the Labour Party, extolling what they believe are their top 50 achievements since coming to power in 1997.

But, not a single mention of the removal of horrendous regimes in Iraq and Afghanistan, nor any mention of the fantastic humanitarian relief efforts undertaken in places like Kossovo, Sierra Leone, plus many locations affected by the tsunami etc. And peace in N. Ireland? Relegated to a comment about devolved power (No. 26). Successfully bidding for the olympics? Not mentioned!

If you want to blow your own trumpet, then feel free to do so, but please include things that are genuinely worthy and please tell the truth. E.g. No 25, 'on course to exceed our kyoto target'!! Get real!!

Nos 1,2,5,6,7 for a start - surely you are taking the proverbial with these?

And absolutely no mention of Northern Wreck, Sleaze, Back-handers, Peerages for donations, dodgy donations, record levels of taxation, record amounts of red tape and numbers of bureaucrats etc. etc., anywhere to be seen! And stealthily getting the UK into the new EU constitution without a referendum? Now that really has been an achievement!

Sorry, but this list appears to me not to be a list of successful achievements at all, it's a list of successful box ticking and bean counting exercises where theoretical 'targets' have been 'met'.

I despair!


1. Longest period of sustained low inflation since the 60s.
Ha Ha Ha! Only by taking mortgage and fuel costs out of the calculation!
2. Low mortgage rates.
Ha Ha Ha!
3. Introduced the National Minimum Wage and raised it to £5.52.

4. Over 14,000 more police in England and Wales.
So where are they all then?
5. Cut overall crime by 32 per cent.
Ha Ha Ha!
6. Record levels of literacy and numeracy in schools.
Ha Ha Ha!
7. Young people achieving some of the best ever results at 14, 16, and 18.
Ha Ha Ha!
8. Funding for every pupil in England has doubled.

9. Employment is at its highest level ever.
By massaging the figures!
10. Written off up to 100 per cent of debt owed by poorest countries.

11. 85,000 more nurses.
So, just why is there still a shortage of nurses? Where have they all gone?
12. 32,000 more doctors.

13. Brought back matrons to hospital wards.
Anybody spotted one yet?
14. Devolved power to the Scottish Parliament.

15. Devolved power to the Welsh Assembly.

16. Dads now get paternity leave of 2 weeks for the first time.

17. NHS Direct offering free convenient patient advice.

18. Gift aid was worth £828 million to charities last year.

19. Restored city-wide government to London.

20. Record number of students in higher education.
And a record number leaving in the first year! Not to mention thousands leaving with huge debts that will take them decades to pay off because of the 'successful' student loan scheme!
21. Child benefit up 26 per cent since 1997.

22. Delivered 2,200 Sure Start Children’s Centres.

23. Introduced the Equality and Human Rights Commission.

24. £200 winter fuel payment to pensioners & up to £300 for over-80s.

25. On course to exceed our Kyoto target for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Now you are really taking the pi**!!
26. Restored devolved government to Northern Ireland.
What about achieving peace over there? That really is worth shouting about!
27. Over 36,000 more teachers in England and 274,000 more support staff and teaching assistants.

28. All full time workers now have a right to 24 days paid holiday.

29. A million pensioners lifted out of poverty.
?
30. 600,000 children lifted out of relative poverty.
?
31. Introduced child tax credit giving more money to parents.
Which is so complex, most people don't even claim it!
32. Scrapped Section 28 and introduced Civil Partnerships.

33. Brought over 1 million social homes up to standard.
Errrr, where exactly?
34. Inpatient waiting lists down by over half a million since 1997.
!!
35. Banned fox hunting.
Which continues anyway.
36. Cleanest rivers, beaches, drinking water and air since before the industrial revolution.
With labour contributing what over the last 10 years?
37. Free TV licences for over-75s.

38. Banned fur farming and the testing of cosmetics on animals.

39. Free breast cancer screening for all women aged between 50-70.

40. Free off peak local bus travel for over-60s.

41. New Deal - helped over 1.8 million people into work.

42. Over 3 million child trust funds have been started.

43. Free eye test for over 60s.
Errr, hasn't this always has been so?
44. More than doubled the number of apprenticeships.

45. Free entry to national museums and galleries.

46. Overseas aid budget more than doubled.

47. Heart disease deaths down by 150,000 and cancer deaths down by 50,000.

48. Cut long-term youth unemployment by 75 per cent.

49. Free nursery places for every three and four-year-olds.

50. Free fruit for most four to six-year-olds at school.

Addendum

Telegraph - They forgot about the smoking ban! - Are these Labour's top achievements? (see 50 Comments) - Well, it wan't going to be in the Gaurdian I guess.

More facts, figures and statistics!

Yet another set of facts and figures that may be open to question.

Addendum below. Post redated from 02/02/08 accordingly.

I spotted the gov's official CO2 emission figures the other day and thought that as the supposed reduction was so small, it was hardly worth commenting on. However, as reported by Channel 4, some green campaigners claim the figures are 'misleading', especially as they "ignore emissions from international flights, which are increasing."

In fact, they reckon that if you add in the international flights factor, the gov's figure would show a 5.5% year on year INCREASE in CO2 emissions.

Errrm ....... just who the hell are we supposed to believe?

We are simply left in an unknowing dilemma when facts, figures and statistics are massaged to suit a particular argument, as we have already commented on before.

ADDENDUM (Junkk Male) - Now here's a useful thing. A little effort of C4's I subscribed to only recently, called Fact Check. And looky here: FactCheck: have UK emissions really gone down? Neither hyped up nor spun down? I think they're being generous.

ps; And as the typo king I'm one to talk, but have to love their spelling of 'largerly'