It always pays to wave a flag

A while ago I noticed one of those pieces of passing PR that are so easy to let wash over you.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2387293/Mrs-Hastings-I-make-mend-addicts-But-todays-young-think-past-sell-date.html
(actually it was in the Telegraph, but they have a paywall limit so this'll do)

In this case I decided to pop the good Lord a missive:

"Reading your plans in yesterday's Telegraph, I can only wish you well.

There are of course many ways to encourage folk to 'save', both planet
and money, and more and more seem keen to embrace them.

What would be good is to further bridge the gap more between
manufacturers/retailers doing as little as they can in compliance,
often hiding behind the jargon of the CSR industry, and consumers who
tend to think more in terms of simplicity and end benefit."

It took a while but I am glad to say it has been replied to, in as nice a way as may be hoped:

Dear Mr Martin,

Waste reduction

Thank you for your email of 8 August to Lord de Mauley about waste reduction.  I have been asked to reply.

"As you may know, the Minister’s statement was linked to our publication on 6 August of a public consultation on our draft proposals for the Waste Prevention Programme for England (consult.defra.gov.uk/waste/waste prevention/).  The results of the consultation will inform the final Programme, which is due to be finalised in December.  We are grateful for your comments, which have been passed to the relevant policy officials and will be considered as part of the consultation exercise.

Preventing waste from being produced in the first place is not only good for the environment, but for the economy and household budgets too.  Research shows that businesses can make £17 billion in annual savings by taking simple steps to produce less waste.  Everyone has a part to play in reducing waste.  Our proposals in this programme will help individuals and organisations recognise the savings they can make by cutting waste and passing on items they no longer use.  It will explore ways to make it easier for individuals to reuse and repair items.  It also aims to ensure that products are designed to last longer, contain fewer hazardous parts and reduce the environmental impact of the waste they create."

Pick a pocket or two

DEFRA - The environment in your pocket

Looks fun... well if you're into that kind of thing. Hey, maybe there will be too many reapets on Tv to bear. Here's the blurb I got:

(DEFRA) The environment in your pocket 2008

The twelfth edition of The environment in your pocket is published today by Defra. This is an annual publication containing material on various environmental themes including climate change, air quality, waste and recycling, land, coastal and marine waters, radioactivity, wildlife and inland water. The main theme of this year's publication is climate change and a larger section has been devoted to topics relating to climate change.

It covers almost 60 key data series and focuses on providing trends over time, including performance against quantified targets and commitments set at the national and international level. It includes several environmental indicators of sustainable development.

Examples of facts and figures reported in the booklet include:

* 2007 was one of the warmest years on record with a mean Central England temperature 1.05degrees C above the1961-1990 average.

* In 2007 an average of 1,029 mm of rain fell across the UK, making it 12 per cent wetter than the 1961-1990 average.

* In 2007, 72 per cent of river lengths in England were of good biological quality and 76 per cent were of good chemical quality.

Junkk lauds LA councillor shock!

Barmy bureaucratic bin laws make a mockery of justice says Enfield councillor and magistrate

Go, Tel.. go!

But seriously, this does show such 'initiatives' are not just the scares whipped up by the tabloids.

Everything is relative, I guess

And I know that it's hard to reduce things as populations expand (even if economies might not be).

But...

After all the bazzillions spent on system and 'awareness' comms budgets, do these figures look good to you on an ROI and/or enviROI basis?

Defra says results show waste policy progress

Household waste is down from 25.8m to 25.6m tonnes;
Waste sent to landfill is down from 16.9 to 15.8m tonnes;
Average household recycling rates increased to 33.9%; and
Municipal waste reduced overall from 29.1m to 28.8m tonnes.

A must read (if you have time)

Well, it does have the word 'sustainable' in it

(DEFRA) Sustainable development indicators in your pocket 2008

A free little book published by Defra provides a statistical overview of the country's progress in tackling key economic, social and environmental issues, by bringing together an extensive range of indicators that can literally fit in your pocket. They cover a wide range of topics of everyday concern such as health, housing, jobs, crime, education, and our environment, all of which may affect whether we can live more sustainably in the future.

The aim of this booklet is to make indicators easily accessible to a wide audience and to enable everyone to judge where change for the better or worse is occurring and where the challenges are. It should be a useful reference to experts but also to others less familiar with the concept of sustainable development or indicators. Around 60,000 copies of the booklet are distributed annually and they are particularly popular with schools and colleges.

This edition includes as new contextual information:

* An update to the life satisfaction wellbeing measure, showing how people rate their lives [page 118 of publication]

* An extension of the wellbeing measures to now include child wellbeing [pages 129 to 135].

* Estimates of carbon dioxide emissions associated with the UK's consumption of goods and services, whether or not the emissions occur within the UK i.e. including through the production of imported goods (often referred to as embedded emissions) [page 24 of publication]

Key results

The 68 indicators comprise 126 measures and using these it is possible to get an overview of change compared with earlier years, based on the number of measures showing improvement, little change or deterioration. However it is essential to look at the individual indicators too as this does not take account of the relative importance of particular indicators.

All indicators1

Compared with the position in 1999, 53 measures show improvement (representing over half of those for which it is possible to make an assessment), and 11 show a deterioration.

A wide range of measures show improvement including:

* renewable electricity
* emissions of air pollutants
* waste recycling
* agricultural emissions and land stewardship
* river water quality
* land recycling for development
* crime and fear of crime
* childhood and pensioner poverty
* death rates from circulatory disease, cancer and suicides
* people killed or seriously injured in road accidents
* housing conditions, fuel poverty and rough sleepers
* local environmental quality.

The eleven measures showing deterioration since 1999 are specifically:

* aviation emissions of greenhouse gases
* fossil fuels used for electricity generation
* nitrogen oxide emissions from electricity generation
* carbon dioxide emissions from the service sector
* energy supply (consumption exceeding UK production)
* household waste arisings
* wintering wetland bird populations
* range of life expectancy between local authorities
* walking and cycling
* ozone pollution in urban areas
* households living in temporary accommodation

UK Framework Indicators

Twenty of the 68 indicators are also 'UK Framework indicators' covering key impacts and outcomes that reflect the priorities shared by the UK Government and the devolved administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
[page 16 of publication]

These include:

Greenhouse gas emissions: emissions of carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas, were about 8 per cent lower than in 1990. Emissions decreased by about 3 per cent between 2006 and 2007 as a result of switching from coal to natural gas for electricity generation.
[page 23 of publication]

River water quality: between 1990 and 2006 the percentage of rivers of good biological quality in England rose from 60 to 71 per cent and in 2006, 54 per cent of rivers in Northern Ireland and 82 per cent of rivers in Wales were of good biological quality. In 2006, 66 per cent of English rivers were of good chemical quality (up from 43 per cent in 1990), this figure was 74 per cent in Northern Ireland (up from 44 per cent in 1991). In all years since 1993 over 90 per cent of rivers in Wales have been of good chemical quality. In Scotland, the percentage of rivers of good quality has remained stable at around 87 per cent between 2000 and 2006, based on a combined chemical, biological and aesthetic assessment.
[page 59 of publication]

Bird populations: Farmland bird populations fell by 42 per cent between 1970 and 1993, but remained fairly stable thereafter. Woodland bird populations in 2006 were about 30 per cent lower than the peak of the early 1970s and about 16 per cent lower than 1990. The UK's breeding seabird populations increased between 1970 and 1987 by 37 per cent but have fallen again since 1999.
[page 46 of publication]

Crime: In England and Wales, from the British Crime Survey (BCS), vehicle thefts fell by 61 per cent and burglary fell by 47 per cent between 1991 and 2007-8. Violent crime has fallen by 30 per cent since 1999.
[page 68 of publication]

Health inequality: In 1991-3 the difference in average life expectancy for men between local authority areas in the UK with the highest and lowest average life expectancy was 9.7 years. This widened to 12.6 years in 2004-6. For women the difference was 7.5 years in 1991-3 and widened to 10.2 years in 2004-6.
[page 82 of publication]

Theme summaries

The 68 indicators can provide an overview of change for four themes as set out in the UK Government's Sustainable Development Strategy, Securing the Future (though there is some overlap in the messages where some indicators support more than one of the themes). The four themes are:

* Sustainable consumption and production
* Climate change and energy
* Natural resource protection and environmental enhancement
* Creating sustainable communities

Sustainable consumption and production

Indicators1 for sustainable consumption and production mainly cover emissions, resource use and waste.

Twenty measures (over half) show improvement compared with 1999. Those showing improvement include emissions of air pollutants, waste recycling, agricultural emissions, and land recycling.

Measures showing deterioration since 1999 are greenhouse gases from aviation, service sector carbon dioxide emissions and household waste arisings.

Climate change and energy

Indicators1 for climate change and energy mainly cover greenhouse gas emissions, electricity generation and energy supply.

Six measures show improvement since 1999 and five show deterioration.

Those showing improvement since 1999 are renewable electricity, greenhouse gas emissions from shipping, sulphur dioxide emissions from electricity generation, carbon dioxide emissions from manufacturing and the public sector, and methane emissions associated with agriculture.

Those showing deterioration are aviation emissions of greenhouse gases, energy supply, fossil fuels used in electricity generation, nitrogen oxide emissions from electricity generation and service sector carbon dioxide emissions.

Natural resource protection and enhancing the environment

Indicators1 for natural resource protection mainly cover wildlife and biodiversity, farming, land use, fish stocks, air pollution and rivers.

Sixteen measures show improvement since 1999 and one shows deterioration.

Those showing improvement since 1999 include river water quality, farming management and emissions, land recycling, air pollution, and the impact of acidification from air pollution.

Compared with 1990, wintering wetland birds show a decline. Farmland and woodland bird populations show a decline since 1990.

Creating sustainable communities and a fairer world

Indicators1 for creating sustainable communities mainly cover poverty, health, crime, access, mobility, and local and domestic environments.

Twenty-four measures show improvement since 1999, nineteen show little or no change, and four show deterioration.

Those showing improvement include poverty and housing conditions, local environment quality, crime and fear of crime, mortality rates, and road accidents.

Those showing deterioration are the difference in life expectancy between local authority areas, the number of households in temporary accommodation, walking and cycling, and ozone pollution in urban areas.

International indicators

Some international data have been compiled to enable some comparisons to be made for the UK and other countries. International data are available for 32 of the 68 national indicators, consisting of 45 component measures. The indicators are presented on the UK Government sustainable development website (see notes.)

International data are presented for the UK and twelve other countries: France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Canada, Japan, Australia and the United States of America. However owing to data availability not all countries are included in every international measure. The choice of countries was partly driven by data availability but also assumptions about comparative levels of development.

It should be noted that the international data have been used as provided by the originating organisation (for example Eurostat for the European Union, the Organisation for Economic Development and Cooperation (OECD), and others) and reliance has been placed upon these organisations' efforts to ensure that the data are as comparable as possible. Defra statisticians are not responsible for reliability or comparability of the international data, and the international indicators are not National Statistics.

International data are in many cases much older than data available nationally. So the position in the UK and other countries may well have changed compared with the situation presented by the international data.

International comparisons should be always treated with extreme caution as definitions and measurement methods differ between countries (despite considerable efforts by Eurostat and OECD in particular, to ensure consistency in coverage between countries).

The measures presented are the nearest available international equivalent measure to that included in the national indicators. However definitions and coverage may different from the national measure.

An attempt has been made to summarise the international data and to do so a number of criteria have been applied:

(i) Data should be available for the UK and all the 12 other selected countries.

(ii) For assessing the position for the latest year, data should be available for 2002 or later.

(iii) For assessing the recent change, data need to be available for the mid to late 1990s and for 2002 or later.

Applying these criteria, for only 20 of 45 measures for which there are international data are there data for 2002 or later for the UK and all 12 other countries.

Similarly for only 15 of the 45 measures are there sufficient data to assess progress from a year in the mid to late 1990s to 2002 or later.

Summaries are presented below based on the measures that meet the criteria. The measures that are included do cover a wide range of issues related to sustainable development, but they are inevitably extremely limited in the extent to which they present a representative summary of the UK or any other country.

UK's levels compared with 12 other countries in latest available year *

* Out of 20 measures for which data were available for all 13 compared countries and for 2002 or later, 4 measures showed the UK positioned as one of the 4 countries with the most favourable conditions. These measures were: energy consumption, water abstractions, carbon monoxide emissions and road fatalities. The UK's highest position was second, for water abstractions.

* For 6 measures the UK was positioned as one of the bottom 4 countries with the least favourable conditions. These were: renewable energy production, infant deaths per 1,000 live births, average life expectancy, deaths from cardio-vascular disease and cancer and incidences of obesity. Of these measures the UK was positioned 13th for renewable energy production and 12th for incidences of obesity.

* For the remaining 10 measures the UK was in the middle range (5th to 9th position) in relative terms. These measures were greenhouse gas emissions, carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of fossil fuels, emissions of air pollutants from nitrogen oxides, sulphur dioxide and volatile organic compounds, bird species threatened, protected land, Gross Domestic Production per capita, public social expenditure and percentage of adults with tertiary (higher) level educational qualifications.

Change since mid to late 1990s for UK and 12 other countries

* For the 15 measures for which comparisons of progress can be made from the mid to late 1990s with 2003 or later, the UK showed an improvement for 11 measures (73 per cent).

* Both the United States of America and Denmark showed an improvement for 12 measures (80 per cent). Of the compared countries Canada, France, Japan and Australia had the fewest measures showing improvement with 8 (53 per cent). However these assessments of change do not take account of the different baselines for each country, only the extent to which a change has occurred relative to the individual country's status in the mid to late 1990s.

NEWS/GO3 - Green goods to come to the front of Britain's shelves

From DEFRA, E& OE: Green goods to come to the front of Britain's shelves

Publishing progress reports on Sustainable Products and Materials and
the Waste Strategy, Climate Change Minister Ms Joan Ruddock has said that the
Government and industry were working together to green the whole life cycle of products and
services - from the raw materials right through to their use and
disposal:

"We know people are concerned about their effect on the environment,
but they don't get to see the full picture of what goes into
producing the goods they buy - and they don't see what happens after
they've thrown them away.

"It needs to be easier for people to buy products that will save them
money and reduce their impact on the environment - and that's exactly
what we're doing. There are real savings to be made - through this
action to green the products and materials we use, UK households
could save £5 billion a year on their bills.

"Many businesses are already taking positive steps to reduce the
environmental impact of their products, and are seeing the real
benefits this can have, both for them and their customers. But as
fuel prices rise, commodities become scarcer, and families are
feeling the pinch, it becomes ever more important for businesses to
use resources more efficiently throughout the supply chain, those
that don't will miss out on potential savings, as well as big
opportunities for growth."

The Sustainable Products and Materials report details, for the first
time, the action already underway on making products and materials
more sustainable throughout their production, use and disposal,
across a wide range of products groups including food, electrical
appliances and clothing.

Significant achievements to date include:

* The piloting of Product Roadmaps, which aim to improve the
environmental performance of ten priority products across their life
cycles;

* Progress towards saving enough energy to power 1.5 million homes by
improving the efficiency of some of the biggest energy using products
- set top boxes, external power supply units (such as for laptops,
mobile phones, and printers), fridges, washing machines, and
dishwashers;

* An initiative with retailers to take inefficient light bulbs off
the shelves by 2011;

* Half of all milk packaging to be made from recycled materials by
2020;

* Government is setting an example for business through our "Buy
Sustainable - Quick Wins workstream." This tightens minimum standards
for public sector procurement. For example most paper used in
Government offices must have 100% recycled content and, where
non-recycled content is allowed, any virgin fibre used must be
sourced from a sustainably managed forest;

* Developing the PAS2050, a recognised standard which enables
businesses to measure CO2 emissions across the life-cycle of
products;

* Leading in Europe to bring the energy used by all standby devices
sold in the EU down to 1 watt - and to halve that again in four years
after that standard is adopted.

The report also sets out a vision for future work on making products
more sustainable, and encourages further debate and discussion on how
this can be achieved.

* UK households could save £5 billion per year from cost-effective
energy efficiency improvements to products.

* Savings from not wasting so much food could be around £420 for the
average UK household. And for households with children it's even more
- £610 a year.

* Confident that with today's technology for metering, tariffs
and water efficiency, per capita consumption of water can be reduced
through cost effective measures, to an average of 130 litres per
person per day by 2030. Hope that developments in new technology
and future innovation will improve the cost-effectiveness of these
measures over time and this can drive consumption down further to an
average of 120 litres per person per day by 2030.

* Energy saving light bulbs can reduce lighting costs by up to £100
over the lifetime of the bulb.

* Initiatives such as moves by major retailers to reduce
environmental impacts demonstrate that resource efficiency is
beginning to be seen as a business opportunity.

The Government is also publishing the "Policy Analysis and
Projections 2008" report which sets out our vision and trajectories
for improvement of efficiency of a range of energy-using products
including light bulbs, refrigerators, boilers and consumer
electronics till 2020 as well as the evidence underpinning our
assessment and challenges to industry for the scale of those
improvements.

A summary of progress made since the publication in May 2007 of the
Waste Strategy is also published today.

It shows good progress in the main indicators, covering waste growth,
recycling and diversion from landfill:

* There is a fall in the amount of household waste produced per
person which is not re-used, recycled, or composted;

* Household recycling rates have continued to increase. Early
indications are that the national average has risen in the first part
of 2007/08 to 33%;

* The amount of commercial and industrial waste being sent to
landfill has continued to fall;

* More energy is being recovered from waste; and

* Less biodegradable waste is being sent to landfill.

Further work is needed to identify whether an increase in reports of
fly tipping incidents represents an increase in fly tipping activity,
or whether it reflects continued improvement in the levels of
information local authorities provide to the Fly Capture national
database. The forecast for 2007/08 anticipates a decrease in fly
tipping levels.

1. The Sustainable Products and Materials progress report is
available here

2. The Waste Strategy progress report is available here

3. Ten product roadmaps to demonstrate the
sustainable products approach are being piloted - milk, fish, clothing, passenger
cars, TVs, domestic lighting, electric motors, window systems, WCs,
plasterboard. Further information on each is available here

4. You can read more about Market Transformation Programme "Policy
Analysis and Projections" here

* By 2020 half of all milk packaging will be made from recycled
materials

*The dairy industry are undertaking
the following measures to achieve them:

* To send zero ex-factory waste to landfill.

* All tertiary packaging is to be re-usable or recyclable

'It must be good; we spent millions on it'

I am grateful to Dave of Solarventi for this link to one the greater 'Well, d'uh's' of the year:

Government ads for climate change need a new approach

And just how much has been blown on massive green-related comms efforts to date, until just now coming to the realisation that 'The 3 'E's' (entertainment, engagement and end-benefit) are more likely to work than nanny, nag, guilt, fine or fear?

Any nitwit can do a 'we're all doomed/look how awful things are' ad and stick a 'well don't do it' finger wag and URL in the final 5 seconds to log a box tick for 'awareness'.

To effect change, the tricky bit is actually motivating folk to turn from screen and act differently... whilst not minding at all. That ain't so easy, and takes a bit of thought... but it can be done.

As almost no one currently blowing vast budgets trying seems to have managed, maybe we need new bloods commissioning, creating and approving beyond the current crop of unaccountable Gov depts, open-chequebook quangos and their generous SoHo post-strategy dining hosts... and production/media budget beneficiaries (with doubtless some truly spectacular offsetting at work here as well come invoicing time)?

Would the gent glowing at the back like to speak

(DEFRA) Government invites communities for 'no commitment' discussions on hosting geological disposal facility* for radioactive waste

I'd love to be a 6' fly sitting cross-legged on a chair, taking notes and multi-tasking on his non-mutated Blackberry at that one!

If only to see who lobs up.

*dump

Millions, I tell you... millions!

I am please to sahre this PR from DEFRA: One million people turn to ACT ON CO2 calculator for advice on fighting climate change

As provided, E&EO:

WORLD ENVIRONMENT DAY: The ACT ON CO2 calculator - which helps people to work out and reduce their carbon footprint - has received its one millionth unique visitor, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs announced today.

The calculator, which was launched last Summer, enables people to reliably calculate their carbon footprint from home energy, appliances and transport. It then develops a personalised action plan for users, with practical steps they can take to cut their emissions.

Climate Change Minister, Joan Ruddock, said:

"A significant part of the fight against climate change is about the action we can take as individuals. On World Environment Day it is really encouraging that so many people are deciding to Act on CO2 to help the environment. Our calculator has received a million visitors in a year."

Addendum:

I was prompted to ask some clarfication questions, which the press departemnt has kindly, quickly and comprehensively now got answers to:

* Might I ask you to amplify on what is meant by 'Turn to'?

The ACT ON CO2 calculator received one millionth unique visitors.

*Is this million all distinct? No repeats? Are these names and emails logged on a database?

One million unique PCs (ISP addresses) have connected with the calculator. This is without repetition. It is not compulsory to enter an email to use the web-site, although entering an email address allows a user to return to view or update their footprint. The database which supports the calculator holds information on answers and footprints. We only use the information to generate anonymised statistics. Because we don't collect names, or the second half of postcodes, the calculator does not collect or hold personal information.

* What were the numbers of those who looked vs. acted? And what actions were taken?

We can't say what actions have been taken as a result of the calculator. Two evaluation studies have, however, shown that the calculator is received very positively and meets its objective of informing people about their carbon footprint, what contributes to it, and what they can do about reducing it.

* How much has been spent creating and running the site, and promoting it to date?

The Government's “ACT ON CO2” campaign aims to increase awareness and understanding of the relationship between climate change and CO2 and encourage genuine sustained behaviour change. Defra has spent around £750k creating and maintaining the site since the project started in 2006 and in 2007/08 Defra spent approximately £5.5M on the core ACT ON CO2.

So, that's £6 a head then. In one year. I look forward to seeing how this great result is shared in other media.

NEWS/GO3 PR - Limits of prediction

I welcome and celebrate information when it moves along understanding, so long as that is what it does.

Posted as received, E&EO with no comment on any agenda:

(DEFRA - if you want the guff from the talking heads in full) New vision of climate change through Google Earth

Millions of Google Earth users around the world will be able to see how climate change could [my favourite word - ed] affect the planet and its people over the next century, along with viewing the loss of Antarctic ice shelves over the last 50 years, thanks to a new project launched today.

The project, Climate Change in Our World, is the product of a collaboration between Google, the UK Government, the Met Office Hadley Centre and the British Antarctic Survey to provide two new 'layers', or animations, available to all users of Google Earth.

One animation uses world leading climate science from the UK's Met Office Hadley Centre to show world temperatures throughout the next hundred years under medium projections of greenhouse gas emissions, along with stories of how people in the UK and in some of the world's poorest countries are already being affected by changing weather patterns.

Users can also access information on action that can be taken by individuals, communities, businesses and governments to tackle climate change, and highlights good work already underway.

Another animation, developed by the British Antarctic Survey, show the retreat of Antarctic ice caps since the 1950s, and features facts about climate change science and impacts in the Antarctic.

The project is currently a snapshot of some of the recent scientific information about climate change and its impacts. The partners in the project will be looking to develop these ideas further in the future, preferably with additional partners.

Feedback on the content of the project, or any ideas for future animations or impact stories can be emailed to OURWORLD@defra.gsi.gov.uk

Make some noise!

Or... don't.

DEFRA have produced an online map of the country's noise pollution.

On balance, an... 'interesting' idea.

I just don't see it being very practical, hence useful, hence being used. I wonder how much it cost... and will cost to maintain. Versus a bloke with a mic. going out on demand.

BBC - Maps chart noise in urban areas

PRESS RELEASE -

(DEFRA) Detailed noise maps available at the click of a mouse -

A new Defra website provides maps showing the level of environmental noise from major industries, road and rail networks in 23 urban areas in England.

The information, covering 80,000 km of roads within urban areas, 28,000 km of major road networks and almost 5,000 km of railways, will be used to draw up action plans to reduce unreasonable levels of noise, where practical. In urban areas these will also include measures to protect designated quiet areas.

Users are able to search by postcode to access maps that show noise levels over an average 24 hour period, as well as during night time hours only. The site also includes information on the number of people exposed to these levels of noise. All member states have to produce maps under the EU Environmental Noise Directive.

Note: An agglomeration is defined by the regulations which implement the directive as a continuous urban area of more than 20 hectares with a population of more than 250,000 and a population density of more than 500 persons per square kilometre. The boundaries of the agglomeration do not necessarily match those of the local authority with the same name. In some cases the area mapped goes wider than the local authority area, in others areas have not been mapped because the population density was below the threshold level.

The following gives a guide to typical noise levels:

Level Noise Description

dB(A)
120 Threshold of pain
95 Pneumatic drill (un-silenced at 7m distance)
94 Fast Train (180 km/h, behind yellow line on station platform)
83 Heavy diesel lorry (40 km/h at 7m distance)
81 Modern twin-engine jet (at take-off at 152m distance)
70 Passenger car (60 km/h at 7m distance)
60 Office environment
50 Ordinary conversation
40 Library
35 Quiet bedroom
0 Threshold of hearing

What's better than waste? Duplicated waste!

Government ignores energy-efficiency policy

It would be interesting, if likely depressing, to get a handle on the sheer number of well staffed gov. departmental and quango empires there are, plus massive associated comms budgets, deployed in 'environmental' pursuits, and what the actual enviROI the public and planet derives from them. Especially, as suggested here, many are either overlapping or even competing.

More DEFRA initiatives

are announced on the DEFRA website today.

There is the new ActOnCo2 Advice Line which purports to provide "free, tailored, impartial advice from the Energy Saving Trust on how to reduce your carbon footprint." (Hey, stop laughing, I didn't write it!) The EST gets "more than £100 million over the next three years to deliver a broader programme for green homes."

Then there's the Green Neighbourhood Initiative which will give "a green makeover to up to 100 neighbourhoods in England with an aim to reduce their carbon footprints by more than 60 per cent." This one is also delivered by the Energy Savings Trust and is "backed by potentially more than £10 million over the next three years from the Government’s domestic Environmental Transformation Fund."

And of course the CERT scheme comes into effect today which "doubles previous obligations by energy companies to help people make their homes more energy efficient and reduce household emissions. The total investment is estimated at around £1 billion a year for three years."

Anyone else spot the rather strange disparity? The Gov spends 'potentially' £110 Million over the next three years, but the energy company's are 'obliged' to spend an estimated £3 Billion over the same period.

And the difference? Well, CERT will almost definitely achieve something, whilst the EST's new doodads are yet more 'advice lines' and 'initiatives', and we all know what happens with 'initiatives' don't we?

Addendum (Junkk Male): Green drive 'neglects old homes'

There was also an interesting set of questions raised in a post on a safe2say 'government pessimistic' site that was rather spoiled by diving off into some very un-PC territory ranting. I feature a sample of the key points:

'Benn prattles on about "zero carbon homes" and other fantasies like THREE MILLION new homes etc! Hot lines and targets and grand plans and all of this tripe and hot air left unchallenged! THREE MILLION NEW HOMES????
Just where are these fantasy houses going to be built? Just who is going to pay for these homes? How many are council houses? With waiting lists for council homes at record levels and mass third world immigration at record levels just how will services be created to service all these new homes? How many more hospital/school places are needed?
NuLiebour have been allowed to get away with blatant lies about how many houses they are going to build for years now!

I do feel the British public are getting weary of spin without hint of substance.

Addendum 2 - Concern over 'zero carbon' homes - It just gets better, or worse, depending on your view. Well worth a read (net pie chart on consumption). I am intrigued as to how a target can be met when the definition of the measure is still in doubt. It is also depressing how few deem any of these measures as very useful in comparison to a new kitchen, especially when they mostly will save money... to afford the new kitchen. That said, there is a real fear that green means expensive, and that needs addressing. A good start would be by those in power not screwing things so that's exactly what it does mean!

DEFRA .....

..... seems to have been running up some quite extraordinary travel bills over the last few years, as reported in the Western Daily Press.

"The Government agency responsible for leading Britain's campaign against climate change has been slammed by a West MP for spending £2.3 million on exotic trips abroad."

So just why would DEFRA send staff to exotic locations such as the Caribbean, the Cayman Islands, Barbados, the Seychelles, Mozambique, Brazil and Ghana? Beats me.

Oh, but they've been offsetting all the carbon costs involved. "All emissions from Defra ministerial and official flights have been offset since 2005 and from road and rail travel since 2006."

Bless.

Addendum: (12/3/08)
But they ARE going to help local authorities to fight climate change according to DEFRA's own website, by providing monies to "spread existing best practice on climate change among local authorities, and provide training and mentoring to help them reduce emissions and adapt to the already unavoidable effects of climate change." (Sorry, but I'm struggling not to laugh out loud here.)

The programme will "be tailored to local needs and priorities, with delivery being co-ordinated at a regional level." Hahahahahahaha!!! Sorry, I couldn't help it.

Sounds to me like more 'jobs for the boys' and an additional waste of £4 Million!

Coming on top of the DBERR 'committed' proclamation (see post below), I have to say that if it wasn't so ridiculously sad, I'd reckon they've employed a comedy script writer.

Oh, look, eGov Monitor explains it all.
"From April, councils' success in cutting carbon dioxide emissions will be measured as part of a new performance framework. They will also be assessed on their efforts to adapt to the effects of climate change, and to tackle fuel poverty. Many councils are expected to set specific targets to lead the drive to cut back on carbon emissions in their areas."

So, it's all about setting targets, and then measuring performance against them. Yet again! What do you call it when you experience the same 'deja vu' repeatedly? Surely it ceases to become deja vu?

Water, water, everywhere......

..... and but few drops of common sense in sight!

Today, our esteemed gov. (through DEFRA) launched its strategy for the future of securing water supplies in England. See this report from Government Network News.

The strategy's proposals include:-

- "The aim to reduce water usage to 120 litres per person per day by 2030 from the current level of roughly 150 litres per person per day, through a combination of efficient technology, metering and tariffs."

i.e. We'll all pay more through new tariffs. Sounds like all stick and no carrot to me!

- Possible mandatory metering

Shouldn't this have been done years ago? At least for any new developments?

- New proposals to tackle surface water drainage.
"proposals include introducing surface water management plans to co-ordinate activity, clarifying responsibilities for sustainable drainage systems, and reviewing the ability of new development to connect surface water automatically into the public sewer."

'introducing surface water management plans to co-ordinate activity' - Meaning what exactly? Make it up as you go along?
'Clarifying responsibilities' - like, admitting that now one has any that they are accountable for now?
'connect surface water automatically into the public sewer' - errrrm, no! Surface water runs off into the public storm drain system. And the ideal thing would be to make such surface water run-off much slower in order to inhibit flooding.
And wouldn't it have made really good sense to make it mandatory for all new development to incorporate rain water harvesting systems for grey water usage? That would achieve a much bigger consumption reduction target very easily.

And, of course, lots of proposals for consultations on things like flooding and erosion.

But not a single comment about better enforcement to make the various water authorities fix and repair the zillions of leaks that our current potable water distribution system has.

All in all, it looks like another complete waste of taxpayers money, designed to provide jobs for government sponsored quangos and agencies who talk, talk, talk and talk, and do, well, very bloody little! Sorry, there is one outcome that is inevitable; it will hit every one of us in the pocket, as usual, as it will certainly make us pay more for the water that we do use.

Stretch to fit

I am all for positives, but some do stretch things a tad: Defra hails 'positive green' readers

The up side is that one in five of the population are 'positive greens', though the definition requires an eyebrow cock between self-perception, research definition and actual enviROI+ behaviour.

Where I am a little intrigued is the the leap from the Indy's readership that I believe numbers a few hundred thousand.

Sounds an interesting report and I'd like to see it. Odd that I have never heard of it 'til now, and it is not linked to.

Actually, many of the subsequent insights were/are very telling, and frankly deserve greater consideration.

I leave you with this: 'Some people in the greenest categories have higher carbon footprints than others because of their high incomes'. Mainly Indy readers and BBC employees and supporters, I'd hazard all now planning their next skiing trips along with the next ban-it campaign for some minor enviro-nuisance.

It all rather smacks of being happier with looking good rather than doing it to me.

Stale Cream

I have a saying: 'Cream rises to the top; you can't push it'. I may have to rethink that: Quango fat cats reap the price

Recently our local prospective parliamentary candidate wrote in our local paper about DEFRA. He reveals it has spent £1.1 billion on consultants. And yet has managed to acheive almost sod all.

I still mind forking out, but wouldn't so much if the result(s) were any damn good!!! And there seems to be no effective way to get rid of them, leaving them clear to squander more and more, again and again.

Fat cat row over public sector pay

Some great, telling comments in feedback.

Slim down the fat cats

Peers help themselves to £300 a day tax-free

Indy - Pay for public sector bosses rises by 12.8 per cent

Indy - Gordon Brown's efforts to enlarge Blair's 'big tent' are beginning to backfire spectacularly - As much a Friend of..' as those he critiques, by enough smoke to indicate the presence of fire... only with no bright sparks. Just smouldering members.

Reader's Digest - November - Feeding Time in Quango Land - Sadly no link. I will write to them and post here.

Apparently, these things are set up 'to be the most effective and efficient method of conducting government business, and are closed down when no longer required'. Really? How many have been pensioned off? I use that word on purpose, because from the jobs ads I see in the papers, an awful lot look to be in it for a very long haul, golden parachutes included. Once folk are in public service jobs, they seem to be impossible to dislodge, no matter how unproductive or inept.

I also note 'Ministers are accountable'. Well, great. But how does one get a hold of the accounts to see how good they are at overseeing all this? How does one measure the ROIs on the bazzillions these guys spend? Especially when the order of priority seems to be self, bonuses, staff, offices and empires, before we get to comms budgets to drive up 'rates' that in turn are tied to bonuses, which just has to be a major conflict of interest at best. And that's before any money actually gets to doing something where it is meant to go.

My area of interest, the environment, is riven with such waste and squandering. And with no sign of a let-up. In just the last few weeks I have seen at least two 'new' campaigns doing roughly the same thing as each other, with different target-rewarded quangos at their hearts. They just seem to exist as highly expensive, rewarding (for those in them) game-playing entities with no sensible measures of value. And I can't see for the life of me see why, other than to create yet more layers of fat beholden to political masters come voting time, and perhaps a nifty unelected layer of protection for when the sh*t hits the fan and some compliant sacrificial goats are required to fall on swords for a huge payoff.

Only even this doesn't seem to apply as they all are hanging on for extremely dear life.

Pathetic!

BBC - Quango pays director's firm £2m - 'Nice work if you can get, if you can get it..'

Doing what it says on the tin

Just got this in: (DEFRA) Offsetting projects to create jobs and cut emissions

Don't know why, but the first thing that popped into my head was an expression from the military: DEFRACon 3.

Because I rather leapt to the notion that whatever else might or might happen, jobs would for sure be created. It's just a matter of where, and doing what, that concerns me, especially when I read on to this:

Government Carbon Offsetting Fund Members

Central Government (including participating agencies)

Cabinet Office
The Prime Minister's Office
Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform
Department for Children, Schools and Families
Department for Local Government and Planning
Department for Culture, Media and Sport
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (CEFAS)
Department of Health
Department for International Development
Department for Transport
Government Car and Despatch Agency
Department for Work and Pensions
The Rent Service
Export Credits Guarantee Department
Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs
Valuation Office Agency
Her Majesty's Treasury
Home Office
Identity and Passport Service
Criminal Records Bureau
Forensic Science Service
Law Officers' Department
Crown Prosecution Service
Serious Fraud Office
Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers
Attorney General's Office
Treasury Solicitors
HM CPS Inspectorate
Revenue and Customs Prosecution Office
Ministry of Defence
Ministry of Justice
Northern Ireland Office
Sustainable Development Commission

Other partners

Parliament
(including both Houses and the British American Parliamentary Group)
The Greater London Authority
Metropolitan Police Service
Transport for London
London Development Agency
The Royal Household

That seems an awful lot here (I'm guessing there is a, or a department off offset munchkins in each to play with all this) for not so many there.

I also still need to get my head around the whole carbcon deal to appreciate how it truly saves my kids' futures, as paying towards the projects 'would ensure that the carbon footprint of Government air travel was neutralised by ensuring emissions were avoided elsewhere. This will help to cut emissions and ensure developing countries are not impoverished by carbon-cutting measures.'

Maybe it needs to be explained to me in ways I can grasp, but that doesn't seem to me to be, as per the title, cutting emissions, but moving them around a bit, globally, which is not quite the same thing... is it?

At least it's acknowledged in the small print that "Offsetting emissions from transport isn't the answer to climate change ".

Apparently, 'the GCOF is being managed by EEA Fund Management Ltd, who won the contract to source and deliver 255,000 Certified Emission Reduction Credits, with a provision for a further 50,000 credits, over three years from a range of Kyoto-registered projects. Credits will be supplied from the project portfolio of Trading Emissions PLC, to whom EEA is the Investment Advisor.' Whatever that means.

Defra's aim is sustainable development. Nice.

One couldn't also help but wonder if, as it is taxpayers money being used here, the offsets might not be more [insert non-judgemental phase here]-lly targeted first more locally, perhaps on insulation for non-golden pensioners, and other folk who have paid all their lives to fund civil service salaries and pensions.

Going to waste

Sorry, I meant going into waste: Defra to get £4 billion a year by 2010

Preventing it, that is. Not meeting targets, hiring countless measuring monkeys or anything.

Because... all together now... 'we need to act now if we are to avoid dangerous climate change'.

My enviROI+ antennae are twitching!

We are all members of the blackfoot tribe

I missed seeing this last night, but then I rarely see Corrie with anything more than half an eye open.

DEFRA has launched a £5Million ad campaign aimed at making us all more aware of our carbon footprints. Full story from The Guardian.

Nice use of an excellent Kinks track (Shangri-La), but will the man in the street even understand the ad, let alone the underlying message? Let's see.