Flaming June

Published as a podcast at www.susbiz.biz on Friday 3rd June

Yes, it’s June, but in the UK you might not think so as it’s been bitterly cold in the last few days, at least in the eastern half of the country. There’s no word yet, but I do expect to hear shortly that globally, May 2016 will have been the warmest May on record. Following the warmest January, February, March and April. Excuse me while I throw another log on the fire.

There’s a new report out this week from the IEA, the international Energy Agency on the role of cities in cutting GHG emissions. There’s a report from REN21 about how renewable energy is thriving, even in the UK, while Christian Aid tells us more about the threats from climate change. Is your city in the top 20 at risk from flooding? You may be at risk even if it’s not. The US Geological Survey reports on how wildfires in Alaska are affecting global CO2 levels and The Royal Society B has been looking at cow dung.

On another note - there must be a link there somewhere - if you’re a UK voter don’t forget to vote in the EU referendum. This is a life-changing decision and you only have until next Tuesday, 7th June, to make sure you are on the electoral register.

First, “Cities are in the frontline for cutting carbon emissions,” says the IEA 

Cities must take the lead in the transition to a low-carbon energy sector, the International Energy Agency (IEA) said this week, highlighting that urban areas account for up to two-thirds of the potential to cost-effectively reduce global carbon emissions.

In its annual report, Energy Technology Perspectives 2016 (ETP 2016), the IEA offers long-term technology pathways that could limit the global temperature increase to no more than 2°C, in line with the goals set at the Paris climate conference (COP21) in December 2015. The most cost-effective approach involves deploying low-carbon options in cities, especially in emerging and developing economies.

"Cities today are home to about half the global population but represent almost two-thirds of global  energy demand and 70% of carbon emissions from the energy sector, so they must play a leading role if COP21 commitments are to be achieved," IEA Executive Director Fatih Birol said at the launch of the report during the Clean Energy Ministerial in San Francisco. "Because cities are centres of economic growth and innovation, they are ideal test-beds for new technologies – from more sustainable transport systems to smart grids – that will help lead the transition to a low-carbon energy sector.”

For instance, urban buildings provide useful space to self-generate the electricity they consume: by 2050, rooftop solar could technically meet one-third of cities’ electricity demand. And those buildings offer significant demand potential for the roll-out of the most efficient technologies, like energy-efficient windows and appliances. ETP 2016 also details how best electric vehicles and public transport can lead to a low-carbon mobility system while reducing investment needs by USD 20 trillion compared with current development trends in cities.

But while ETP 2016 shows that the COP21 goals are achievable, its Tracking Clean Energy Progress analysis reveals that progress deploying clean energy technologies worldwide is still falling worryingly short of what is needed. The IEA analysis reveals that there have been positive developments on some technologies: the total renewable energy capacity installed currently provides around 23% of global electricity generation, sustained by progress in solar PV and on-shore wind that pushed the growth of renewable energy capacity to a record high, exceeding 150 gigawatts in 2015. This is an encouraging trend in line with the 2°C goal of having in excess of two-thirds of electricity generated by renewables in 2050. China is the largest renewable energy market, accounting in 2015 for more than half of the world’s new global onshore wind capacity and one-third of the solar PV capacity installed.  The United States maintained its position as the second largest market in the world for renewable energy, sustaining a 40% growth rate in capacity additions over the past year. In ETP 2016, China and the United States collectively account for one third of the renewable energy capacity additions to 2050 that are required to be on track to meet the 2°C goal.

In parallel, the global stock of electric vehicles on the road surpassed one million in 2015, a significant milestone, albeit the current stock is still small compared to the ambitious aim of deploying over one billion electric vehicles by 2050 to achieve the 2°C goal. China and the United States were market leaders in total sales, and Norway kept its global lead in terms of market share, with almost one in four cars sold being electric, but the global share is still low, with only seven countries having more than 1% of electric vehicles in their market share.

Summarising the report’s findings, Dr. Birol concluded “COP21 could prove to be a historic turning point for radical action against climate change, and recent developments on some clean energy technologies are encouraging. However, overall progress is still too slow, and must be accelerated to avoid low fossil fuel prices becoming an obstacle to the low-carbon transition. Today’s energy market conditions will be a litmus test for governments to show how dedicated they are to turning their Paris commitments into concrete actions for a low-carbon future.” 

Business Green reports similar comments from Christiana Figueres the UN's outgoing climate chief. “A fundamental change is needed in the dynamic between business and governments in a post-Paris Agreement world”, she said

The "well-intended" conversation between governments and private sector that took place in the lead-up to the Paris climate conference in December now needs to deepen into collaboration.

theconversation.com  reminds us that the Chief Executive of Marks & Spencer described COP21 as a turning point. Now several months on, what has happened to the promises that were made? The most forward-looking organisations have started to decarbonise their complete economic model with the establishment of ambitious goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80-100% or to rely totally on renewable energy. The picture is fragmented, and there are still allegations of green wash and examples of organisations who find it all too difficult and lower their targets.

The IEA commented on renewable energy and REN21 is another organisation with a report out.

REN21 is the global renewable energy policy multi-stakeholder network that connects a wide range of key actors. REN21’s goal is to facilitate knowledge exchange, policy development and joint action towards a rapid global transition to renewable energy. REN21 is an international non-profit association and is based at the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) in Paris,

According to the report, 2015 was an extraordinary year for renewable energy. Renewables are now cost competitive with fossil fuels in many markets and are established around the world as mainstream sources of energy. Cities, communities and companies are leading the rapidly expanding “100% renewable” movement, playing a vital role in advancing the global energy transition. Distributed renewable energy is advancing rapidly to close the gap between the energy haves- and have-nots.

A point that hit the UK headlines is that REN21 revealed that  the top five countries for investment in renewable power and fuels in 2015 include the UK at number 4. Impressive when you consider that this is absolute investment, not investment per head. Impressive when you recognise that 1,2 and 3 are China, the US and Japan. Impressive when you consider how much damage the British government has done to the renewables industry with short-notice policy changes.

Scientists at the US Geological Survey have been looking at

Baseline and Projected Future Carbon Storage and Greenhouse-Gas Fluxes in Ecosystems of Alaska. No, hang on, this is important. Alaska is big. Its area is equivalent to one fifth of the whole of the rest of the United States. And it is a very important carbon sink, which means the wetlands, the forests and the tundra which cover vast areas of the state all absorb CO2, removing it from the atmosphere and locking it away for tens or even hundreds of years. It’s called carbon sequestration. I picked this story up from the Guardian, but I don’t agree with the way they reported it. “Spike in Alaska wildfires is worsening global warming, US says” was their headline. The researchers looked at the period from 1950 to 2009 and yes, they found that “Although there is a high variability in fire regime across interior Alaska, fire frequency, severity, and area burned have increased in recent years, and the trend was projected to continue for the rest of the century across most of the regions and most of the climate scenarios, with the boreal region projected to see the highest increase in fire activities.”

They stated that “the boreal region of the State - meaning the heavily forested northern region -  has been a carbon source, losing 5.1 TgC/yr as the result of increased fire activity in recent decades.”

However they also looked at the period from 2010 to 2099 and found that “Carbon sequestration of upland and wetland ecosystems of Alaska would increase substantially to 18.2 to 34.4 TgC/yr, primarily because of an increase in Net Primary Productivity (I think that means growth) of 12 to 30 percent associated with responses to rising atmospheric CO2, increased nitrogen cycling, and longer growing seasons. Although carbon emissions to the atmosphere from wildfire were projected to increase substantially for all of the projected climates, the increases in Net Primary Productivity would more than compensate for those losses. Our analysis, they say,  indicates that upland and wetland ecosystems would be sinks for GHGs for all simulations during the rest of the century”.

I suppose to be fair to the Guardian it could be argued that without wildfires Alaska would be an even better carbon sink.

There’s a lot of concern that over-use of antibiotics is rapidly leading to resistant superbugs that cannot be treated. For years farmers have routinely added antibiotics to cattle feed because they significantly increase growth. The Royal Society B has carried out investigations which indicate that this practice may have other unintended consequences.

For example, antibiotics may alter microbial emissions of greenhouse gases by affecting livestock gut microbiota. Furthermore, antibiotics may affect the microbiota of non-target animals that rely on dung, such as dung beetles, and the ecosystem services they provide. 

Researchers found that dung beetles were unaffected by antibiotics, but that dung from treated animals would release up to 1.8 times more methane than normal. They also suspected that the amount of methane released from cows’ burps would also increase, although they did not carry out specific tests to verify this.

Agriculture is responsible for about 18% of global GHG emissions and most of this is due to livestock. This is estimated to exceed total emissions from transportation. I’m no vegetarian, but we can’t deny that livestock farming is damaging the planet.

Christian Aid’s new report is called Act now or Pay Later

“More than a billion people across the world are living in cities seriously threatened by climate change,” it tells us. “These are coastal cities, and most are already experiencing increased flooding, extreme weather and storm surges.” 

In the run-up to the World Humanitarian Summit, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has given a timely reminder that every $1 spent on reducing the risks from disasters now will save around $7 of damages later. It’s essential that we act urgently to prevent the suffering of millions of poor and vulnerable people. 

The good news is that improvements in science make the impacts of climate change increasingly predictable. It is possible to put measures in place now to identify the most vulnerable people and places and minimise the impacts. 

The first action, they say, has to be to reduce carbon emissions rapidly and limit temperature increase by encouraging a shift in investment from fossil fuels to low-carbon energy sources. Maybe we should be looking at agriculture as well. Next is to help vulnerable communities survive and thrive, by better protecting their homes and livelihoods. Finally, is to put in place agreed, international systems that support communities to recover from ultimate loss and damage caused by devastating storms and floods. 

The report includes a list of the top 20 major cities most at risk of flooding. The top two are both in India - Calcutta and Bombay. Dhaka in Bangladesh comes in at No 3 and two other cities in Bangladesh are also in the top 20. Four cities in China are in the list, as well as two in the US - Miami at no. 9 and New York City at no. 17. 

Maybe all this seems too remote, but maybe it’s far closer to home than you think.

No, London, although sited on a tidal estuary, is not in the top 20. Nevertheless, the report takes time to explain in detail why London is a vulnerable city. An independent assessment of the climate change risks to London identified the following concerns:

London is currently well protected by the Thames Barrier but climate change could put this protection at risk. Already the barrier is closed far more frequently than was thought would be necessary when it was first designed. It is estimated that 1.25 million people and half a million properties are on floodplains in London, while an estimated 800,000 properties in London are vulnerable to surface-water flooding. 

Leaving aside flooding, as summers get hotter, there is increased health risk, especially for already vulnerable groups. By 2050 it is expected that one in three summers will exceed current Met Office heatwave temperatures. (That is really tempting in icy June 2016, but let’s be realistic.) Remember, in 2003 a heatwave across Europe caused 20,000 premature deaths, of which 15,000 were in France. As we experience increasingly hot and dry summers there’s an increased risk of water shortages. London is already an area of serious water stress, and a combined increase in population, water demand, and reduced water resources due to drought, could pose a serious threat. 

The international consequences of climate change could have a disproportionate effect on London because of its position as a major financial centre. Extreme weather will pose a significant risk to investments and businesses around the world, and will also have implications for the London insurance market.

Many of these are predictable impacts. With the right measures in place, adaptation can be implemented ahead of the climate extremes predicted for coming decades. 

You may not have an international business, but you will almost certainly have an international supply chain. No? Your phone was made in Britain, was it? And your laptop? And your car? Contingency planning. Have I mentioned it before? That’s one of the issues that we’ll be addressing at the Sustainable Best Practice Mastermind group. I still have a couple of places on the initial meeting on 7th July. It’s a select group of only 8 or 10 people but it will include executives from industries like the train operating companies, power generation, the NHS, insurance, civil engineering and local government. If you think your skills and experience would complement the group I’d like to hear from you. 

Finally, the EU obliges us to put VAT on fuel. So, says the Leave campaign, if we left the EU we could remove the VAT and cut the cost of living for poorer families. Let’s assume that we talking just about gas and electricity. The problem is that if we did make energy cheaper it would indeed help poorer people save money but it would help richer people to waste more. Consumption would go up, and since we import a significant proportion of our energy it would have a negative effect on the balance of payments. The other question is if we cut tax revenue on fuel what would we tax instead in order to make up the shortfall? The situation with road fuel is different. There’s VAT on petrol and diesel but there’s also excise duty, which is the largest component of the price. UK petrol prices are higher than elsewhere in Europe because we have a higher level of excise duty, and the government can vary that at will whether or not we are in the EU. Again, if we reduced tax on road fuel it would increase consumption and put pressure on the balance of payments, because the the North Sea no longer meets all our needs. And if taxes are cut they either have to be imposed elsewhere or public spending has to be cut.

I’m not suggesting how you should vote in the referendum, although I do urge you very strongly to vote. All I’m saying is check the facts. And check the facts behind the facts as well. 

You need to be on the electoral register to be able to vote, but if you’re not the deadline for registration is next Tuesday 7th June. You can register on line or by contacting your local town hall.

As our theme tune draws this episode to a close let me remind you that there will be another episode next week. I’ve a number of interviews lined up for future episodes and it's been suggested that I should look at green investments. Other suggestions are always welcome.

This is Anthony Day. 

That was the Sustainable Futures Report.

Drill, Baby, Drill!

Published as a podcast at www.susbiz.biz on Friday 27th May 2016

Hello this is Anthony Day with the latest Sustainable Futures Report.

Yes, this week it’s all about fracking as North Yorkshire County Council gives the go-ahead. A giant cruise liner leaves Southampton and leaves under a cloud. And who’s flying a kite? Under water? Do you have a buy-to-let or investment property? Will it meet the new energy efficiency requirements? All this and more.

This week the big news of course is that North Yorks county council have  approved the application by Third Energy for fracking at Kirby Misperton. This is a village just outside the North York Moors National Park in what Lord Howell, father-in-law of Chancellor Osborne, once charmingly described as the desolate north-east. 

There are two sides to every argument although it is not clear whether they are evenly balanced. For example, there were well over 4,000 written objections to the planning application and only some 37 submissions in its favour. Third Energy dismissed most of the objections on the grounds that 64% were an identical form letter. I think this is completely disingenuous. If 4,000 people object to something they may well all object on the same grounds. If they sign a petition they are all putting their names to the same statement and for that matter if they vote in a referendum they are all making the same point, or at least one of only two points. That doesn’t devalue their opinion. Looking at some of the objections, and they are all available on the North Yorkshire county council website, they vary from loss of amenity to risks from pollution, particularly to the water table, to objections to the production of a fuel which will add to greenhouse gases.

Third Energy argue that this is merely a test drilling on a site which they have operated successfully and without harm to the environment for 20 years. Yes, fracking uses large quantities of water, but they already have access to water on site, so it won’t have to be trucked in. Opponents of the scheme point out that the purpose of the test is to find out whether commercial scale fracking is viable in the area and so this is not just about one test well. Indeed, as I reported last year, Kevin Hollinrake the local MP told Parliament that 900 wells would be needed in his constituency alone. Not all of these would have local water supplies and all of them would have to deal with contaminated water extracted from the site. The substantial increase in heavy goods traffic on the narrow roads of one of the nation’s principal tourist areas was the theme of many objections.

Of course there’s an energy security argument. At present we get up to 20% of our natural gas by ship from Qatar in the Persian Gulf. It’s not the world’s most stable region! Third Energy also pointed out that importing gas across the ocean has a far greater carbon footprint than extracting and using it in here in the UK. We’ll hear all about the carbon footprint of shipping in the next item. Still, it was mentioned in last year’s parliamentary debate that some 10,000 wells would be needed to replace what we import by sea.

Some people objected on the grounds that the process of fracking and extraction leads to fugitive gases. By this they mean that small volumes of gas, mainly methane, would inevitably leak from pipes and valves. Methane is a far more potent greenhouse gas than CO₂ . Third Energy’s response was that their business is harvesting methane so they would do everything they could to prevent any of it getting away. This is a misleading argument because potential losses are probably tiny fractions of one percent of production, with at least 99.99% of the gas being recovered. It’s impossible to trap that last 0.01%, but that would be enough to cause damage. Compare it with a bee sting. When a bee stings you it injects up to 50 micrograms of venom - a tiny amount compared to your bodyweight. Nevertheless it causes pain, discomfort and swelling - and even death in some cases. The venom is the catalyst which triggers the process which does the damage. The same is true of greenhouse gases. The concentration of 400 parts per million seems low in absolute terms, but it’s more than enough to trigger climate change. The catalytic effect means that tiny amounts can have major consequences.

The council and its officers are restricted in the grounds on which they can reject an application for permission to frack. If they exceed their powers they can of course be sued and in any case there is always the possibility of an appeal against the decision. In the case of fracking applicants can appeal, but by law objectors cannot. Compare this with the law on wind turbines. Anyone can object to the erection of a wind turbine and a single objection is sufficient for a council to reject the application. Already this has had a significant effect on the wind industry.

Paul Ekins, Professor of Energy and Environment Policy at UCL, told Radio 4’s Today programme that the price of gas had fallen by 75% and he thought it was unlikely that fracking in the UK would be economically viable. There is an oversupply of gas on world markets, as there is of oil. Much has been made of the fact that regulations on fracking are tighter in the UK than in the US. None of the American horror stories could happen here. But Professor Ekins pointed out that the Environment Agency, like much of the public sector, has been subject to cuts. There might be sufficient staff to monitor exploratory wells but it would be impossible to enforce the regulations on fracking at a commercial scale. I spoke last week about a shortage of skills. Here’s another example. Skills cannot be conjured up on demand.

The government makes much of the potential for jobs and investment as a result of fracking. There may be jobs, but not for local people because again the skills are not there. There may be investment and increased tax revenues, but there may be bankruptcies as there have been throughout the American fracking industry.

What’s my view? Well I’m against it. 

• Fracking produces a gas which is a greenhouse gas - methane- and produces greenhouse gas - CO2 - when it’s used. 
• According to the Royal Academy of Engineering it will be years before fracking reaches commercial production, so it won’t do anything to avoid the looming energy gap.

What should we do instead? We should manage demand. I think I’ve said this before. Where you’re sitting now, have you got the lights on? Is it dark outside? No? Well I’ll just pause a moment while you go and turn them off. But of course it’s about much more than lights and much more than electricity. It’s about how and where you drive. It’s about improving the energy efficiency of making and delivering products and services. It’s about choosing clothes for cold weather, not just turning up the heating.

Where do we go from here? Kirby Misperton is just the start. If permits are granted in other areas, if fleets of lorries start rolling through the Tory shires on their way to fracking sites and objectors find that the legal system is stacked against them I expect a backlash which will rock and maybe topple the government. Especially when people find that fracking does nothing to lower energy bills and especially if a hard winter leads to extensive blackouts. Perhaps that will lead the government to develop a sensible energy policy which involves all sources of energy, which manages people’s expectations and manages demand within the capability of the ageing infrastructure that we have left.

Just a thought, if we vote for Brexit will the French turn off the link under the Channel which provides a significant amount of French electricity to meet the UK’s peak demand? No, of course not.

Stop Press!

Just as I finish writing this I get an email from 38 degrees pointing me to an article on Huffington Post: 

“Under Section 49 of the new Infrastructure Act 2015,” it says,  “the Government must seek independent advice from Lord Deben’s Climate Change Committee on whether shale gas production can be compatible with future carbon emissions targets.

In a previous study, the committee concluded that the new energy technology can only go ahead “if production is regulated sufficiently to ensure that fugitive methane emissions are low”.

It also wanted shale gas production to be accompanied by “a strong commitment to reduce all greenhouse gas emissions” by setting a power sector decarbonisation target.

The CCC’s new report was submitted it to Energy Secretary Amber Rudd more than 6 weeks ago on 30th March.

And under the Act, Ministers are meant to present that report to Parliament “as soon as practicable” after April 1st 2016 - yet it still remains unpublished.”

The email also quotes reports on the impact of fracking from the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment (part of the LSE) and from Scientific American, among others.

Let’s take a break from all that heavy stuff. Have you ever fancied a cruise?

Sailing Away

Last Sunday the world’s largest cruise liner, Harmony of the Seas, left Southampton on its maiden voyage. The Telegraph reports that 2,100 crew will be responsible for 6,410 guests over 16 decks and 2,747 staterooms. The vessel has seven neighbourhoods and it even has its own park, which contains 10,587 plants, 48 vine plants and 52 trees. A total of 11,252 works of art are showcased across the ship.

The Guardian ran this story, but unsurprisingly with a different slant. Air pollution from cruise ships is getting worse every year, it says. The Harmony of the Seas has two four-storey high 16-cylinder engines which would, at full power, each burn 1,377 US gallons of fuel an hour, or about 66,000 gallons a day of some of the most polluting diesel fuel in the world. Southampton, which has Britain’s second largest container port and is Europe’s busiest cruise terminal, is one of nine UK cities cited by the World Health Organisation as breaching air quality guidelines. Residents complain that it is emissions from cruise liners and cargo vessels which are ruining local air quality. While in port and when close to some coasts ships are required to use low sulphur fuel or abatement technologies, but on the high seas they can burn what they like. One commentator has suggested that the fuel that they use would have to be treated as hazardous waste if it ever arrived onshore. The sulphur content alone is more than 3,000 times as high as in road diesel.

To put it into context, such a large ship as the Harmony will emit more sulphur than several million cars,  and over five tonnes of nitrous oxide and a half a ton of particulates each day. Thousands of cruise ships and thousands of cargo ships are all adding pollution which is damaging air quality and leading to the many thousands of premature deaths that we've reported in other episodes. And these emissions are also adding to the global total of greenhouse gases. There is group called the Sustainable Shipping Initiative which is a consortium of shipowners and related organisations.. You can find them at SSI2040.org. They have produced a ROADMAP TO A SUSTAINABLE SHIPPING INDUSTRY BY 2040, which covers a wide range of challenges and looks at a wide range of solutions. They recognise the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions while anticipating a doubling of the fleet by the end of the 2020s. They consider issues such as deep sea mining, floating wind generation, expansion of coastal traffic off Africa and the need to combat piracy. They urge more government support and foresee new methods of propelling ships, including hybrid power trains and wind power. Unfortunately Royal Caribbean, owners of Harmony of the Seas, are not part of the Sustainable Shipping Initiative.

Did I say that wind was a new way of powering ships? Well there is a new way of using wind for powering ships. I came across Skysails GmbH, a German manufacturer of large kites. According to its website:

“Wind is the cheapest, most powerful, and greenest source of energy on the high seas.

“Now, with SkySails, modern cargo ships can use the wind as a source of power – not only to lower fuel costs, but significantly reduce emission levels as well.

“The worldwide patented SkySails propulsion system consists of three main components: a towing kite with rope, a launch and recovery system, and a control system for automated operation.

“SkySails can be installed effortlessly as an auxiliary propulsion system on both new builds and existing vessels.

“The SkySails propulsion system is efficient, safe, and easy to use – and the fact that wind is cheaper than oil makes SkySails one of world’s most attractive technologies for simultaneously reducing operating costs and emissions.

Interested? Speak with us! We will be happy to visit you at your office or on board 

your ship.”

Use of a SkySails system is claimed to reduce a cargo vessel's fuel consumption by an average of 10 to 35 percent annually, and by up to 50 percent temporarily. Due to its "dynamic flight manoeuvres," the kite reportedly generates 5 to 25 times more power per square meter sail area than a conventional sail. (Apparently this means that it’s constantly looping in a figure-of-eight pattern.) A study by the United Nations' International Maritime Organization suggested that up to 100 million tonnes of carbon dioxide could be saved each year, if the technology was broadly applied to the world's merchant fleet.

It appears that there are currently three SkySails systems in use on cargo vessels, including one prototype. Three more are planned. Presumably the low price of oil is depressing the market at the moment, and the oil which shipping uses is probably of very low value because it can’t be used anywhere else.

Serendipity Corner

While I was researching this item on kites at sea I came across Minesto and their Deep Green power plant. This is a kite, but it’s a tethered kite and it’s tethered at the bottom of the sea. Like the SkySail, it's designed to describe a constant figure of eight pattern. This means that it is actually moving significantly faster than the water currents in which it is located. The kite, or wing, has a turbine in the centre of it which produces electricity. The electricity cable runs along the tether to the seabed and then along a subsea cable to shore. At the moment the system is undergoing trials in Strangford Lough in Northern Ireland. It is claimed that because of the motion of the unit it can generate significantly more power from slow flowing tides than a fixed turbine would achieve. It can operate in depths between 60 and 120m, so it would not cause the same hazard to shipping that an offshore wind turbine might. What the actual output will be and how difficult it will be to maintain these units is yet to be determined. More at minesto.com 

And finally, do you have a buy-to-let or an investment property?

Neil Dady of TBS Technical Business Solutions reminds me that commercial property landlords in England are legally required to upgrade the energy efficiency of their properties to at least an Energy Performance Certificate (EPC) band 'E' standard by 2018, before they can be leased to new or renewing tenants. As from the 1st April 2018 there will be a requirement for any properties rented out in the private rented sector to normally have a minimum energy performance rating of E on an Energy Performance Certificate (EPC). The regulations will come into force for new lets and renewals of tenancies with effect from 1st April 2018 and for all existing tenancies on 1st April 2020. It will be unlawful to rent a property which breaches the requirement for a minimum E rating, unless there is an applicable exemption. A civil penalty of up to £4,000 will be imposed for breaches. 

According to estate agents Knight Frank it is estimated that approximately 20% of non-domestic properties could be in the F & G rating brackets.

It’s also worth noting that from 1st APRIL this year regulations have introduced a right for tenants to request energy efficiency improvements that a landlord cannot unreasonably refuse. You may need to make changes well before 2018.

You can contact TBS on  0800 169 93 55 or technicalbusiness.co.uk. There is also information on the government website.

Well, that’s it.

I’m Anthony Day and I’m looking forward to the Bank Holiday weekend. Of course that means I shall only have a four-day week next week to write the next edition of the Sustainable Futures Report. No, three days, because it’s my wife’s birthday on Wednesday. No, two days, because it’s got to be done by Thursday night. It’ll be there!

Meanwhile, there are two places left on the Sustainable Best Practice Mastermind group. Let me know if you want a copy of the prospectus - mail@anthony-day.com and put 7th July in your diary for the first meeting.

Until next week! 

SKILLS

Published on 20th May 2016 as a podcast at www.susbiz.biz

Yes, it’s Friday - it’s 20th May

Yes, this is Anthony Day

And yes, here’s another episode of the Sustainable Futures Report

This week I’m concentrating on skills - the skills we need to build sustainable futures. The skills James Dyson’s been talking about; skills mentioned at this week’s Buy Yorkshire conference and skills covered at the Sustainable Best Practice Exchange. Also in this episode some comments on Ende gelände, the Queen’s speech, Hinckley C (I couldn't leave that out, could I?), the future of bees and global temperatures in April.

SKILLS

Sir James Dyson, the vacuum cleaner entrepreneur recently said: “Engineers are the people who can create practical solutions to our 21st-century challenges of sustainability, housing and an ageing population. And we need more of them.” This echoes a report published last year by the Royal Academy of Engineering which suggests that the UK needs more than a million new engineers and technicians by 2020 to meet industry demand. Engineering is no longer just about hard hats and hi-visibility vests, yet the way it is portrayed in society and seen by policymakers has not kept up with this evolution, says the report. It shows how engineering skills are now needed in an increasingly diverse range of fields including brain imaging, airport security, drug delivery systems, materials science and prosthetic limbs. This week I was at Buy Yorkshire, one of the UK’s largest business conferences. The billion dollar panel, chaired by local entrepreneur Jonathan Straight, was asked what the principal challenges were to business. Cyber crime was the first answer. We'll come back to that in a future episode of Sustainable Futures Report . The second most important issue was skills, and speakers kept coming back to that throughout the session. A key difficulty is finding the right calibre of engineers and IT specialists outside the M25. Panellist Luke Lang, founder of crowdfunding platform Crowdcube, has based his business in Exeter in the south west of the UK some 200 miles from London. He said it was difficult to get the people he needed and in some cases it was difficult to get people based in London to take him seriously given that he had no plans to move his business to the capital. Why ever not? It's a quality of life thing. And as Exeter happens to be my home city I can certainly endorse that.

Phil Jones of northern power grid made a similar point about far too many skills concentrated in the London area. While there was a clear shortage of skills in the north, he said there were still pockets of world-class expertise. The problem was that many government decision-makers did not realise this and were therefore more likely to place contracts and make investments in the south-east. It becomes a vicious circle. A questioner asked why there were not more women in senior and skilled roles. Phil Jones said that northern power grid appointed solely on the basis of ability, but said that in their latest graduate recruitment round only 2% of the applicants were female. The panel agreed that there was a need to improve academic attainment, particularly in the North, and to educate people at a much younger age about what engineering and technology actually are, and where the career opportunities lie. It’s essential to get the message into schools.

Schools

Tomorrow, or today by the time you hear this, I’m judging an event run by Solutions for the Planet at Bradford University. Teams of school children aged 10 to 14 will pitch their business ideas to the panel. They have already submitted their business plans, which include solutions for problems including car pollution, suicide, flooding and the decline in bees. This approach to solving real-world problems must help them understand the sort of skills and qualifications that they will need in later life.

Skills was the theme of one of the panel sessions at last month’s Sustainable Best Practice Exchange. Here are some comments from Tim Balcon, CEO of the Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment, about skills in the context of sustainability.

And in other news…the Queen’s speech, the Bees, April global temperatures and the Oil price.

Ende gelände.

First though, Ende gelände. That’s German for “End of Story”. It's also the name of a protest group set up in Germany to lobby for the closure of the lignite mines. Lignite is a particularly dirty type of coal and the operator of a vast opencast lignite mine near Berlin, Vattenfall, has decided to sell it. The protest group claims that this is just the company turning its back on its responsibility for a highly polluting asset. They want the whole thing closed down. Last weekend was a weekend of international protest. You may have missed it because the media largely ignored it. In Germany thousands of people invaded the mine forcing operations to be suspended. Similar protests happened across the world where other people demonstrated against the continuing use of fossil fuels.

Protesters were arrested in Washington State, near Chicago and in Albany, New York. In some places they blocked railway lines used to transport fossil fuels. 1,300 marched in Washington DC to call on Barack Obama to end offshore drilling for oil and gas,

In Australia a group of kayakers attempted to shut down the world’s largest coal port,  and in the UK they invaded a huge opencast coalmine in south Wales.

There were demonstrations in Brazil, Nigeria, South Africa, Canada and Indonesia. An estimated 10,000 people marched to oppose a new coal-fired power plant in the Philippines.

A concern to many people is that last year’s Paris climate deal committed nations to keeping global temperatures below a 2C increase on pre-industrial levels but contained no explicit commitment to phase out fossil fuels. Instead, nations are left to devise their own ways to cut emissions and meet their pledge to avoid dangerous climate change.

Every month so far this year I have reported that the preceding month has been the hottest month on record for the time of year. Protesters pointed out that the same is again true for April 2016. Although many of us in the UK who suffered frosts and snow in the last weeks of the month will find it hard to believe, NASA has confirmed that on a global scale April 2016 was the hottest April ever.

I like this quotation from Naomi Klein, the author and climate activist: “The global climate justice movement is rising fast,” she said, “But so are the oceans. So are global temperatures. This is a race against time. Our movement is stronger than ever, but to beat the odds, we have to grow stronger.”

Whatever you believe about the rights and wrongs of all this, there is no doubt that protest, pollution and planetary politics are all going to have consequences for your business. 

The Queen's Speech

Talking of politics, this week we had the Queen’s Speech. That’s when Queen Elizabeth visits Parliament in state and delivers a speech from the throne which outlines the programme of legislation for the coming parliamentary session. Of course, the speech is written by the Prime Minister. This one was notable in having very few definite plans and nothing at all controversial in case it caused a row before the referendum on EU membership which takes place at the end of June. There were very few bills promised; many more good intentions, reviews and legislation to be brought forward. There were a couple of straws in the wind which I noted.

“My ministers,” she said, “will ensure the United Kingdom is at the forefront of technology for new forms of transport, including autonomous and electric vehicles.”

and..

“To spread economic prosperity, my government will continue to support the development of a Northern Powerhouse.” 

There’s quite a lot of scepticism about that. Is “Northern Powerhouse” more than a political slogan? At Buy Yorkshire Phil Jones of Northern Powergrids said he was sure there was substance to it, but unfortunately he didn’t have an opportunity to elaborate.

“My government,” said Her Majesty, “will continue to play a leading role in world affairs, using its global presence to tackle climate change and address major international security, economic and humanitarian challenges.”  Can’t argue with that. We’ll look eagerly for evidence of how that will be carried out.

“Britain’s commitment on international development spending will also be honoured, helping to deliver global stability, support the Sustainable Development Goals and prevent new threats to national security.” Interesting to hear the Sustainable Development Goals mentioned, and again it will be interesting to see what action is taken.

Bees

The bees are in the news. Cereals and grain crops are wind-pollinated, but tree fruits such as apples, plums and pears and soft fruits like raspberries, strawberries, blackcurrants, gooseberries and many others or rely on bees and other insects for pollination. And bees are suffering. In particular, in the United States colony collapse disorder has been widespread. Here in the UK bees are at risk from diseases and parasites, so bee-threatening pesticides are bad news for people like me who keep bees - and for any grower who needs bees to pollinate the crop. The main controversy is about neonicotinoids. I have until recently had a relaxed attitude towards these chemicals because although it has been proved that they can damage bees, it has not been proved that bees can ingest sufficient pesticide from treated crops to cause a problem. I was concerned that if farmers stopped using neonics, which are systemic pesticides, they would go back to spraying which can cause much more damage to insect life. However, there has been a temporary ban on the use of neonics, a product typically used on the rapeseed crop, and in spite of this farmers have been able to produce record yields. Nevertheless they have been lobbying to be allowed to use these products again. This was permitted for a short window but that has now been closed. Farmers are continuing to lobby for the ban to be lifted. I believe that it is too risky to allow this to happen. We should rely on the precautionary principle and assume that neonics will cause problems to bees and other insect life until the research which is currently in progress proves the case one way or the other.

Oil

The oil price is up. At the time of writing Brent Crude is at $48/barrel but this week it’s nudged $49. James Spencer of Portland Analytics told me earlier this year that he expected a high of $50 but now he expects $60. Interestingly he expects the market to be volatile. He doesn’t see the price going beyond $60 and expects it to fall back and then rise again as the year continues. There are various factors, and I hope to cover these with him in a future episode. The fires are still burning in Canada, of course, and a number of oil operations which re-opened have closed again. This is very serious for Canada, although its effect on world markets is relatively small and short-term.

Hinkley C

Before I go I’m surely you’ll be wondering about Hinkley C, that planned nuclear power station at the heart of the UK government’s energy policy. Despite promises by the EDF CEO to the parliamentary committee that the decision to go ahead would be taken by 15th May, the French government now says that no decision will be taken before September. The rumour is that the Chinese, already committed to investing in the project, will take over the whole thing. There’s another rumour that suggests that the Russians might do it. Well in the UK we haven’t got the skills, have we?

And that’s it. This is Anthony Day and that was the Sustainable Futures Report. The Sustainable Best Practice Mastermind group launches in July and if you’d like to see the prospectus you’ll find a link here: http://www.slideshare.net/AnthonyDay10/sustainable-best-practice-mastermind-group  or mail me at mail@anthony-day.com with your postal address and I’ll send you a copy.

Membership is by invitation.

That’s the Sustainable Futures Report for this week. This is Anthony Day. Until next time.