It’s early. 5:45 AM to be precise. I have a large paper cup of coffee in front of me with one of those dastardly plastic lids. The ones that jettison steaming hot coffee up your sleeve when you walk. Looking to my left, out of the window, I see the lights of the still sleeping city rumble by. Full of people snuggled up in bed, still in their own personal dreamland: dreaming of past glories and future ambitions, subconsciously sifting through the meaning of life. I should be there too.
Now I look forward. I see a long and wearisome day ahead. Two days ago, my presence was requested, nay, demanded, at a meeting in London later this morning. Other commitments yesterday and tomorrow mean that I must travel there and back again in a day so I’m on the day’s first Virgin train service out of Glasgow. I hope to arrive 400 miles away in London in four and a half hours.
I thought long and hard about how to travel. Whether to go for the speed of flying versus the slower but greener train, eventually opting for the train despite the ungodly hour of departure. And while almost everyone else sleeps on I ponder whether I’m being a martyr to the environmental cause or just a mug making a meaningless gesture; a misplaced idealist or true eco warrior.
I have read articles in the press and on blogs by journalists and individuals writing about how much they have managed to reduce their carbon footprint, pointing out that they have ignored the thousands of airmiles they have collected on business trips: that is work therefore not in my personal control therefore I can ignore it. To me this is a cop out - if we need to be in a certan place for a certain time we can choose how to travel. The expectation may be that we fly but we can challenge that for domestic trips. There may be no other travel options for longer trips but are there other options that avoid traveling, such as video conferencing?
Planes are not all that inefficient at carrying people about, the problem is the ease with which we can travel long distances. If every passenger on a plane made the same journey by a relatively inefficient car, the total fossil fuel consumption would be similar, but if the planes didn’t fly, not everyone would drive (some are travelling in groups and would share, others would take the train or coach and some wouldn’t make the journey at all) and burning fuel at a high altitude causes two to three times the global warming effect. All the figures suggest that the train is a much greener option but this morning I’m beginning to wonder. By choosing the train rather than the plane will not stop the plane flying and the amount of fuel used does not vary greatly between flying empty and flying full. If I had flown the carbon emissions per passenger would have dropped.
The train would also run regardless of whether I used it and, similar to the plane, most of the energy is used to move the train rather than the passengers. Although trains are, on average, an efficient way to move people about, I don’t think this morning’s train is very efficient. For the first hundred miles (Glasgow to Carlisle) I shared a 60 seat carriage with three other people, two or three first class carriages were completely empty when I passed minutes before departure and other carriages had only a handful of people. I guess that the train was running at 5-10% of seating capacity. With the train this empty I really do wonder if flying would be the more environmentally friendly option at this time of day.
I suspect it is not as simple as this: the train will get busier as the journey progresses and this train set may have been busy last night when it came north. I also expect the return journey this afternoon to be busier. I think the 5:40 departure is just too much for Glaswegians – there are very few options for getting in to the station for that time. There is no car parking at the station, unlike the airport, most public transport hasn’t started so that leaves taxis which are expensive forr anything but short journeys.
Given that both would run regardless of my choice, does my decision make any difference? That is the big question on my mind. I don't think a single decision by an individual makes a difference. We need lots of small decisions from lots of people for it to be meaningful. If you are reading this, I hope you will make the right decision.
The coffee is finished now and I’m left with a plastic lid that will hang around a landfill site for a hundred years or more, all for a few minutes convenience.
It’s not easy being green.
Showing posts with label carbon emissions. Show all posts
Showing posts with label carbon emissions. Show all posts
Thursday, September 27, 2012
Monday, August 13, 2012
Water Saving in an Maritime Climate
I am fortunate to live in an area blessed with a plentiful supply of water. Our maritime climate is driven by moist air coming in from the Atlantic Ocean, heated by the Gulf Stream. The air cools as it rises over the mountains and loses its excess moisture as rain.
Loch Katrine in the Trossachs has supplied the city of Glasgow with clean fresh drinking water for over a century and a half thanks to the work of the Victorian engineer John Frederick Bateman. When we have such an abundance of water there is little pressure to save water and you may be thought daft for even suggesting it but are there wider environmental benefits of reducing water consumption here?
Read more »
Loch Katrine in the Trossachs has supplied the city of Glasgow with clean fresh drinking water for over a century and a half thanks to the work of the Victorian engineer John Frederick Bateman. When we have such an abundance of water there is little pressure to save water and you may be thought daft for even suggesting it but are there wider environmental benefits of reducing water consumption here?
Read more »
Sunday, May 13, 2012
The Big Energy Switch Swindle - Part 2
Last week I posted about The Big Switch, a reverse auction for domestic energy being organised by Which and 38 Degrees.
I have to admit that my prediction was wrong, that suppliers would offer discounts, probably short term in nature and at the expense of other customers. But I was correct that the auction would make little difference for consumers.
The winner was Cooperative Energy which was £6 per year cheaper for the average user than the next lowest tariff, however the tariff is only available to the first 30,000 applicants out of around 280,000 that signed up for the Big Switch. The remainder will be offered the second place tariff, which is from EDF and has been available on the open market for several months. A post on the Which website also indicate that the winning coop tariff is also available on the open market.
I'm sure some consumers who participated in the big switch will see significant savings but they could have got them at any time. In fact, the Big Switch has delivered no new benefits to consumers.
The Energy and Climate Change Secretary, Edward Davey has been quoted a saying that he wants to see more schemes “enabling consumers to club together in this way to buy their energy, cutting out the hassle of
shopping around and switching and helping households get a better deal for their gas and electricity.” Evidence that he doesn't have a clue and that the government has no intention of intervening in the failing energy market.
At this time there is little information on the winning tariffs, although average standing charges and unit rates have been posted. What has been made clear is that those not paying by direct debit, including those without a bank account will be charged almost an extra £100 per year based on average use and the tariffs don't appear to be open to those with prepayment meters, thus the people suffering the most from high energy prices will not benefit. There are also regional variations in the tariffs, therefore you may have to pay more depending on where you live.
The result isn't really surprising. Energy differs from most commodities in the infrastructure required to deliver it, whether cables or pipes, and measurement of how much is used. For each customer that switches supplier as a result of the big switch, the energy company still has to run credit checks, set up individual accounts, read meters and issue bills giving limited savings to the suppliers from a group switch compared with many individuals. By contrast if your street gets together to bulk buy transportable commodities, such as a truck load of toilet roll our baked beans, the supplier can discount this based on the costs he saves by processing a single large order with a single bill and delivery rather than lots of smaller ones.
One of the big problems with such a powerful group of energy companies, untouchable by consumers, protest groups and government is that they have no real incentive to cut costs for the long term, especially the volatile price of fossil fuels. When investing in new generation they will invest in power stations with greater cost certainty in terms of planning and construction, that is gas power stations which have lower risk during the planning and construction than wind farms or nuclear power stations. The burden of future uncertainties, such as the price of gas, can be passed on to the consumer with impunity. It follows that the continued dominance of fossil fuels in the energy supply mix is bad for the environment and we, the public, will be left to pick up the cost of mitigating against the effects of climate change.
There are no easy answers to these problem. Schemes like The Big Switch are clearly not the answer. The Regulator and Government are not the answer. The answer lies partly in greater efficiency in the home to lower consumption and hence energy bills, but there are limits to what is achievable.
One method for groups to see real and lasting benefit from collective buying power could be through buying the means to generate their own energy, such as a community wind farm, solar collectors or geothermal heating systems. This would reduce the dependence on the major energy retailers, putting power literally back into the community. There are already some good examples of this, mostly from small isolated communities where the benefits of locally generated power is more tangible.
Related Links:
The Big Switch
The Big Switch Ts & Cs
Related Posts:
Energy Market Reform
The Big Energy Switch Swindle
I have to admit that my prediction was wrong, that suppliers would offer discounts, probably short term in nature and at the expense of other customers. But I was correct that the auction would make little difference for consumers.
The winner was Cooperative Energy which was £6 per year cheaper for the average user than the next lowest tariff, however the tariff is only available to the first 30,000 applicants out of around 280,000 that signed up for the Big Switch. The remainder will be offered the second place tariff, which is from EDF and has been available on the open market for several months. A post on the Which website also indicate that the winning coop tariff is also available on the open market.
I'm sure some consumers who participated in the big switch will see significant savings but they could have got them at any time. In fact, the Big Switch has delivered no new benefits to consumers.
The Energy and Climate Change Secretary, Edward Davey has been quoted a saying that he wants to see more schemes “enabling consumers to club together in this way to buy their energy, cutting out the hassle of
shopping around and switching and helping households get a better deal for their gas and electricity.” Evidence that he doesn't have a clue and that the government has no intention of intervening in the failing energy market.
At this time there is little information on the winning tariffs, although average standing charges and unit rates have been posted. What has been made clear is that those not paying by direct debit, including those without a bank account will be charged almost an extra £100 per year based on average use and the tariffs don't appear to be open to those with prepayment meters, thus the people suffering the most from high energy prices will not benefit. There are also regional variations in the tariffs, therefore you may have to pay more depending on where you live.
The result isn't really surprising. Energy differs from most commodities in the infrastructure required to deliver it, whether cables or pipes, and measurement of how much is used. For each customer that switches supplier as a result of the big switch, the energy company still has to run credit checks, set up individual accounts, read meters and issue bills giving limited savings to the suppliers from a group switch compared with many individuals. By contrast if your street gets together to bulk buy transportable commodities, such as a truck load of toilet roll our baked beans, the supplier can discount this based on the costs he saves by processing a single large order with a single bill and delivery rather than lots of smaller ones.
One of the big problems with such a powerful group of energy companies, untouchable by consumers, protest groups and government is that they have no real incentive to cut costs for the long term, especially the volatile price of fossil fuels. When investing in new generation they will invest in power stations with greater cost certainty in terms of planning and construction, that is gas power stations which have lower risk during the planning and construction than wind farms or nuclear power stations. The burden of future uncertainties, such as the price of gas, can be passed on to the consumer with impunity. It follows that the continued dominance of fossil fuels in the energy supply mix is bad for the environment and we, the public, will be left to pick up the cost of mitigating against the effects of climate change.
There are no easy answers to these problem. Schemes like The Big Switch are clearly not the answer. The Regulator and Government are not the answer. The answer lies partly in greater efficiency in the home to lower consumption and hence energy bills, but there are limits to what is achievable.
One method for groups to see real and lasting benefit from collective buying power could be through buying the means to generate their own energy, such as a community wind farm, solar collectors or geothermal heating systems. This would reduce the dependence on the major energy retailers, putting power literally back into the community. There are already some good examples of this, mostly from small isolated communities where the benefits of locally generated power is more tangible.
Related Links:
The Big Switch
The Big Switch Ts & Cs
Related Posts:
Energy Market Reform
The Big Energy Switch Swindle
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)