1) You pay them £30 ($45)

2) The check your car over, looking at about 35 different things, such as tyre pressure, fuel and ari filters etc.

3) They fit a data-logger to your OBDII port (where they plug computers to check stuff)

4) You drive around normally for a week

5) Return to the service centre and they print out stuff like typically rev range for each gear change and how hard you brake and accelerate.

It seems to me like a good idea, but I wonder if it’s really a sales tool to get your service/repair business under the cloak of the environmental banner.  I think it would be better if it had say been the RAC or the AA (or other breakdown organisation.)  I can see plenty of people making significant reductions in their fuel consumption, however, will this just be a short-term solution?

Saving water

We all waste water or perhaps we use more than is really necessary.  For example, does the car really need a weekly wash, just to impress the neighbours?  Do you really need that full bath or 20 minute shower?  Could you wait for a full load before turning on that washing machine?  Does the grass need to be watered?  Grass is very hardy and even when completely brown for weeks, will turn green at the first sniff of rain.

That man was me.  I think I keep going to the gym, instead of running outside purely because it is a habit.  For some reason, it is easier to drive to the gym and run on a machine for an hour, than running along roads or even in the park.  There’s somewhere to put my water and after all, I’ve paid to go.  The government recently ran a campaign asking everyone to review the miles they drive each week and try to reduce this by a few miles, maybe even one mile per week.  It’s about seven miles from home to the gym, but if I go straight from work, it is probably only one or two mile detour.  Still, during my last visit to the gym, I counted eight similar people.  I wonder how many miles not going to the gym might have saved?

Well you might be thinking, what is he on about this time, this is blog about energy, water, the environment and all things eco.  Yes, well whilst listening to the radio today, I heard an interview with Emma Bridgewater.  She has built up a pottery business up to about 150 employees and stated that she is “expanding like mad”.  Okay, so you still want to know why I’m going on about this?

Environmental policy

The interviewer asked Emma Bridgewater her pieces of pottery were expensive compared to similar items on the shelves.  Instead of banging on about the usual quality, design and other “benefits” in a totally over-the-top selling manner, she spoke clearly from the heart with honesty.  Her manufacturing costs are substantially higher than the competitor products.  She continued to highlight how the energy usage, the water disposal and the packaging were all vastly more expensive than in say China.  She also suggested that by employing 150 people from the local area provided a much needed boost to the traditional pottery area of Stoke-on-Trent, Staffordshire.   Other points she made was that it was not only impractical, but also anti-social to fly out to China to sort out a production problem or similar.

I found this brief interview especially refreshing, because clearly more money could be made from shipping in products from China or India.  But it could also be argued that British made is a very strong unique selling point (USP) and that aligning the business as a social and environmentally responsible one gives this a definitive market edge. 

Summary and conclusion

One thing is for sure from time to time, we all need to replace something or perhaps we want to buy something new.  The question we need to ask ourselves each and every time we make that purchase is, can we buy better.  But not in terms of the product or the price, but perhaps should we pay a little more to be responsible. 

Emma Bridgewater Outlet

Interview source BBC Radio 4 26/5/10

Your probably thinking, this blog is about energy, water and eco/environmental issues.  Well HIPS are, why?  Well if the HIPS were highlighting short-coming will properties, then surely this was raising the standards of the housing stock being sold?  Another important part of the HIPS was the energy performance certificates.  It’s great news to report that these certificates will remain in place and hopefully this will encourage loft insulation, cavity wall, better fuel efficient boilers and other energy measures.  How exactly these certificates will be created is yet a little unclear.  It’s hard to imagine an industry going around producing these certificates, but maybe it will be tagged onto the the traditional surveys.  In my opinion, it just shows that this new government is committed to the environment, but hopefully very good at cutting red tape.

With the economy on the road to recovery, large nations gearing up to battle for world supremacy, such as China, India and parts of Africa, we are certainly in no danger of reducing our CO2 output in the near future.   Do the levels of CO2 generated from man’s activities actually have a direct impact on the global average temperature?  A very big question and I’m not even going to attempt to answer this or even form an opinion on it.  Why?  Well, for me the issue of temperature rise isn’t as important the fact that we are running out of resources.  Let me explain, we know that we can expect the whoever has the last drop of oil to burn it, extraction cost are increasing, but so is demand and therefore we can expect the cost of oil and indeed energy to rise.  One question is when does energy (as we know it, fossil fuel dependent) become too expensive and will this occur before we get to “significant” levels of CO2 or will it in fact run out before both scenarios?  Big questions hey?  Fuel scarcity is likely to be the first major problem as the world seeks a solution for its ever-increasing thirst for energy.  Surely by trying to solve this issue, we can combine the research into reducing CO2 as well.  So what I am really trying to say is that we should be looking to solve the looming energy shortage, by developing new ways to generate power, conserve supplies and make changes to our lifestyle.  Isn’t that a win-win?  Reduce CO2, make renewable energy and satisfy the demand.  Okay, easy said than done.  But the point is, is climate change and the rising or not rising CO2 levels the issue or not.  I would say not.

Just last week the media was speculating on how the coalition between the David Cameron’s Conservative party and Nick Glegg’s Liberal Democrats would work together, when for they had debated major topics and were seemingly poles apart many occasions.  One such topic is that of the future energy policy and strategy for the United Kingdom, as the media over the last decade has told and re-told numerous scenarios about the UK actually having to turn off not only industry, our way of like to even light bulbs.  This week it has been reported that the new Energy minister, Chris Huhne has in some way accepted that Nuclear Power is part of the overall strategy.

Yes to Nuclear, but No to Government funding

Chris Huhne has made no secret over the years whilst in opposition that Nuclear Power is not an option.  Mainly due to the overall cost to the environment and safety fears.  But many leading scientists are coming to the conclusion, that whilst it is not the preferred option, it is the best of bad bunch and hopefully it would help to meet the immediate demand and to allow significant improvements in the the carbon capture technologies and clean burn.  Lets not forget that not only globally more closer to home in the Europe we have carbon targets to meet.   This latest thoughts from the new government seem a bit of a compromise, firstly the Lib part of the coalition are allowed not to vote in any nuclear policy decisions, in fact have agreed not to vote against the conservatives and for that, it would appear that the other side of the compromisefrom the Conservatives is that no funding will be provided and the new nuclear power plants must in effect be built and run by the private sector, the existing energy companies.  It is thought that the first in a series of plants could be on-line by 2017 and operated by Centrica.

A balancing act

Many of us are familar arguements associated with the delicate act of keeping the lights on, but reducing carbon and now throw in the well publicised national debt.  It’s quite hard to imagine how this is actually going to work, we are likely to see an expansion to the wind, wave and tidal schemes.  We know that some new fossil burning plants are being built, there is a new gas-fired plant being built near Newark, Nottinghamshire.  There are also small scale incinerators, bio plants and others.  As mentioned above some nuclear as well.  But it’s hard to see how all these pieces in the jigsaw will come together, if we can’t stop driving everywhere, flying at least yearly and buying food from all over the world.  Surely carbon targets like four fifths in the next 40 years and with the expected population growth of around 20 million more people, we simply have to changed our life styles?

It is going to be very interesting in the coming months, now that we in UK have a coalition government between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats.  Both parties prior to the election stated their respective environmental and eco-credentials.  But the the main issue of the economic situation taking the centre stage, just how many true environmental actions will we see?

According to the Times newspaper 12/5/10, Chris Huhne will have to deal with a number of issues straight away and a key issue will be the nuclear power one.  Pre-election the Lib Dems made it perfectly clear that new power stations were not in their plans, yet the Conservatives have on many occasions stated that this is part of their overall strategy.  Another hot topic is that of the new runways for both Heathrow and Gatwick.  Outline planning was previously granted for Heathrow by the former Labour government.  This will be welcomed in certain circles, but maybe the already under pressure aviation industry, may not be so keen.  Travel Mole has more here.

Green homes loan scheme

Conservative plans to “lend” homeowners money to make eco-improvements to their homes and then replay the up front cash out of the savings the make on their energy bills.  The environmental products supply chain is eager to see which products will actually qualify and the households I’m sure will be equally keen to see the terms and the possible savings.  A vast proportion of our homes could be insulated better, to date, most incentives and regulations have been aimed at new-build.  But of course the housing stock is very slow to change, something like 1-2% per year.

Power stations and energy production

As mentioned above the nuclear power station replacement scheme seems back on, but how the economic situation will allow this is unclear.  There is also a firm coalition agreement on any new coal-fired power stations.  It seems clear that for these to go ahead, a carbon capture scheme/technology is required and I’m assuming this has been requested by the Lib Dems.

Travel

At this stage there is no mention of the “infamous” fuel duty on petrol and diesel, but surely this will become a hot potato sooner than later.  There is better news on the go-ahead for the high-speed rail link, but pre-election this looked like it had all party agreement anyway.

Summary

Without doubt we are entering a very exciting political arena and agenda in this next parliament, and there will be much conflict between what the country can afford in economic terms and what is required to reduce the environmental impact.

It has been reported today that British Gas had made a good start to the calender year, with it’s parent Centrica The company said average gas consumption in the first three months of the year was 7% higher and electricity 2% higher than the same time in 2009.  The company have also been successful in attracting in excess of 200,000 new domestic customers, due to the passing on the reduction in wholesale gas prices.

Obviously we are all aware how much colder this winter has been.  Even this week (1-2 week May) I have had my central heating switched on, all be it on a low setting.  This has got me thinking, firstly, should the government be responsible for energy supplies and either make the profit for central funds or secondly regulate the price?  After all this extra revenue could go into funding renewable, insulation and education.  I realise of course that these companies, not just Centrica contribute to the UK economy, through taxes, jobs and research, but we are reaching a critical stage in our energy policy and requirements.

Measure to do at home, makes a difference?

Most people are aware of the various measure they can take to improve the energy efficiency of their homes, many are simply out of reach for many.  We can all insulate the loft, the cavity walls, exclude drafts, add better doors and windows (many of that list can be purchased through grants), some can clad the exterior, especially where solid walls are present.  But really does it make any difference, if as a society we feel that it is not only acceptable, but some kind of necessity to fly at least once a year and drive to the supermarket.  When we get to the supermarket it is okay to purchase something flown from the other side of the world.  Food miles has a lot of in-built energy in it and my point is, does it actually make any difference if we cut the CO2 output from our homes?  We are told something like one third of the UK’s CO2 comes from homes, but surely we are such creatures of habit, that this is virtually impossible to change, unless we are hit with sticks (tax and fuel rises) and fed carrots (grants, warmer homes and small bills).  Perhaps the way forward is off-setting?