Wednesday, February 15, 2017

It's All Up in the Air

Published as a podcast on Friday 17th February on iTunes, Stitcher and susbiz.biz

Is it a bird? Is it a plane? Is it a bee? Is it a robot bee? Or could it be a flying car? 

Honey bees on brood comb
Yes, it’s Friday 17th February and here's this week’s edition of the Sustainable Futures Report with me, Anthony Day,  with bees and robot bees, with flying cars and robots to help you park. Was Einstein right? There’s more about diesel and  emissions tests and the implications of self driving cars for manufacturers. On the energy front Flamanville is in flames and Toshiba is in the news. The BBC is to measure the carbon footprint of every programme. Who said they were denialists? 

Transport News
In the US this week eighteen car companies have written to President Trump urging him to abolish the fuel efficiency target set by the Obama administration. The plan was that all new cars would have to achieve 54.5mpg by 2025. Quite a target, since the US gallon is some 17% smaller than the Imperial gallon used in the UK. This would save American motorists $1.7 trillion dollars over the lifetime of their cars but would cost the motor industry $200 billion over 13 years. 

In the UK a new pressure group, Doctors against Diesel, is calling on Prime Minister Theresa May to take action to get diesel vehicles off the road as soon as possible. Particulates and nitrogen oxides from diesel vehicles cause up to 40,000 premature deaths in the UK each year, but they also cause lung disease and health problems in children.  Just as well, then, that the EU has issued proposals for tighter controls for the testing of road vehicles. They make it quite clear that this initiative was partly driven by the Volkswagen scandal, when it was shown that cars from VW and certain other manufacturers had been programmed to give favourable results when running in a test environment. 
The briefing paper is on the EU website: 
The proposals are to tighten up the testing regime, make the testers completely independent of manufacturers and centralise control within the European Commission. According to the Commission, the expected reduction in non-compliant and unsafe automotive products on the EU market would deliver €13 billion of benefits a year, and the regulatory level playing field would benefit EU businesses.
There’s a long way to go before this becomes EU law and by then the UK may no longer be an EU member. Of course, any vehicles manufactured in the UK for sale in Europe will still need EU Type Approval.

There are some interesting statistics in the briefing paper. For example it starts by saying that the automotive industry is a major player in the European economy, accounting for 6.4% of gross domestic product and 2.3 million jobs in the European Union (EU). A chart shows that while Germany has the biggest car industry by value, the UK has by far the biggest automotive supply chain in Europe. In the UK there are 730 companies involved with vehicle or component manufacture: far more than France or Germany which each have fewer than 200. Presumably the UK exports components to Europe. Hopefully it will continue to do so after Brexit.

Self-drive
Just thinking aloud about self-driving cars. You can now get an app to use your ordinary car to help you find vacant parking space. This is improves the utilisation of parking spaces substantially and reduces the mileage involved in searching for them. When all car parks have been enabled for this technology the application will be integrated with your on-board satnav as standard. Now consider building this into a self drive car. The car will drop you at your destination and then go away and park itself. Consumers may decide that it's not worth owning a car when you can call one up whenever you want. In that case the only car that you need is the one that's nearest the door in the parking garage. These garages will no longer need access to each individual parking bay and there will be no need for pedestrian entrances, stairways or lifts. It has been estimated that the space required for parking in a given number of cars could be cut by up to 60%. And if the self-drive car becomes the taxi of the future, will we need them to be changed every three years? I’ve had my car for nearly 12 years and it’s as safe and reliable and performs as well as new. It’s also a hybrid, so it’s still far more economical than most newer cars on the road. If we treat our cars like taxis and not as must-have fashion statements to be upgraded nearly as often as a phone then we are going to need far fewer of them. Serious implications for a major industry. But much cleaner air.

Let’s Fly
Mind you, future may be the flying car, and it’s a lot closer than you think!


Dubai’s Roads and Transport Authority (RTA) announced on Monday that flying cars would be launched in the state in July this year. The flying car was exhibited at the World Government Summit in Dubai this week and the chief of the RTA said a summer start date for flights is envisioned.
The Ehang 184 (made in China) is fitted with a touchscreen to the front of the passenger seat displaying a map of all destinations in the form of dots. It has preset routes and the passenger selects the intended destination. The vehicle will then start automatic operation, take off and cruise to the set destination before descending and landing in a specific spot. A ground-based centre will monitor and control the entire operation.

Meanwhile in the Netherlands PAL-V have announced a vehicle which will not only fly but run on the road as well. According to reports it will achieve 31mpg on the road and have a range of 817 miles. That means it will need to carry 120 litres of fuel, which sounds like an awful lot for a two-seater three-wheeler. In the air the vehicle has a range of 310 miles.  At around $500,000 I don’t fancy going up in one any time soon. With all that fuel I don’t think I’d be very happy to be underneath one, either. 



Carbon footprints at the BBC

The BBC has announced that from April this year all of its TV programming within factual, comedy, drama, entertainment and daytime will have to track their carbon footprint using the Albert carbon calculator. This, says the BBC, marks its commitment to reducing its environmental impact and is part of its wider sustainability plan.

I hinted earlier that the BBC are denialists, which is not really fair. There is a problem, though, in that they always seek balance and give equal weight to both sides of the climate debate as though the credentials of both were equal. For example they may balance a former Government Scientific Advisor with someone like arch-denialist Lord Lawson. Lord Lawson has very strong views against the idea of man-made climate change and is presented as an expert. In fact he has no scientific qualifications and all he has to offer are unfounded opinions. The time has long gone for campaigners against smoking to be put up against smokers. That science is accepted. The same should be true of global warming.

Of course you could say, “Anthony Day has no scientific qualifications. Why should we take any notice of what he puts in the Sustainable Futures Report?” My answer is that when I quote facts I aim to quote them from people who are qualified to know the scientific truth. Wherever possible I include links to my sources and you can find them on the text version of the Sustainable Futures Report at anthonyday.blogspot.com

Energy News
A quick update on energy. As I said at the start, Flamanville has been in flames and Toshiba is in the news.

You will remember that Flamanville is the site of the new nuclear-power station being built to the same design as the proposed station at Hinckley C. As a result of technical difficulties it is seriously delayed and vastly over budget. There is already a nuclear power station operating on the site which is in Normandy, in Northern France, not far from the Channel Islands. Residents of Guernsey were concerned last week to see smoke rising from the site. An explosion injuring five workers had occurred and caused a fire. This had nothing to do with any part of the nuclear process, but the reactor was shut down in any case as a precaution. This comes at a time when there is controversy in France over the future of nuclear power. France has a higher proportion of nuclear electricity than almost any other country and has had to take all its stations down one after the other for extended maintenance following faults discovered as part of the construction process at Flamanville. There are proposals to cut back France’s nuclear power to 50% of national generation by 2025, from over 60%. Apart from the technical difficulties and the enormous cost of replacing the ageing nuclear fleet, it was pointed out that France has no uranium. 36% of the world’s uranium comes from Kazakhstan, with another 27% from Australia and Canada.

The news about Toshiba is that it plans to build no more nuclear power stations outside Japan. This follows news that its nuclear business, seen as its core activity, led to a $6.3bn write-down this week, and the resignation of Toshiba’s president. The company may be bankrupt: the story continues to unfold. This comes as unwelcome news to NuGen, the company responsible for building a new nuclear power station with Toshiba at Moorside in Cumbria. They say they are confident that the project will go ahead, but Toshiba has said that while it will continue to be involved in the development of the Cumbrian plant, it will not be willing to take on any construction risk. Delays seem inevitable and raise further doubts over the British government’s long term plans for keeping the lights on.

What about the Swansea Bay lagoon? We’ll talk about that next time.

The Bees
Albert Einstein is supposed to have said, “If the bee disappeared from the surface of the earth, man would have no more than four years to live. No more bees, no more pollination … no more men!”

He almost certainly never said it: the earliest reference to the remark dates from the 1990s, some 40 years after the great man died. Also, it’s not true. Although bees and other insects are vital to the pollination of many food crops, the staples like wheat and other cereals are pollinated by the wind. 

I’m a beekeeper and I am very concerned that bees should be preserved. I'm currently nursing three colonies through the winter and looking forward to them pollinating all manner of plants and producing honey next summer. My reaction this week to the report in Cell Press cell.com of a robot bee was partly incredulity and partly anger.

Robot Bee
Yes, as the pictures in the paper showed, Japanese researchers have developed a drone-based unit which can carry pollen from flower to flower. The risk is that everyone will think that the panic is over, we don't need bees and we don't need to worry about them. The robots will do it all. That’s why I’m angry, because that’s just not true.

It seems that the unique element of this Japanese research was the creation of a gel which will pick up pollen and also allow it to be deposited on other plants. The picture in the paper showed the drone hovering over one of those enormous lilies that you get at weddings and other special occasions. A large flower with pollen-laden stamens which stick right out.

Now let's compare this with what happens in nature. In the height of summer each of my beehives will contain around 60,000 bees. Of these, some 20,000 will be regularly leaving the hives on foraging trips to collect pollen and nectar, and incidentally pollinating the flowers they visit. The rest of the bees have other duties within the hive. From this you can see that attempting to pollinate flowers by using drones is totally impractical. Quite apart from the number of drones that would be needed, will they ever build a drone small enough to pollinate apples and pears and cherries and oranges, and beans and peas, courgettes, raspberries, strawberries, aubergines, gooseberries, blackcurrants and all the rest? Drones will never manage to penetrate the tiny flowers of heather, and they will certainly never make any honey!

Threats to Bees
We probably won’t starve if the bees die out, but we will have a very plain diet. We need to take action to preserve them. What’s the problem? Colony collapse disorder is frequently mentioned; a situation where bees just abandon their hives and disappear. It happens widely among bee farmers in the US but seems to be less common here in the UK, at least among hobby beekeepers. It could be something to do with the way that bee farmers treat their bees in the US. They make much more money from hiring out their bees to farmers who need their crops pollinated than they do from producing honey. First is the almond harvest, so the hives are loaded onto trucks and driven across the country. The bees successfully pollinate the trees but almond trees produce very little nectar. The farmers feed them on corn syrup instead, which is not their natural diet. Once the almond blossom is over it's back on the truck for another journey to the blueberry fields or the apricot groves or whatever else needs pollinating. Typically they will be transported to at least four different locations in a season. As long as they can fly, they are worth money to the farmer. For the sake of hygiene, beekeepers in the UK will change the wax combs in each hive every two or three years. As I understand it, bee farmers whose main business is pollination just use the same frames until they fall apart.

Quite apart from how they treat their bees, beekeepers on both sides of the Atlantic are faced with pests and diseases. Varroa is a parasite which lives on bees, preferably on developing larvae, which means that when they develop these larvae may be infected or deformed. Twice a year, when there is no honey on the hive, we medicate the bees to keep the varroa down. Some of the bee diseases, but not many, can be treated. Veterinary medicines for bees are expensive and very carefully controlled, not least to make sure that the honey is never contaminated. In the worst cases all the bees in an infected hive must be killed to prevent them spreading disease to other colonies and then the hive is burnt. 

The latest threat comes from the Asian hornet. This is a non-native species which has been moving steadily northwards through Europe and a nest was found in the UK in 2016. The Asian hornet predates on honey bees. It hovers outside the hive and attacks and carries off bees. When it finds a hive it will recruit reinforcements from its nest and between them the Asian hornets will strip the hive clean. They also have a very nasty sting so they are a threat to the beekeeper as well as to the bees. Various traps and a range of baits are recommended to keep the Asian hornet under control. We will learn from experience in the coming season whether any of them works.

Probably the most controversial issue regarding bees is the question of neonicotinoid pesticides. Neonics are systemic, which means that they are applied to the seed as a dressing and their active ingredients are transferred into the sap of the plant and probably the nectar as well. Studies have shown that neonicotinoids can affect the nervous system of the bee and in particular its navigation, which means it may fly out and never find its way back. Studies have not yet shown whether bees can get a sufficient dose of neonicotinoids from foraging in treated plants to affect them in this way. Some say that we should adopt the precautionary principle and ban neonicotinoids until such research is complete. The farmers say that without such pesticides their crops, principally oil seed rape, are at risk. The problem is that if neonics are banned the farmers may go back to spraying, which could have a far worse effect on bees - and other pollinating insects. It is open to question how this issue will be resolved particularly post Brexit. Politicians need to take the best advice. Not just the loudest. Avaaz, the international campaign organisation, is currently urging people to lobby the Canadian government to ban neonics. Friends of the Earth has also been very active in this area.

Warm Bees in Winter
I mentioned earlier that I am currently nursing three colonies of bees through the winter. This amounts largely to leaving them to their own devices. I have wrapped the hives in wire netting to keep out the woodpeckers and I've put a grill along the front to keep out the mice. Normally, bees would live on the honey that they've gathered during the summer. I've pinched that, so in the autumn I gave them lots of sugar syrup which they took down and stored in the hive. When the weather gets cold the bees all cluster together around the Queen. They do this to keep her as warm as possible and they consume honey and shiver their wing muscles to develop heat. Unfortunately, if it gets very cold the bees remain tightly in their cluster and if they have consumed all the honey close by they can fail to access the honey in other parts of the hive and in the colony will starve. My job is to watch out for this, and if necessary to put sugar fondant in the hive directly above the cluster so that the bees can find it.

In a recent paper published in the International Journal of Biometeorology, author Derek Mitchell suggests that clustering is not a natural behaviour of bees and occurs only as an emergency response to cold temperatures. 
In his research he measured the temperature and humidity inside various types of hive - wooden hives, polystyrene hives and even a dung-coated straw skep. He also made a mock-up of a nest inside a tree-trunk, the sort of place where bees in the wild would naturally live. The results showed that the tree-trunk was by far the best insulated of them all, and that there was nowhere on earth cold enough - even in Siberia - to drive bees living inside a tree into a cluster. They were always able to maintain the ideal temperature and humidity, because the thickness of the wood retained the heat. Indications were that these conditions reduced the breeding success of the varroa mite by 98% and there was a smaller incidence of nosema, a common bee disease. The next best hive was the skep made of twisted straw and coated with dung. Behind that came the polystyrene hives and a very long way behind them came the traditional wooden hive which I and everyone I know uses. Given that the walls in a wooden hive can be less than 20mm thick, it’s a struggle for bees in winter to maintain their normal temperatures in excess of 30℃. Even in summer UK temperatures rarely reach 30℃, so the bees are having to expend energy, which could otherwise go into honey production, to keep the hive warm.

Derek Mitchell has built hives from 50mm Recticel, an insulating board used by the construction industry. He finds that this can give the same results as a nest within a tree. I’ve looked into building my own hives from this material, but the key thing with bees is that dimensions are crucial and I haven’t got the equipment for accurate cutting. Still, I may look into making covers for my wooden hives for next winter.

There has been controversy among beekeepers for years over whether it’s better to keep bees warm in winter. Mitchell’s research strongly indicates that it is. If we can remove one more stress factor from our bees by keeping them warm, maybe we can reduce the occurrence of colony collapse. And safeguard our apples and pears and all our other lovely summer fruit.



Here we are again at the end of another edition of Sustainable Futures Report. This is Anthony Day thanking you for listening and promising to be back next week with more news, opinions and ideas. Thanks for the feedback. It's been suggested that I should look at social issues relating to sustainability, and renewable energy, among other things. Keep the ideas coming and I’ll do my best to keep up. Oh, and do tell your friends to listen or look at the blog on anthonyday.blogspot.com. There’s no charge. I make nothing out of this except the knowledge that I’m able to inform like-minded people.

That’s it then, for this episode of the Sustainable Futures Report. I’m Anthony Day and thanks for listening.



Thursday, February 09, 2017

It's not Cricket!

Find the podcast on iTunes or via www.susbiz.biz from Friday 10th February

It’s Not Cricket! 

Cricket, (no the game, not the insect), could be at threat from climate change according to the MCC and the Climate Coalition. The government's White Paper on Brexit is published and Martin Baxter comments on the implications for the environment. News from Scotland about a lamp post which generates its own electricity and statistics from the SMMT about diesel cars. I also ask why marine anthropogenic litter is an issue for us all, whether Greenpeace has overstepped itself this time, I introduce another candidate for the Department of Missed Opportunities, and Sir David King warns that time is no longer on our side.

Yes, hello, this is Anthony Day with your Sustainable Futures Report for Friday 10th February. Welcome to all listeners in 40 countries across five continents. And a particularly special welcome to my listener in Haiti.

Brexit White Paper
The British government has published its Brexit White Paper setting out its “vision of what we are seeking to achieve in negotiating our exit from, and new partnership with, the European Union”.

Martin Baxter, Chief Policy Officer at IEMA, gave us his thoughts about Brexit and environmental legislation in the Sustainable Futures Report for 21st January. Now the White Paper is out he has some points to add and you can read his post on LinkedIn. The issues I picked out of his piece were 
  • it’s not clear whether post-Brexit laws will be amended or repealed by Parliament or whether this power could be delegated to Ministers. This could have implications for environmental quality standards.
  • Nevertheless, it looks as though we will retain a link to European standards through BSI via CEN, the European standards body which isn’t an EU institution, but does accept mandates from the European Commission. 
  • The Government has re-stated its commitment to enhancing natural capital over a generation. We’re still waiting for Defra's 25yr environment plan to provide more on this - any day now.
  • The Government re-states its commitment to the Climate Change Act 2008 and links this to support for international work to drive climate ambition.
  • The White Paper is silent on air quality – save that existing EU targets will be incorporated into UK law through the Great Repeal Bill. The government has recently been prosecuted (twice) for failing to meet these targets so we can only hope that in adopting them it intends to respect them.

As I said, the full text of Martin’s summary is on his LinkedIn page.

Wind-powered Lamp-posts
News from Scotland this week that IT company, NVT Group, has joined forces with Own Energy Solutions to develop wind turbines which attach to lamp-posts. They foresee 'huge export potential’, in addition to the two million lamp posts in the UK which could be suitable for conversion. Metered, clean energy could be fed directly into the National Grid and the company said that as a result, each suitable lamp-post conversion would save half a ton of carbon being released into the atmosphere. I spoke to NVT and asked them how the units would cope with turbulence from passing traffic and whether they would be made in Scotland. They agreed to get back to me, but had not done so by the recording deadline. 
  

The report reminded me of the lamp posts which I wrote about in my 2007 book, Will Climate Change your Life?
Photo: eets.co.uk 
These were in Woking, Surrey, in the UK, and they not only had vertical wind turbines but also solar panels. They were designed to store enough energy in batteries to keep them running for 5 days in cloudy, windless conditions. Woking does not seem to have rolled out a large number, but manufacturers EETS eets.co.uk tell me that the product, the Hybrolight, is still available and each one is individually designed for its specific location. While the NVT units appear to require a grid connection, the Hybrolight can be totally free-standing and operate without an external power supply. In the 10 years since I wrote about these lamps we have seen dramatic developments in batteries, LED lights and solar PV technology, coupled with dramatic falls in costs. I’m sure there’s a bright future for this idea.

End of the road for diesel?

According to the Telegraph a scrappage scheme for diesel cars could be introduced within months as part of a plan to lower emissions and improve air quality across the country.

Apparently work is under way by officials in the Department for Transport and Defra on a scheme to offer cashback or a discount on low-emission cars if people trade in their old polluting vehicles. 

Chris Grayling, the Transport Secretary, reportedly told industry experts that he supports plans for a scrappage scheme, but that it must be properly targeted.
It follows a dramatic warning earlier this month after a number of London boroughs issued black alerts for toxic air quality and the city's Mayor was forced to call on people to stay indoors and put off exercise until the levels improved.  Westminster council introduced a 50 per cent surcharge on parking for diesel cars in a bid to drive them out of the borough.

The bad publicity has also hit diesel sales. The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT) reports that while overall car sales increased by 2.9% in January, sales of diesel cars were down 4.3% on the same month last year. Sales of alternative fuel vehicles - pure electric, hybrid and plug-in hybrid - rose by nearly 20%, but that’s easily achieved from a very low base. To put things in perspective, of the 175,000 new cars registered in January 7,300 were alternative fuel vehicles, but only 1,010 were pure electric. For the moment at least you should always be able to find a vacant charging point.

Marine Anthropogenic Litter
What is Marine Anthropogenic Litter and why should it concern us? In a recent presentation Dr Lucy Woodall of the Department of Zoology at Oxford University explained that it is pollution of the seas with the waste that we humans create. It’s easy to believe that all this pollution comes from shipping, but that’s far from the truth. In fact, almost anything which gets in to a watercourse ends up in the sea. That can be a plastic bag which blows into the river, a cigarette end washed into the gutter, agricultural run-off or industrial waste. Most of the material polluting the oceans starts on land. The oceans are becoming the world’s rubbish sink, with vast areas of rubbish swirling in the gyres, the circular currents in the southern oceans.

Pollution comes in various forms. Degraded plastic is a common sight on beaches, but micro-plastics, where plastics are eroded into minute particles or nurdles (lovely word) which are fragments of plastic raw material, can be a more serious threat. Plastics are generally considered inert, so they may be untidy but perhaps not dangerous. However, they may not be so benign. Of course as bags or ropes they can trap or choke sea creatures. Some chemical pollutants are hydrophobic and float on the surface of the water. Now they can be absorbed by the floating micro-plastics and then maybe ingested by fish. Eventually the contaminated micro-plastics may sink, taking chemicals to the bottom of the ocean to places where they would never normally reach.

Abandoned fishing gear can trap fish; floating plastics can form wind-blown rafts which can carry chemicals and organisms thousands of miles from their source to contaminate distant lands. Every fish we eat is likely to contain some micro plastics. There’s no data yet on how this will affect us or whether there is a safe daily helping of fish.

But there’s good news! There are many positive initiatives towards cleaning up the oceans, or at least preventing the the problem from getting worse. They’re all good ideas, but they probably need to be geared up 10-fold or more to have a significant impact. They include 
  • Baltimore’s “Mr. Trash Wheel” combining old and new technology to harness the power of water and sunlight to collect litter and debris flowing down the Jones Falls River.
  • Banning plastic micro-beads from cosmetics and cleaning products
  • Banning plastic shopping bags
  • Rubbish-catching barges on London’s River Thames
  • MARPOL - the marine pollution convention governing shipowners.
  • The Sea Bin - a floating rubbish collector
  • One less plastic bottle - a campaign to remind you to take a bottle of water from home, rather than buying a new one every time
  • The Project Ocean Partnership, which includes among others the Zoological Society of London, Selfridges, Greenpeace and the Marine Reserves Coalition. They say: “By 2025 there will be one tonne of plastic for every three tonnes of fish in the world’s oceans if nothing changes.” 

There’s a clear message about plastic here. It’s in almost everything we use or wear. There’s a link here with the circular economy which I’ve mentioned in previous episodes. In the circular economy there is no waste: everything that is discarded becomes raw material for new production. If we re-use all our plastics we stop adding them to our waste stream, but much needs to change before that can happen. The fundamental issue is assigning responsibility for pollution. At present manufacturers have no responsibility for the disposal of their products - that’s the consumer’s problem. Manufacturers have no obligation to make their products capable of recycling or repair. Planned obsolescence is alive and well. If the consumer doesn’t throw the product away the consumer won’t be buying a new one. There are clear commercial pressures. After all, making, distributing and selling a new one supports jobs. 

Solving this problem will need government intervention. We need to make it more expensive to throw things away. We need more plastic recycling facilities. Nearly all plastics can be recycled, but if there are no local facilities it’s rarely cost-effective to send them away for recycling - and the transport involves a carbon footprint. Despite this, there are simple things we can do and signs we are doing them. Now where’s that plastic water bottle I’m going to refill?

Climate Change is not Cricket

Lords, the home of the Marylebone Cricket Club (MCC), announced this week that it had become the first cricket ground in the country to run on 100% renewable energy. The new Warner Stand, which will be opened in April 2017, is symbolic of MCC’s sustainability drive. This innovative structure, designed by architects Populous, includes photovoltaic roof panels for electricity generation and a state-of-the-art water collection and recycling system.

At the same time, new figures revealed the increasing disruption to cricket caused by extreme weather patterns. Extreme weather in December 2015, which has been linked to climate change, caused more than £3.5 million worth of damage across 57 cricket clubs. Two cricket grounds, at Sowerby Bridge in West Yorkshire and Appleby Eden in Cumbria, remain unplayable.

The announcement at Lords launched the annual ‘Show The Love’ campaign from The Climate Coalition, and the publication of its ’Weather Warning’ report highlighting how extreme weather conditions are affecting some of Britain’s favourite places - from gardens to local pubs, rivers to our parish churches, iconic cliffs to woodlands. As well as cricket grounds.

Department of Missed Opportunities

I’m afraid this launch by the Climate Coalition qualifies for this week’s referral to the Department of Missed Opportunities


The Climate Coalition launched its #ShowTheLove campaign with a new video on YouTube (full link on the blog at AnthonyDay.blogspot.com .) “This is a love song,” they say,  “like you've never heard before. It is the sound of the nation, of people across the country coming together to #ShowTheLove for the life they hold dear and want to protect from climate change.” 

It’s certainly a piece of art with memorable photographs, poetry, music and celebrity cameos, but I wonder whether it will actually change anything. It closes with this message on the screen: “Climate change is threatening the things we love but it's not too late to protect them if enough of us show we care.” This stays on the screen for 5 seconds which is barely enough time to read it and then the website address appears, and shows up for even less time.  In case you missed it, it’s sharethelove.org.uk which redirects to fortheloveof.org.uk. And this is a lavish website, but it’s not clear what it is or what it’s for - at least not at first sight. It reminds me of an article by Malcolm Gladwell who wrote about something like the curse of too much knowledge. For example, if you work in an organisation that uses jargon every day it becomes second nature and blindingly obvious, but it’s easy to forget that it means nothing at all to outsiders. I’m sure that whoever created this website knows what it’s about, but I don’t. 

And then there’s that report,“Weather Warning”, but I couldn’t find it on the Climate Coalition website. On the fortheloveof site there’s a news link. But the top story is “Historic Climate Deal reached in Paris”. Yep, that was in December 2015. Nothing about any report. Then I eventually found the Weather Warning report behind a link called “Special Places Report”. 

When I finally got into the report I found the foreword had been written by Professor Piers Forster, Director, Priestley International Centre for Climate at Leeds University. 

You may remember him from the episode “Can we trust the IPCC?”, which appeared on this podcast on 10th November 2014. No? Oh, well it’s still available.

Anyway, it’s a detailed and well-presented report with a dozen case studies about special places in Britain under threat. It ends with reasons to be cheerful and on page 34 it tells us “the Show The Love campaign is encouraging people from all walks of life to show they care by wearing and sharing green hearts in the week of 7th-14th February to stir feelings, spark thoughts, begin conversations and show politicians that we are passionate about protecting our world - not just for ourselves, but for generations to come.”

A very important message, but tucked away at the back of a report which itself was almost impossible to find. And where can I get a green heart? From the website of course, but there’s no link from the home page to the green hearts page - you can only find it by googling. And when you’re there, it’s a guide to make your own. Do let me know if you see anyone wearing a green heart this week.

Dealing with climate change is a very difficult but vitally important message. The Climate Coalition has clearly put a lot of effort into all this, but I don’t think it’s worked. It’s an urgent message. 

Energy Voice 
reports that Sir David King, former chief government scientific advisor, said this week that time is no longer on our side. “In a worst case scenario,” he said, “some of mankind’s greatest cities could flood, economies could collapse and millions of people be left starving to death.
“The risks of global warming are really quite severe. If we don’t manage this problem we are going to be faced with quite dramatic challenges to all of our economies.
“We could see sea level rises in the region of metres if we are very unlucky – and we have to look at the possibility of being very unlucky.
“Cities that are based on coastlines – Calcutta, Mumbai, Shanghai, New York and London – these are all at risk if sea levels rise.” He was speaking at the Energy Institute in Aberdeen, and went on to say, “Quite frankly it took us 21 years to get that agreement in Paris. We really have wasted an awful lot of time. Time is no longer on our side. We need to move on this and we need to move on this quickly.”

It’s generally impossible to motivate people with bad news. But Sir David cited money, the great motivator.
He claimed that the marketplace for innovative technology to decarbonise the energy industry was worth trillions of dollars over the coming decades.
He added: “We really need to be shifting away from fossil fuels to provide all of the energy that we need.” (Opportunity for wind-powered lampposts here!)
“We have to replace that with renewable energies, energy storage, smart grids – new clean technologies coming through to the market place.
“My message”, he concluded, “is that this new marketplace is the new wealth creating opportunity for the global economy.”

Greenwash backwash
Are you a member of Greenpeace? I'm not, although I do support some of their campaigns. I had an email recently inviting me to write to the bank HSBC to complain about their support of the palm oil industry. I did so, because I am aware that in Indonesia the industry has caused destruction of forests and widespread burning is causing soil erosion, atmospheric pollution, dispossession of local inhabitants and destruction of wildlife habitats. I got a detailed letter in response and it's made me think very hard about whether HSBC was as bad as Greenpeace claimed. Greenpeace also sent me a link which I could forward to my friends. (I didn’t.) I looked at it and it was a video of Stuart Gulliver, HSBC Group Chief Executive being interviewed at the recent World Economic Forum in Davos. The footage was intercut with shots of construction equipment destroying forests and it made HSBC look very bad and complacent. I sought out the original video from the World Economic Forum and viewed the complete interview. It doesn't do Greenpeace any favours and demonstrates how they have distorted things through selective editing. If you want to check it for yourself, the video is called A New Chapter for Climate Action at weforum.org and the section in question comes about 9 minutes before the end. I’m all in favour of protest, but only when it’s justified and founded on fact. I’ll certainly think twice before responding to the next appeal from Greenpeace.

And finally,…
And so here we are again, at the end of another episode of the Sustainable Futures Report. I started this week concerned that I would have nothing at all to write about but it just goes to show that stories about sustainability bubble up all the time. There will be more next week. If there is anything in particular you'd like me to focus on drop me a line. mail@anthony-day.com.

Thank you across the world for listening. This is Anthony Day,  and as I said before I'm always available to chair your conference, host your awards ceremony, facilitate your webinar or deliver a keynote speech. But for the moment, until next week, that's it.


Wednesday, February 01, 2017

Keep on Keeping Left


Published as a podcast on Friday 3rd February on iTunes, Stitcher and via susbiz.biz

In the sustainable news this week: a virtual power station, Ireland divests and how your business can achieve zero to landfill. The oil price is up and so is petrol at the pump. You can save fuel by just turning left. Well, it seems to work for UPS. Al Gore’s saving the climate and he’s also saving a climate change conference. How green is your wood-burner? As green as your 4x4? Reduce, re-use, but before you recycle we investigate the Restart Project and the Edinburgh Remakery. And when he comes to visit, what should you give the Trump who has everything? A ladybird?

Hello, this is  Anthony Day with your Sustainable Futures Report for Friday 3rd February.

Welcome to listeners in over 40 countries across five continents. I was interested to see that last week’s episode was listened to by more people in China than anywhere else. 


Batteries

In the Guardian newspaper this week: an article about batteries. In this case an estate of 40 bungalows in Oxspring, South Yorkshire where a battery will be installed in each house by Moixa Energy Ltd. moixa.com This is part of a trial to see if home-owners can save money by storing energy. 

It helps the grid as well. Our electricity grid was based on massive central power stations and never designed for local generation. In some areas there isn’t enough capacity to receive the power generated by solar panels and wind turbines. Batteries can act as a buffer. 

Thirty of the houses in Oxspring have solar panels; the other 10 do not. They can store electricity from the grid. Homeowners save money in two ways. If they have solar panels they can store electricity that they generate but don’t need and then use it later on instead of buying electricity from the grid. The other way they can make money is based on the Moixa battery technology. It’s a smart battery - part of the internet of things - connected to the internet so the user can monitor performance on tablet or smartphone. But the clever bit is that these batteries can be controlled remotely and commanded to discharge into the grid at times of peak demand. These peaks may only last minutes, but the batteries can deliver enough to help smooth the peaks and reduce the need for standby power stations. Moixa already has some 600 batteries installed across the country. They call it their virtual power station, and claim that the smoothing operation uses only a small proportion of the charge in each battery. Whatever is delivered of course leads to a payment to the householder.

The key question in all this is whether the battery system will pay for itself. There are more and more domestic batteries coming on to the market. The highest profile is probably the Tesla Powerwall. You know, Tesla, the electric car company. The electric car that will see off most Formula 1 cars.Tesla launches Version 2 of its Powerwall in the UK in March at around £6,350. This looks like a lot more than Moixa’s £2,500, but to that you have to add installation and VAT - included in the Tesla figure - bringing the Moixa cost up to nearly £4,000. The Tesla unit holds 14 kWh. The Moixa unit holds 3kWh, so the cost per kW is £1,320 for Moixa, but only £450 for Tesla. Do you really need 14kWh? Maybe yes in the US when you could be running air conditioning throughout the hours of darkness. But 3kWh could be adequate for UK evenings, as long as you don’t use the oven, the dishwasher and washing machine all at the same time. 

Will the savings pay for the battery? If you can fully charge your Moixa unit from your solar panels and fully use it you will avoid buying 3kWh of electricity from the grid, saving about 50p. Doing this every day for a whole year (which is not totally realistic) saves £182.50 (or £183 in a leap year.) Moixa calculate that exporting electricity to smooth peaks on the grid can yield an annual payment of £50 - total = £232.50. Dividing this into a battery cost of £4,000 gives a payback period of some 17 years, and that’s without the cost of borrowing the money. And will it last for 17 years?

I can’t see that batteries are financially viable at present, but I can see two reasons why they will become very attractive very soon. First, energy prices will go up. If we move to electric cars then demand will rise. If political pressure drives up the cost of imported energy - oil and gas - then people may turn to electricity. This will require significant infrastructure investment and will have to be paid for via electricity bills. In 10 years’ time that annual £232.50 saving could double. The second reason relates to smart meters and time-of-day tariffs. Many commercial users have half-hourly meters and all commercial users will have to have them from 1st April this year. A half-hourly meter monitors consumption in 30-minute segments, making the data available to the consumer and to the supplier. Time-of-day tariffs mean that the user pays more or pays less depending on the time of use. Once we have domestic smart meters, this pricing will apply to households. If you have a battery you will be able to charge it from the grid at the time of lowest demand and lowest price and then either use it or sell it back to the grid at peak times and peak prices. Savings and grid income will be greater than at present, and it will all be controlled automatically to maximise your income. Logically, electric cars will become part of the virtual power station. While they are on charge a small portion of the battery could be discharged into the grid to meet peak demand.
Oh, and there’s a third reason why batteries will make sense. With mass production and continuing research they should get cheaper.

I contacted Moixa to ask about the financial viability of their batteries. They promised to phone me back but nobody did. 

Ireland Divests

The Independent newspaper reports 
that Ireland has voted to be the world’s first country to fully divest public money from fossil fuels.

The Irish Parliament passed the historic legislation in a 90 to 53 vote in favour of dropping coal, oil and gas investments from the €8bn (£6.8bn) Ireland Strategic Investment Fund, part of the Republic’s National Treasury Management Agency.
“This principle of ethical financing is a signal to these global corporations that their continual manipulation of climate science, denial of the existence of climate change and their controversial lobbying practices of politicians around the world is no longer tolerated,” said Deputy Thomas Pringle, who introduced the Bill.
“We cannot accept their actions while millions of poor people in underdeveloped nations bear the brunt of climate change forces as they experience famine, mass emigration and civil unrest as a result.”

Following the same theme, Deutsche Bank, the biggest bank in Germany, announced this week that it would stop financing coal projects as part of its commitments under the Paris agreement to tackle global warming. It’s also another step towards cleaner air.

Air Quality

The debate goes on about air quality and diesel cars. Governments are embarrassed to put restrictions on them because they encouraged diesel cars a decade ago because they emitted less GHG. The problem is particulates, microscopic particles of soot, which lodge in the lungs and cause health problems particularly in children. As I’ve said in previous episodes, we’ve known about diesel particulates since long before diesel cars became popular. Sounds like a lack of joined-up thinking, and now the diesel drivers and urban residents are paying the price. And then there are diesel lorries, buses and taxis…

There’s a new scare story out this week. Wood-burning stoves, popular in the posh parts of London, are being blamed for the recent air quality black alert in the metropolis. The truth is that wood-burners do emit CO2 and can emit other gases and particulates as well. Some units are better than others and can convert nearly everything to ash, but even this can float up the chimney. Wood for burning must be seasoned. Green is not the answer here. Green wood makes much more dirty smoke. Contrary to popular belief, wood is not a green fuel. It emits CO2 like coal, and while the theory is that new trees will grow and absorb the CO2, it’s a very long slow process. Given the deforestation of the Amazon and other regions you could argue that we are never going to grow enough trees to compensate for emitting extra CO2. With their particulates and gases, wood burners do contribute to urban air pollution, but only in a minor way compared to the diesel engine.

Reduce, re-use and then what?

Reduce, re-use and then restart or remake before you recycle.
I’ve come across two social enterprises focussed on doing just this. The Restart Project https://therestartproject.org/ specialises in electronics - helping people to repair their laptops, smartphones or games consoles and so on. Based in London, but with some activities across the country they run Restart Parties where people can bring their equipment and get advice on what parts may be needed and how to mend it. A Restart Party is a free drop-in event, but the project also offers in-house clinics to corporate clients. The idea is to boost employee engagement, emphasise the organisation’s green credentials and cut down electric and electronic waste.

Sophie Unwin, director of Remade in Edinburgh,
won the 2016 Social Entrepreneur of the Year Award. The business model is different from Restart. At the Edinburgh Remakery they teach people skills in upholstery, leatherwork, computer hardware and software and woodwork. They also run a free weekly drop-in repair surgery. They hire out workbenches by the hour for woodwork and workstations for sewing or computer repairs, and they have refurbished computers and furniture for sale. There’s a plan to create a network of remakeries across the whole of the UK.

Both these organisations are helping us to get the maximum utility from the labour, materials and energy which originally went into producing the items they repair. One of their objectives is zero waste to landfill.

Zero Waste to Landfill

How are you doing on that, by the way? The Carbon Trust has produced a booklet called “Good riddance to bad rubbish: How to achieve zero waste to landfill” Aiming principally at businesses, it says, “Putting waste into landfill is not only irresponsible, but it's expensive; the amount of money that we spend on landfill tax is rising, currently at a huge £82.60 per tonne. To protect your pocket, and your brand, zero waste to landfill is the only recycling goal that makes sense. In today's progressive business context, brand is everything, and green is in this year.”

“This white paper details how to make a smooth transition to zero waste to landfill in five simple steps, including how to choose your waste contractor and how to engage your employees in the initiative.”

I got my copy via a link on an email from Business Green. Strangely I couldn’t find any reference to it on the Carbon Trust’s own website, but I’m sure they’ll send you a link if you ask.


Ladybird, ladybird fly away home,Your house is on fire and your children are gone…


That’s a warning for a ladybird. Ladybird Books, on the other hand, have just published the first volume in their new Expert series. It’s a warning about Climate Change, co-authored by HRH The Prince of Wales, Tony Juniper and Emily Shuckburgh. It’s been peer-reviewed by a panel of experts, so although it’s a brief guide to the subject it’s an authoritative document. Now when Donald Trump makes his state visit to the UK what better than for Charles to give him a signed copy? Actually there are reports in the press that President Trump has already made it clear that when he comes he does not want to meet the prince. He doesn’t want Charles to have an opportunity to lecture him on climate change. 

Others who are sensitive to the president’s feelings about climate change include the US Center for Disease Control and Prevention. The Washington Post reports
that it abruptly cancelled its long-planned Climate and Health Summit, in a move seen to be a “strategic retreat” in the face of the climate skepticism of the incoming Trump administration. Emails sent to participants and scheduled speakers did not explain the reason behind the decision, nor did the agency offer an explanation in response to a request for comment.

Al Gore to the Rescue!

Al Gore and his Climate Reality Project have ridden to the rescue. 
Together with non-governmental sponsors including the Harvard Global Health Institute and the Turner Foundation they will run an alternative event on Feb. 16th. Still in Atlanta, it will take place outside of any government circles. Organisers say they are aiming to attract as many as 200 attendees from around the country to talk about the mounting risks to human health posed by climate change. The message will not be silenced. 

Al Gore said, “They tried to cancel this conference but it is going forward anyway. Today we face a challenging political climate, but climate shouldn’t be a political issue. Health professionals urgently need the very best science in order to protect the public, and climate science has increasingly critical implications for their day-to-day work. With more and more hot days, which exacerbate the proliferation of the Zika virus and other public health threats, we cannot afford to waste any time.”

Keeping Left

And finally, why will turning left help you save energy? Let’s try anything now that petrol is up to £1.20/litre and diesel even more.
I saw an article this week by Graham Kendall, professor of computer science at the University of Nottingham. 
In it he describes how UPS, the parcel delivery company, has set up its route planning software to choose the most effective routes for its vans, which are not necessarily the shortest routes. Fundamental to this is avoiding right turns, across the oncoming traffic, or left turns in Europe. The idea is that there is an increased risk of an accident when crossing the oncoming traffic, and waiting at junctions wastes time and wastes fuel. Does it work? UPS claim to have saved 10 million gallons of fuel, emitted 20,000 less tonnes of CO2 while delivering 350,000 more packages in 1,100 fewer vehicles and driving 28.5 million fewer miles.  As Professor Kendall says, if UPS can save 10 million gallons, how much could a whole country save? It all depends on persuading everyone to follow the rules, and that will no doubt be the biggest challenge. 

Until Next Time

Well that’s it for now. I’m off to drive round in circles and when I get back it will be time to think about next week’s episode. Don’t miss it.

It’s the Sustainable Futures Report and I’m Anthony Day. Oh, and if you need a keynote speaker for your conference, a host for your awards ceremony, a webinar facilitator or a conference chair just contact me at mail@anthony-day.com 

This is Anthony Day 

That was the Sustainable Futures Report