I came across this entertaining and insightful TED talk today: Dan Phillips Creative Houses from Reclaimed stuff:
Dan Phillips: Creative houses from reclaimed stuff | Video on TED.com
The images of Dans work as a builder are of some very beautiful, creative and very inspiring homes made from around 70% - 80% of reclaimed materials.
The talk is not so much about using reclaimed materials in quirky one off homes but the underlying reasons as to why we don’t and why we have a sterile mono-cultural mass produced homes that we can no longer afford and that produce vast amounts of waste in production and running.
Through apperceptive mass, Neitchze, Satre, Plato, status and Maslovs hierarchy his central theme is that of the Apollonian Dionysian conflict. Premeditated perfection reason versus spontaneous organic emotion. The mainstream follows the Apollonian model. Standardised materials create a false perception of perfection which is intern demanded by consumers in a self reinforcing circle which creates enormous levels of waste.
Instead of catering to this expectation of perfection Dan argues that we need to embrace a more dionysian perspective and learn to love those kinks, bulges, cracks, sags, knots, warps inherent in most materials and make them feature. And to do this we need to accept that failure is ok.
Saturday 27 November 2010
Saturday 6 November 2010
More on light
I'm still thinking a lot about lighting, technology, efficiencies and the rebound effect so this is going to be a bit of a ramble going nowhere.
I checked out the data on lighting for the UK, it turns out that yes, the energy consumption of lighting has indeed risen despite increases in efficiencies. For households alone, over the past 30 years the total amount of electricity consumed for household lighting increased by 63% between 1970 and 2000. This increase has been attributed mainly to the shift away from single ceiling bulbs towards multi-sourced lighting (i.e. wall mounted and table lamps, multi-ceiling fixtures) as designers, architects, interior designers and homeowners have run away with the possibilities that new lighting technologies and cheap power have given them.
If, as argued by Tsao et al, each iteration of more efficient lighting leads to an increase in total energy consumption (the rebound effect) what will it take to realise the efficiencies offered and so desperately needed? Don't we need to have a deeper understanding of what it is that specific services (in this case lighting) mean to us? Questions such as what is it that lighting gives us? Is is purely functional, extending our productive hours? Or is there a deeper psychological thing going on. What is it that designers are doing when they pepper a ceiling with a squillion lights and render a space as well lit as a hospital surgery theatre and eradicate the shadows? Is it simply as superficial as fashion?
I think its beyond doubt that artificial lighting has had far reaching influence on the development of human civilization and human progress has been inextricably and intimately linked with the evolution of artificial light.
For most of our history the pattern of daily life was determined largely by the sun and the availability of natural light. Artificial light has influenced our efficiency, productivity, happiness, health and safety. From the first fire, to simple oil lamps, rush lights, to the gas lamp and the incandescent bulb to the fluorescent lights of today and onwards to solid state lights and who knows whatever technologies that are beyond our current imaginings. Each iteration progressively lengthening the day, eradicating the shadows and the monsters that lurk within them and eating into the dark so that human civilization is now truly a 24 hour society.
Perhaps, when we understand what it is that we desire of a service and those that design the world around us are taught to deliver that in the most efficient way possible then perhaps we can realise the efficiencies that new technologies offer without the, so far, concomitant increase in demand. Maybe.
This clips a bit cheesy but I think you'll get the point.
Wednesday 27 October 2010
on lighting, technology and behaviour
Have you noticed that in the past decade or so as low energy light bulbs (compact fluorescent, CFLS) have become more prevalent the total number of lights you see have increased? Where once we were happy with a single bulb dangling in the centre of the room and one or two lamps dotted strategically about we now expect illumination in every corner as we up light, down light, mood light and spot light ourselves out of the darkness.
This phenomena is particularly prevalent in new homes. I have observed in one case a tiny kitchen that could not have been more than 2.5m2 with a grand total of 9 recessed ceiling lights. How can a low energy home have so many lights? Oh it’s alright the nice man told me, they are all low energy. So quick and dirty calculation: one 100w incandescent bulb of olden days (ok it was probably a fluorescent tube in the kitchen but I never said this was going to be exact) has been replaced by 9 low energy bulbs. If we assume that the new super dooper low energy lights were about 12 watts each then 9 x12 = 108 watts. And what happens if you factor in the manufacture and installation of the additional fixtures. Hmmm? Efficient?
So I was interested to read a paper on lighting, new efficient technology and the rebound effect (Tsao et al 2010).
For the past three hundred years, and many technological transitions and advances in efficiency, artificial lighting has consumed an estimated 6.5% of world primary energy and an estimated 0.72% of world gross domestic product (Tsao and Waide 2010). This equates to the consumption of roughly 16% of the world’s total electrical energy generation in 2005 (EIA 2009).
The authors conclude that the consumption of light increases as cost of light decreases. But consumption of light also mediates an increase in GDP, and this also causes consumption of light to increase. And increased consumption of light also has the potential to increase both human productivity and the consumption of energy associated with that productivity.
Furthermore, new performance attributes associated with new technologies have the potential to unleash new and unforeseen ways of consuming light further increasing the consumption of light.
So, if history is a guide, the potential for reduced consumption of light from new technologies such as solid state lighting (SSL) may, as has happened during previous technology transitions, ultimately be dwarfed by the potential for increased consumption of light.
The conclusions suggest a subtle but important shift in how one views the consequence of the increased energy efficiency associated with new lighting technologies such as solid state lighting (SSL) is going to be required if the efficiency is to be realised as an overall reduction in total energy demanded and bucking the trend of three hundred years of history.
To continue to view such technological decreases in energy consumption without consideration to the actual consumption of light is too simplistic and misguided. We need to factor in the effect such technologies may have on human productivity and quality of life. In short we need to not only engineer a change in the technology but also the expectations and behaviour associated with its consumption concomitantly.
Mood lighting anybody?
J Y Tsao, H D Saunders, J R Creighton, M E Coltrin and J A Simmons 2010: Solid-state lighting: an energy-economics perspective. J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 43 (2010) 354001 (17pp) doi:10.1088/0022-3727/43/35/354001
EIA 2009 Annual Energy Outlook 2010 Early Release Overview http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/) Energy Information Administration
Tsao J Y and Waide P 2010 The world’s appetite for light: empirical data and trends spanning three centuries and six continents LEUKOS 6 259–81
This phenomena is particularly prevalent in new homes. I have observed in one case a tiny kitchen that could not have been more than 2.5m2 with a grand total of 9 recessed ceiling lights. How can a low energy home have so many lights? Oh it’s alright the nice man told me, they are all low energy. So quick and dirty calculation: one 100w incandescent bulb of olden days (ok it was probably a fluorescent tube in the kitchen but I never said this was going to be exact) has been replaced by 9 low energy bulbs. If we assume that the new super dooper low energy lights were about 12 watts each then 9 x12 = 108 watts. And what happens if you factor in the manufacture and installation of the additional fixtures. Hmmm? Efficient?
So I was interested to read a paper on lighting, new efficient technology and the rebound effect (Tsao et al 2010).
For the past three hundred years, and many technological transitions and advances in efficiency, artificial lighting has consumed an estimated 6.5% of world primary energy and an estimated 0.72% of world gross domestic product (Tsao and Waide 2010). This equates to the consumption of roughly 16% of the world’s total electrical energy generation in 2005 (EIA 2009).
The authors conclude that the consumption of light increases as cost of light decreases. But consumption of light also mediates an increase in GDP, and this also causes consumption of light to increase. And increased consumption of light also has the potential to increase both human productivity and the consumption of energy associated with that productivity.
Furthermore, new performance attributes associated with new technologies have the potential to unleash new and unforeseen ways of consuming light further increasing the consumption of light.
So, if history is a guide, the potential for reduced consumption of light from new technologies such as solid state lighting (SSL) may, as has happened during previous technology transitions, ultimately be dwarfed by the potential for increased consumption of light.
The conclusions suggest a subtle but important shift in how one views the consequence of the increased energy efficiency associated with new lighting technologies such as solid state lighting (SSL) is going to be required if the efficiency is to be realised as an overall reduction in total energy demanded and bucking the trend of three hundred years of history.
To continue to view such technological decreases in energy consumption without consideration to the actual consumption of light is too simplistic and misguided. We need to factor in the effect such technologies may have on human productivity and quality of life. In short we need to not only engineer a change in the technology but also the expectations and behaviour associated with its consumption concomitantly.
Mood lighting anybody?
J Y Tsao, H D Saunders, J R Creighton, M E Coltrin and J A Simmons 2010: Solid-state lighting: an energy-economics perspective. J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 43 (2010) 354001 (17pp) doi:10.1088/0022-3727/43/35/354001
EIA 2009 Annual Energy Outlook 2010 Early Release Overview http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/) Energy Information Administration
Tsao J Y and Waide P 2010 The world’s appetite for light: empirical data and trends spanning three centuries and six continents LEUKOS 6 259–81
Monday 30 August 2010
Forget the negative and accentuate the positive
Three things have stuck in my mind in the past week, that have got me thinking about contentment, happiness, pessimism and optimism. These were Einstein, Positive Psychology and 'The Tipping Point. Bear with me it will make sense. I hope.
The first was this quote from Einstein I saw in a window of an advertising agency, now so often cited that its become ubiquitous :
“Not everything that counts can be counted and not everything that is counted counts”
The second an article on positive psychology and the science of happiness (The Weekend Press, Mainland supplement C2 28/08/2010 John McCrone). When considering the question of happiness psychologists have, until recently, exclusively focused on the negative: what makes us unhappy, how do things go wrong and how can it be fixed? What about the positive? what is it that allows people to feel happy or better? What is it that dictates whether we view the world as a glass half empty or a glass half full? Positive psychology is the “scientific study of optimal human functioning that aims to discover and promote the factors that allow individuals and communities to thrive”. This includes resilience, well-being and happiness.
Happiness is 50% innate (you are either a pessimist or an optimist and there is nothing that can be done about that, its like a natural set point), 40% is attributed to how you deal with life and the events that are thrown at you and only 10% is attributable to life itself, the actual good and bad events. The idea is that 40% of happiness that is under our control can, therefore, be manipulated to a positive rather than a negative outcome.
Alison Olgier-Price of Canterbury University researches just that and has developed a 6 step programme that teaches people the power of positive thinking and techniques to give individuals mental strategies to cope with life and to develop and instil a positive optimistic outlook. The steps include:
1.Do more of what you enjoy however simple
2.Practise gratitude and recognise the good things: At the end of each day list three nice things that have happened however small and trivial
3.Understand your strengths and use them: forget about your deficiencies, find new ways of using what you are good at.
4.Learned optimism: For any event what are the possible outcomes? the best, the worst and the most likely? And what actually happens? Find a private belief to use to explain life's minor aggravations (e.g 'my loved one has had an accident and is bleeding to death in hospital' so if someone cuts you up on the road it is no longer
5.Goal setting and framing goals optimistically by shifting focus from what stands to be lost to what can be gained.
6.What defines your personal happiness rather than those meanings of happiness that we have been pushed into by our lives.
New Economics is clearly founded on principles of positive psychology. This is demonstrated in calls for a change how wealth is defined and measured by governments away from purely economic measures to measures have broader meanings of well being, happiness and a broader understanding of what is measured (e.g. NEFs Happy Planet Index). Which brings us back to Einstein's quote. We lose what we don't, or can't, count. So, if we want to become more happy as a society we need to understand what this means and we need to be able to measure it.
Now the third seemingly disparate thing. I am reading The Tipping Point (Malcolm Gladwell) and on p83-84 he writes about Emotional Contagion. Emotions are contagious. Sad people make us sad, negative messages make us depressed and pessimistic outlooks make us pessimistic. And emotion can be transmitted by all media and through individuals, organisations and institutions. So if emotion is contagious? Can positivism/happiness be transmitted through a society like a contagion? Can society be made more content by infecting them with happiness through the news? Or government? Negative pessimism appears to be the dominant state of affairs, when was the last time the news was dominated by stories of good things? Or political parties competed with what makes them better for society rather than how rubbish the opposition was? Or the earth was going to be saved (saved from what remains to be clarified) by human action?
The mainstream perception of alternative low impact lifestyles is mostly a negative one. Dirty, impoverished, joyless and hard work. Not helped by the pessimistic doomladen perspective of advocates of sustainability themselves. Perhaps there is a need to rid themselves of the Cassandra complex that has infected it and take a few steps towards positivity. Can more sustainable lifestyles and low consumption patterns be made more palatable by selling happiness and joy? And if so, the argument goes these individuals will become more content and find value in ways outside of consumption as a means of defining self.
This is founded on the premise that happy people with a redefined perception of success (as defined by new measures of well-being) will consume less. But is this actually the case? Take energy use for example, are happy people lower energy consumers than unhappy ones? The answer to that I would love to know.
As a society if we begin to accentuate the positive and create a virtual epidemic of happy optimism who knows where it may lead us. It can't be any worse than the festering negativity we currently have.
The first was this quote from Einstein I saw in a window of an advertising agency, now so often cited that its become ubiquitous :
“Not everything that counts can be counted and not everything that is counted counts”
The second an article on positive psychology and the science of happiness (The Weekend Press, Mainland supplement C2 28/08/2010 John McCrone). When considering the question of happiness psychologists have, until recently, exclusively focused on the negative: what makes us unhappy, how do things go wrong and how can it be fixed? What about the positive? what is it that allows people to feel happy or better? What is it that dictates whether we view the world as a glass half empty or a glass half full? Positive psychology is the “scientific study of optimal human functioning that aims to discover and promote the factors that allow individuals and communities to thrive”. This includes resilience, well-being and happiness.
Happiness is 50% innate (you are either a pessimist or an optimist and there is nothing that can be done about that, its like a natural set point), 40% is attributed to how you deal with life and the events that are thrown at you and only 10% is attributable to life itself, the actual good and bad events. The idea is that 40% of happiness that is under our control can, therefore, be manipulated to a positive rather than a negative outcome.
Alison Olgier-Price of Canterbury University researches just that and has developed a 6 step programme that teaches people the power of positive thinking and techniques to give individuals mental strategies to cope with life and to develop and instil a positive optimistic outlook. The steps include:
1.Do more of what you enjoy however simple
2.Practise gratitude and recognise the good things: At the end of each day list three nice things that have happened however small and trivial
3.Understand your strengths and use them: forget about your deficiencies, find new ways of using what you are good at.
4.Learned optimism: For any event what are the possible outcomes? the best, the worst and the most likely? And what actually happens? Find a private belief to use to explain life's minor aggravations (e.g 'my loved one has had an accident and is bleeding to death in hospital' so if someone cuts you up on the road it is no longer
5.Goal setting and framing goals optimistically by shifting focus from what stands to be lost to what can be gained.
6.What defines your personal happiness rather than those meanings of happiness that we have been pushed into by our lives.
New Economics is clearly founded on principles of positive psychology. This is demonstrated in calls for a change how wealth is defined and measured by governments away from purely economic measures to measures have broader meanings of well being, happiness and a broader understanding of what is measured (e.g. NEFs Happy Planet Index). Which brings us back to Einstein's quote. We lose what we don't, or can't, count. So, if we want to become more happy as a society we need to understand what this means and we need to be able to measure it.
Now the third seemingly disparate thing. I am reading The Tipping Point (Malcolm Gladwell) and on p83-84 he writes about Emotional Contagion. Emotions are contagious. Sad people make us sad, negative messages make us depressed and pessimistic outlooks make us pessimistic. And emotion can be transmitted by all media and through individuals, organisations and institutions. So if emotion is contagious? Can positivism/happiness be transmitted through a society like a contagion? Can society be made more content by infecting them with happiness through the news? Or government? Negative pessimism appears to be the dominant state of affairs, when was the last time the news was dominated by stories of good things? Or political parties competed with what makes them better for society rather than how rubbish the opposition was? Or the earth was going to be saved (saved from what remains to be clarified) by human action?
The mainstream perception of alternative low impact lifestyles is mostly a negative one. Dirty, impoverished, joyless and hard work. Not helped by the pessimistic doomladen perspective of advocates of sustainability themselves. Perhaps there is a need to rid themselves of the Cassandra complex that has infected it and take a few steps towards positivity. Can more sustainable lifestyles and low consumption patterns be made more palatable by selling happiness and joy? And if so, the argument goes these individuals will become more content and find value in ways outside of consumption as a means of defining self.
This is founded on the premise that happy people with a redefined perception of success (as defined by new measures of well-being) will consume less. But is this actually the case? Take energy use for example, are happy people lower energy consumers than unhappy ones? The answer to that I would love to know.
As a society if we begin to accentuate the positive and create a virtual epidemic of happy optimism who knows where it may lead us. It can't be any worse than the festering negativity we currently have.
Monday 23 August 2010
dub dub dub, localism and a virtual new dawn of community
Is the web and technology that facilitates the building of networks and virtual communities a fundamental tool in facilitating the growth of grass roots localisation and sustainable living practises? Without these virtual domains, which have the ability to connect individuals and grow ideas virally, how could individuals, with often disparate geographies or communities, be able to connect, swap and transmit ideas driving innovation from grass roots? Is this facilitating a faster growth in localism than would ever have been possible without it?
Conversely are these technologies also driving the fragmentation and erosion of traditional communities? Traditional communities and a reliance on our small localised networks of work colleagues, neighbours, friends and family are fading as we become less and less in touch with our local communities. We no longer know who lives next door, our families are dispersed and our friends often just as dispersed. Our social networks exist not locally but on Facebook, and we communicate via Skype, where our friends and families are often in different towns, countries and continents. Is the only way of getting this sense of community back by finding new ways of interacting at a local level?
I was stimulated to think these questions by an article I recently came across. The article was about locavores. A locavore is a person whose diet consists only or principally of locally grown or produced food. So what do you do if you have a glut of produce, are not a farmer or are able to, whether through time or accessibility to, sell at a farmers market and don't know your neighbours? All you need is a place in which to connect and to exchange. Well one solution is a virtual place to create new relationships between local growers and consumers: www.locavore365.org. Anybody can be a grower and anybody a consumer regardless of an overabundance of lettuce or a solid crop of carrots from a smallholder.
Other such networks are The freecycle network ( www.freecycle.org) aimed at reducing stuff going to landfill. Individuals in a local area or group are able to give away goods that they no longer need from furniture to rubble and everything in between.
The question is do these new networds actually facilitate new ways of building community or are they just convenient places to trade? How many users of these groups meet and make lasting fuitful relationships?
Just some random musings late in the night.
Conversely are these technologies also driving the fragmentation and erosion of traditional communities? Traditional communities and a reliance on our small localised networks of work colleagues, neighbours, friends and family are fading as we become less and less in touch with our local communities. We no longer know who lives next door, our families are dispersed and our friends often just as dispersed. Our social networks exist not locally but on Facebook, and we communicate via Skype, where our friends and families are often in different towns, countries and continents. Is the only way of getting this sense of community back by finding new ways of interacting at a local level?
I was stimulated to think these questions by an article I recently came across. The article was about locavores. A locavore is a person whose diet consists only or principally of locally grown or produced food. So what do you do if you have a glut of produce, are not a farmer or are able to, whether through time or accessibility to, sell at a farmers market and don't know your neighbours? All you need is a place in which to connect and to exchange. Well one solution is a virtual place to create new relationships between local growers and consumers: www.locavore365.org. Anybody can be a grower and anybody a consumer regardless of an overabundance of lettuce or a solid crop of carrots from a smallholder.
Other such networks are The freecycle network ( www.freecycle.org) aimed at reducing stuff going to landfill. Individuals in a local area or group are able to give away goods that they no longer need from furniture to rubble and everything in between.
The question is do these new networds actually facilitate new ways of building community or are they just convenient places to trade? How many users of these groups meet and make lasting fuitful relationships?
Just some random musings late in the night.
Thursday 5 August 2010
When two cultures collide
I am having an interesting time in the past few months experiencing being homeless and living within households with a very, very different attitude when it comes to carbon and energy consumption. Let’s be clear I am in no doubt that I am a minority and my hosts are the majority.
Since early adulthood I have never had to share my space and have always had the luxury of never having to compromise my beliefs and be challenged by anybody that might have a different opinion on the matter. I have had the freedom of developing along an independent path of energy awareness and an environmental consciousness. I would describe myself and my household as a low energy, frugal household. Very aware that our lifestyles ran distinctly against the grain of the dominant western paradigm: ‘I consume therefore I am’.
For the past few months I have been sharing my life intimately with other households that are very comfortable within this paradigm. A kind of microcosm of the real world but inescapably so, I cannot shut the doors to my castle and retreat inside to a kingdom of my own design. How life ought to be. It’s been an interesting time. The compromising has been great. The laughter and jollity immense. In short it has been open season on the ‘hippies’.
Why do you do that? I’m not doing that! I like it like that! Why do you make life so difficult for yourselves. Isn’t it easier just to take the car/put it in the bin/ leave it on? No I like it on all the time it keeps me company. Why are you sat there in a jumper, we do have underfloor heating you know turn the thermostat up. I shower twice a day, why don’t you. It’s not like we are running out of hot water/power/food.
Bullying and cajoling into conformity. It’s made me acutely aware that there is a HUGE social pressure to conform to the dominant culture. It’s not an easy road to embark upon. Is this why bands of greenies flock together? Does this explain the adoption of ideas such as Transition Towns in certain places and not others or the should I say some areas with a distinctive ‘green’ character within some places? Is the underlying character still dominantly characterised by the majority? Or will the majority be seduced by the hype, ‘it seems everyone else is so I should be too?’
How do you change an entire culture. E.F. Shumacher 1 suggested that it took three generations to effect a change in the dominant culture. Climate change has only been within our cultural awareness for less than twenty years. Do we have the luxury of three generations to effect a change?
1 E.F Shumacher Small is Beautiful A study of economics as if people mattered 1973 Blond & Briggs London
Since early adulthood I have never had to share my space and have always had the luxury of never having to compromise my beliefs and be challenged by anybody that might have a different opinion on the matter. I have had the freedom of developing along an independent path of energy awareness and an environmental consciousness. I would describe myself and my household as a low energy, frugal household. Very aware that our lifestyles ran distinctly against the grain of the dominant western paradigm: ‘I consume therefore I am’.
For the past few months I have been sharing my life intimately with other households that are very comfortable within this paradigm. A kind of microcosm of the real world but inescapably so, I cannot shut the doors to my castle and retreat inside to a kingdom of my own design. How life ought to be. It’s been an interesting time. The compromising has been great. The laughter and jollity immense. In short it has been open season on the ‘hippies’.
Why do you do that? I’m not doing that! I like it like that! Why do you make life so difficult for yourselves. Isn’t it easier just to take the car/put it in the bin/ leave it on? No I like it on all the time it keeps me company. Why are you sat there in a jumper, we do have underfloor heating you know turn the thermostat up. I shower twice a day, why don’t you. It’s not like we are running out of hot water/power/food.
Bullying and cajoling into conformity. It’s made me acutely aware that there is a HUGE social pressure to conform to the dominant culture. It’s not an easy road to embark upon. Is this why bands of greenies flock together? Does this explain the adoption of ideas such as Transition Towns in certain places and not others or the should I say some areas with a distinctive ‘green’ character within some places? Is the underlying character still dominantly characterised by the majority? Or will the majority be seduced by the hype, ‘it seems everyone else is so I should be too?’
How do you change an entire culture. E.F. Shumacher 1 suggested that it took three generations to effect a change in the dominant culture. Climate change has only been within our cultural awareness for less than twenty years. Do we have the luxury of three generations to effect a change?
1 E.F Shumacher Small is Beautiful A study of economics as if people mattered 1973 Blond & Briggs London
Tuesday 13 July 2010
Emissions trading
New Zealands Emissions trading scheme stepped up another gear on 1 July 2010 when stationary energy and liquid fossil fuel industries came into play for a first transition period. I'm not going to go into details on the scheme, information regarding the scheme can be found here: http://www.climatechange.govt.nz/ and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_Emissions_Trading_Scheme.
There are two interesting points to note. Firstly, at this point in time the NZETS is not a conventional cap'n'trade scheme. There is no cap other than that required by Kyoto, no sunset clause and no output reduction. The government will issue unlimited emissions units (NZU's, one NZU is equivalent to 1 tonne CO2eq). Only forestry can 'earn' NZU's, which can be bought nationally and traded internationally. If the national emissions exceed the Kyoto cap then the government will be buying abroad to acheive compliance. The cost of surrendering carbon is fixed at 25NZD per NZU. This has effectively been halved for energy, fossil fuel and industry participants as they are required to surrender on NZU for every 2 tonnes CO2eq, so effectively a price of 12.50NZD per tonne CO2eq.
Secondly, The cost to industry participants of buying NZU's will be passed on to consumers. It is estimated the the price of electricity, fuel and food is to rise with consumers meeting 52% of the overall costs in this transitional period (1). Estimates indicate this could be in the region of $400 per year (approx £200 at current exchange rates). Whilst it seems this ought to be a clear signal to consumers to reduce their consumption it is unlikely to do so. The weekly fuel bill, the shop and filling the car up is likely to only be in the region of a few dollars, worth a grumble but not likely to be painful enough to warrant reducing consumption. Furthermore, the opportunity to make reductions in our emissions is limited. For example, many many studies show that typically energy efficiency results in a saving of between 10-30% of our overall direct energy consumption. Much of the emissions are produced before the consumer turns on the plug or fixed in the efficiency of the engine in the car.
What then is the incentive when consumers are dependant upon and consequently trapped into using the power produced by energy generators and the goods, food and services produced by industry and the rise in price of energy, fuel and food isn't that noticeable? And where's the incentive for the providers of energy and goods, food and services to reduce their emissions if the consumer is paying?
I am left unsure how this is supposed to stimulate these industries to make radical and fast reductions in emissions or invest in efficiency. I guess we will have to wait and see if the signals are loud enough and clear enough or whether NZ Ltd will have to find the cash to foot the bill for exceeding its Kyoto committments.
P.S It seems that there really is nothing that can't be sold on internet trading sites such as ebay and trademe: http://www.trademe.co.nz/Business-farming-industry/Carbon-credits/auction-301199406.htm
1 Sustainability Council of New Zealand http://www.sustainabilitynz.org
There are two interesting points to note. Firstly, at this point in time the NZETS is not a conventional cap'n'trade scheme. There is no cap other than that required by Kyoto, no sunset clause and no output reduction. The government will issue unlimited emissions units (NZU's, one NZU is equivalent to 1 tonne CO2eq). Only forestry can 'earn' NZU's, which can be bought nationally and traded internationally. If the national emissions exceed the Kyoto cap then the government will be buying abroad to acheive compliance. The cost of surrendering carbon is fixed at 25NZD per NZU. This has effectively been halved for energy, fossil fuel and industry participants as they are required to surrender on NZU for every 2 tonnes CO2eq, so effectively a price of 12.50NZD per tonne CO2eq.
Secondly, The cost to industry participants of buying NZU's will be passed on to consumers. It is estimated the the price of electricity, fuel and food is to rise with consumers meeting 52% of the overall costs in this transitional period (1). Estimates indicate this could be in the region of $400 per year (approx £200 at current exchange rates). Whilst it seems this ought to be a clear signal to consumers to reduce their consumption it is unlikely to do so. The weekly fuel bill, the shop and filling the car up is likely to only be in the region of a few dollars, worth a grumble but not likely to be painful enough to warrant reducing consumption. Furthermore, the opportunity to make reductions in our emissions is limited. For example, many many studies show that typically energy efficiency results in a saving of between 10-30% of our overall direct energy consumption. Much of the emissions are produced before the consumer turns on the plug or fixed in the efficiency of the engine in the car.
What then is the incentive when consumers are dependant upon and consequently trapped into using the power produced by energy generators and the goods, food and services produced by industry and the rise in price of energy, fuel and food isn't that noticeable? And where's the incentive for the providers of energy and goods, food and services to reduce their emissions if the consumer is paying?
I am left unsure how this is supposed to stimulate these industries to make radical and fast reductions in emissions or invest in efficiency. I guess we will have to wait and see if the signals are loud enough and clear enough or whether NZ Ltd will have to find the cash to foot the bill for exceeding its Kyoto committments.
P.S It seems that there really is nothing that can't be sold on internet trading sites such as ebay and trademe: http://www.trademe.co.nz/Business-farming-industry/Carbon-credits/auction-301199406.htm
1 Sustainability Council of New Zealand http://www.sustainabilitynz.org
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
