Rubbish tax is rubbish - maybe

The report in yesterdays Guardian stating that the Government has cleared up the rubbish tax confusion did not to my mind clear up the confusion

In the article itself it seemed that there were two very different steers emerging depending on which line you read. On the one hand "a Defra document published on the official Whitehall website revealed that the climate change bill would allow local authorities to charge for waste in a bid to boost recycling" and on the other "paper versions given to reporters and MPs stated that the bill would only give local councils the power to run pilot schemes to encourage recycling"

These two different slants would seem to propose very different ways of going about things.

The first implies that households will be charged for the amount of rubbish they throw away. This would seem to be on the basis that the amount of non recyclable rubbish can be weighed and a bill can be issued. I am absolutely convinced that this method will not be a great success and will in all likelihood lead to two unwanted outcomes - an increase in the amount of rubbish fly tipped or taken directly to the local municipal site and an increase in neighbour disputes caused by people putting their rubbish into other peoples bins.

The second implies some kind of scheme whereby those who recycle through kerbside collection facilities gain some kind of reward which is offset by those who refuse to use such facilities receiving some kind of charge. This seems to be a more positive way to go about things but we have to ensure that every household has the facilities to recycle and I suspect the administration of such schemes will be relatively expensive and open to challenge. If someone does not put out any recyclables then presumably their normal bins will need to be checked to see whether or not their waste contains recyclables. This may also prove unpopular as the thought of the local authority rooting through peoples bins may not go down very well.

If implemented sensibly by local authorities this may help, if not do not be surprised to see the amount of fly tipping on the increase

Personal advisers on commuting!

Apparently the government in the form of Ruth Kelly is planning "a big increase in access to 'personal travel plans' after trials showed huge decreases in car travel for only a few million pounds of public spending. Under the scheme, households and other organisations are offered personal advice, including a home visit, during which an expert analyses what journeys are made by car and how some could be replaced by other means."

As an aim this is to be lauded although I somehow doubt the cost effectiveness and long term benefit of such a scheme without a real focus on and investment in tow other key factors.

Firstly money needs to be invested in good, clean, regular and reliable public transport. The example which I gave a month ago of our local station at Aldermaston is a good one. As I said then "On a Sunday as the trains wend their merry way from Newbury To Reading and back again try guessing how many trains stop at Aldermaston. Yes you guessed it a grand total of zero. Slow trains go up and down and stop elsewhere but not here." Just how much extra would it cost to get these trains to stop? Very little I suspect.

Secondly I suspect that a far greater return on investment could be achieved through working with employers to see how technology to could be best used to enable a significant number of employees to work from home for part or all of the week. Personal experience would seem to indicate that the worst times to travel on the motorway network in this country are Monday morning, Friday afternoon and Sunday evening. At least two of these three could be addressed through and increase in home working.

Commercial demands and our heritage

I do not know how this abomination came about but I would suggest that someone needs to look at how they fulfil their role properly.

A giant doughnut-brandishing Homer Simpson has been painted onto the hillside above Cerne Abbas next to the giant. Apparently this is a publicity stunt to promote the Simpsons movie which is due to be released later this month.

Either the people who did this got permission in which case I would suggest that whoever granted permission should take a step back and think about how best to protect our heritage or they did not in which case they need to be caught and prosecuted.

From Wikipedia

The Cerne Abbas giant is a hill figure of a giant naked man on a hillside near the village of Cerne Abbas to the north of Dorchester in Dorset, England. The 55 metre (180 feet) high, 51 metres (167 feet) wide figure is carved into the side of a steep hill and is best viewed from the opposite side of the valley or from the air. The carving is formed by a trench 30cm (1 foot) wide and about the same depth which has been cut through the grass and earth into the underlying chalk. In his right hand the giant holds a knobbed club 36.5 metres (120 feet) long.

Zero emission homes

According to the BBC the first zero emission home has been unveiled. This two bedroom house (see above) is insulated to lose 60% less heat than a normal home. It also features solar panels, a biomass boiler and water efficiency devices such as rainwater harvesting.

According to the report "The home generates all its own energy - and when you're away on holiday can send electricity back to the National Grid. The company says its annual energy bill would be £31, as compared to £500 for the standard new home of this size."

This is all great news but I guess the important thing is how quickly this sort of design and technology get incorporated into all new homes.

The great global warming swindle?

Did anyone see the program "The Great Global Warming Swindle" on Channel 4 last night? I did not but listening to the radio this morning I wish I had. It seems to run counter to everything we have been led to believe about global warming and in particular the causes.

I have had a look at their website and if I understand what they are saying correctly then there would appear to be a fundamental dispute about the facts with regard to the warmest periods in the history of our planet. If you believe Al Gore then we are already in uncharted territory, if you believe the makers of this film then we have been here before and we are not the cause of the problem. Indeed they seem to be saying that natural events such as volcanic eruptions and solar activity.

Food for thought but even if you accept that global warming is not man made we cannot continue to abuse the planet in the way in which we currently do and we cannot continue to use up the natural resources of the planet at such a rate without paying the price in the future.

Update : for a great precis of the programme see Tom Papworth on Liberal Polemic

Worlds largest wave farm

Scottish ministers have announced funding for what has been described as the world's biggest wave energy farm. Apparently the Pelamis device (shown above) has been tested at the European Marine Energy Centre on Orkney and Scottish Power wants to commission four more at the same site. Scottish Power say this could create enough power for 2,000 homes.

According to the Lib Dem Deputy First Minister Nicol Stephen "This will be the world's biggest commercial wave project - significantly bigger than the major Portuguese scheme". He went on to say "Scotland has the potential to generate a quarter of Europe's marine energy and kick-starting the sector is vital if we are to create a significant industry based in Scotland and meet our long-term renewables targets."

Windpower milestone

The UK has become only the seventh nation in the world to have more than two gigawatts of operational wind power capacity. This milestone was passed when the Braes O'Doune wind farm, near Stirling, began producing electricity.

The government has set a target for 10% of electricity to be generated from renewable sources by 2010 and 20% by 2020 but surely we could do better than that given the amount of wind we get. No doubt someone will tell me that it is the wrong type of wind but when you realise that Germany has more than 20GW of wind energy capacity, 10 times as much as the UK you have to think we could do a lot more

Greenpeace victory on nuclear power

Apparently Greenpeace has won its High Court bid to make the government rethink its programme to build a new generation of nuclear power stations. The judge ruled that the consultation process before making the decision last year had been "seriously flawed" and "procedurally unfair".

Greenpeace complained that there had been a failure to present clear proposals and information on key issues, such as disposal of radioactive waste and building costs.

The Trade and Industry Secretary contested the judicial review but Mr Justice Sullivan took a different view. He said "something has gone clearly and radically wrong" He went on to say that "the consultation document contained no actual proposals and the information given to consultees had been wholly insufficient for them to make an intelligent response" and that"the information given on waste had been not merely inadequate but also misleading".

Of course the DTI say (correctly) that this is about the process of consultation and not about the principle of Nuclear Power. The point they omit to make is that of course with full, correct and accurate information the consultation paper might have led both the consultees and the DTI itself to a different conclusion!

The future of the British nuclear deterrent

The government claims it is undergoing a period of debate and consultation ahead of a final decision although it is starkly clear that the decision to develop a new generation of weapons has already been taken. That much was clear nearly a year ago when The Sunday Times ran a piece entitled Revealed: UK develops secret nuclear warhead. I blogged about this at the time and my main concern was that the debate should take place in the open and parliament should have the final say on whether or not we want a replacement and if so what form that should take, when it should be developed by and what budget should be allocated to it. To be already spending money on a replacement weapons system without parliamentary approval was and is quite simply wrong.

The Liberal Democrats will be deciding their policy on this issue at their Spring conference in Harrogate on Saturday 3rd March. The motion can be found here.

In a nutshell the Lib Dem motion notes the Labour governments position namely to retain a nuclear deterrent, extend the life of Trident and reduce the number of warheads by 20% and commence procurement for a new class of submarine. The motion then goes on to propose that the Liberal Democrat policy should be as follows :

a) Britain should now begin a major reduction of its nuclear arsenal by approximately 50%, retaining no more than 100 warheads; with each Trident submarine carrying no more than 24 warheads when on deterrence patrol;

(b) The current Trident nuclear system should be maintained and its operational life extended;

(c) A final decision on whether and, if so, how to procure any successor system be taken at the point when the significant capital spending would begin to be incurred on a three boat replacement.

An amendment is to be tabled along the lines of conference resolves that the UK should not procure a successor nuclear weapons system to the current Trident system.

I hope that the amendment is passed and that we make a clear stand on what is the correct way forward for the UK. Why do I feel like this?

1. From a moral standpoint I do not see how we can justify the possession or usage of nuclear weapons let alone the design and production of a whole new system and the submarines which act as a delivery platform.

2. As I understand it the development and production of a new system would break our obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty for a start.

3. Were we ever to use nuclear weapons there would be disastrous consequences for the local population and the environment in the affected region. Not forgetting of course the continuing environmental impacts of the current weapons system just through the work going on to maintain the system in a safe state.

4. The governments own scientific advisor has stated that the greatest threat that the UK faces is global warming - perhaps we would be better employed spending our time and money on tackling this issue

5. The biggest threat to our security would seem to come from terrorism within our borders. The possession of nuclear weapons will not help us protect the security of our own people against this threat one jot. According to No New Trident one retired general has summarised Trident as: "useless, expensive and dangerous". The defence of the UK actually requires more and better equipped infantry and air and naval transport. Trident is a poor use of scarce resources needed elsewhere for our national security.

6. There seems to be a general consensus that we could not use our nuclear weapons without the consent of the United States - if this is so then we do not have an independent nuclear deterrent so why have one and pay for one if we have to ask someone else for permission too use it?

7. The potential cost of this new system is colossal. The figures I have seen quoted range from £65bn to £75bn depending on the option selected. The reality of what it will eventually cost is I suspect likely to be much greater than these figures given the propensity for such schemes to experience time and cost overruns. Indeed CND quote another figure - the savings which could be achieved if the UK were to spend at the EU average for military spending would equate to £8.5 bn per year (over 25 years that is £212.5bn)

If we accept that we should not have them and are obligated not to design and produce new systems then it seems far more sensible to scrap the system and have a genuine debate about the best way to spend the consequential savings. Some could doubtless go on conventional forces and security measures but I would prefer to see most of this money being invested in protecting us from the greatest threat we face - global warming. It depends on what figure you believe for the cost of a Trident replacement but a couple of ideas of how this money could be spent were given recently in The Ecologist :

• Nine million homes in the UK need cavity wall insulation. Providing this would cost £16bn and would save 6.5 million tonnes of C02 emissions per annum
• 25,000 onshore or 8,000 offshore turbines would generate 33% of the UK energy needs and would cost £75bn. I guess that if the government invested in this then the government would reap the income from the sale of the resulting electricity so providing further funds for other projects.

This is to say nothing of the many other issues which face the UK and desperately need tackling.

The NHS needs fixing once and for all, clearly some more money is required given the shortfalls but more importantly would be some form of cross party consensus which would take the NHS away from being a political football and towards being a stable organisation which can deliver a consistently high standard of health care and drugs throughout the UK.

The waste we generate and how we deal with it is a huge problem and we are only scratching at the surface of what needs to be done to invest in systems to deal with the waste as well as the requirement to ensure that we produce as little as possible in the first place.

Public Transport need some serious investment - it is just not acceptable to have stations (as we do) with no service whatsoever on a Sunday. More houses have been built near our station in recent years and even more are going up now. Wonderful until the occupants discover that the service is somewhat infrequent at the best of times and non existent on a Sunday and they will have to use a car anyway

If you want to read more about the issues go to No New Trident here or click on the button on my side bar.

Is this what we are going to do with our nuclear waste?

According to the BBC scientists have backed the government's plan to store the UK's nuclear waste deep underground.

David Miliband told the House of Commons back in October that we were to bury our nuclear waste so I guess it is handy that this report supports the governments policy.

The policy announcement last year was not unexpected and was in line with the Committee on Radioactive Waste Managements report a summary of which can be found here. In summary the report states that :

• Geological disposal is the preferred long term solution
• Interim storage arrangements will have a vital role to play in the mean time
• A new approach to implementation is required which should be based on the willingness of local communities to participate.

Professor Charles Curtis, president of The Geological Society of London, presenting the latest report, said "After a long period without waste policy, the UK finally has a way to go forward. We concur the safest and most secure way to go is deep geological depositories, and we see no insurmountable scientific and technological barriers to this."

Apparently between one-third and two-thirds of the UK have a suitable geological make-up for deep nuclear waste burial. It is also likely that the approval, design and construction of such a facility will take up to 40 years to achieve!

There are as I see it a number of problems with the way forward as proposed.

Firstly, the government has to identify and acquire a suitable site. The search for such a site in itself will be mired in political difficulty. The government will not want to look at any sites near to any marginal Labour seats for a start. The uproar amongst the local community eventually chosen to site this repository is likely to be significant.

Secondly, the scientists may be convinced about the viability of such a storage facility but I guess the great British public may take some further convincing. I sat on the Atomic Weapons Establishment Local Liaison Committee for a number of years and this issue was discussed at length on several occasions. My only conclusion was that this stuff was best off contained in specially constructed stores above ground where the state and condition of the drums could be easily monitored and where any faulty packages could easily be retrieved and repackaged.

Thirdly, even if one agreed with the long term disposal option the government needs to address the second point made by the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management namely that Interim storage arrangements will have a vital role to play. If it is going to take up to 40 years to implement the long term strategy then they had better put a bit more thought and effort into the medium term strategy.

Of course the problem might not be quite so big if we were not proposing to replace Trident with yet another Nuclear weapons System about which I propose to write more soon.

Waitrose and packaging

Why is there a picture of a lasagne on my blog you may ask?

Well I have just had some home shopping delivered from Waitrose.

In the shopping (as ordered) were two Waitrose Lasagnes (see above)

I was absolutely stunned by the amount of packaging involved - each Lasagne is contained in a foil tray with a film of plastic over the top. That is then sheathed in a cardboard cover with the cooking instructions on it. But the piece de resistance was the individual cardboard box that each of the two Lasagnes was contained in. Why oh why in this day and age is this level of packaging considered to be necessary?

I went to the environmental bit of the John Lewis website here and it says very clearly "we regularly review our business practices and performance to identify how we can improve our energy efficiency, minimise packaging and reduce air emissions, waste disposal, water usage and the impacts of our transport operations."

Well John Lewis / Waitrose you claim to minimise packaging but the evidence says otherwise. I have emailed them so we will see what of response I get.

Climate change concerts

According to the FT today a series of concerts "bigger than Live Aid" is being planned for July, in a bid to put the subject of climate change before an audience of a global audience of 2 billion.

The event, scheduled for July 7, will feature co-ordinated film, music and television events in seven cities including London, Washington DC, Shanghai, Rio de Janeiro, Cape Town and Kyoto.

It is understood that former US vice-president Al Gore, whose movie An Inconvenient Truth brought climate change to cinema audiences last year, will announce the event tomorrow in London.

Is this what I will be riding in 20 years time?

I sincerely hope not. This is the world's first purpose built hydrogen powered motorbike which is designed by Intelligent Energy. It may be environmentally friendly but I would certainly dispute that it is likely to be fun as they claim. Apparently the only noise is from the tyres - not much use to a Harley loving nut like me then. And probably not very safe if people cannot hear you coming at all.

According to the BBC there is some good news in that there are some downsides to this technology :

• Producing hydrogen isn't that green. At present, the bulk of it comes from using up fossil fuels. The whole process isn't as polluting as producing oil but it still has an impact.
• Hydrogen is easy to buy (apparently) and costs about the same as petrol, but virtually no petrol stations sell it.
• The bike will cost you upwards of £6,000. For a bike with a top speed of 50. For that you could buy a proper bike such as a Sportster and still have change

If anyone is interested the bike also has its own site which can be found here at envbike.com

Air Travel - Part of the problem and part of the solution

Is air travel going to remain such a huge part of the global warming problem. Possibly not if one can believe a couple of interesting pieces in today's Guardian which can be found here and here.

Up until now the general consensus has been that air travel is bad. It is not that the emissions per person/mile are particularly bad as such it is more that air travel affords people the opportunity to travel vast distances in a very short period of time. Short haul flights are relatively more damaging because of the emissions caused by take off and landing.

Now the US are suggesting that aircraft may be part of the solution. They want the world's scientists to develop technology to block sunlight as a way to halt global warming. Apparently scientists have previously estimated that reflecting less than 1% of sunlight back into space could compensate for the warming generated by all greenhouse gases emitted since the beginning of the industrial revolution. It is not obvious from the attached articles but one of the graphic illustrations indicates that aircraft fuel could be tweaked to leave more permanent trails in the sky which would reflect the sunlight back

Should we abandon GMT?

Apparently there is a Private Members Bill before parliament sponsored by Tory MP Tim Yeo's which proposes that clocks be moved forward an hour in England initially for a three year trial. We would continue with the practice of summer and winter time so winter time would effectively be GMT + 1 and summer time would be GMT + 2

This issue comes up from time to time and the same old arguments get trotted out each time. Farmers and Postal workers would be opposed. ROSPA is in favour because of the likely reduction in accidents. They claim that there would be 450 fewer road deaths and serious injuries every year if we switched.

Up until now I do not recall there being any mention of potential environmental benefits. However, this bill is called The Energy Saving (Daylight) Bill and Tim Yeo believes that it will cut electricity consumption and cut carbon emissions.

The BBC Online article on this which can be found here makes very little of the potential environmental benefits to be had but the article in The Guardian which can be found here is more forthcoming on the specifics stating that “A rough assessment reported in the journal Nature today shows that by aligning clocks with Europe, Britain is likely to save around £485m each year by using lights less in the afternoon and evening. The drop in energy consumption would trim carbon dioxide emissions by 170,000 tonnes, the equivalent of reducing the emissions of 70,000 people to zero for a year”

I think the vast majority of people would appreciate the extra daylight hours at the end of the day. I know I would and we can save lives and help the planet at the same time. Seems like common sense to me. So we won’t do that then will we? As a Private Members Bill this measure is likely to fall unless it receives government support.

Greenham Common and the Starfruit

This flower is the Starfruit. I have to say I had never heard of the Starfruit until the other day.

Named for its star-shaped fruit, this pretty, aquatic flower has been hanging on at a handful of sites in southeast England for the last decade. However this year, not a single plant appeared in the wild, meaning that Starfruit could be facing a very real chance of becoming extinct. The main cause of Starfruits decline, and the main threat to its future, is the disappearance of ponds in the countryside, particularly in pastures where cattle trample the mud as they drink.

Now Greenham Common is at the centre of efforts to save one of the UKs rarest flowers classified as endangered and a priority species on the UK Governments Biodiversity Action Plan. It has all but disappeared in Britain but on Tuesday 28th November, a group of conservationists made a last ditch attempt to establish a population at Greenham Common.

The restoration of the common has created a series of muddy pools that the livestock use for drinking and wallowing in. The Starfruit seedlings and seed, which the conservationists planted below the surface of the ponds came from the Millennium Seed Bank.

Fingers crossed this is one that can be saved.

1.5m barrels of oil energy per sq km!

Interesting piece from the Guardian about the vast quanitites of free energy available from the desert. Every year the sun pours down the equivalent of 1.5m barrels of oil of energy for every square kilometre!!

The piece posits that covering just 0.5% of the world's hot deserts with a technology called concentrated solar power (CSP) would provide the world's entire electricity needs, with the technology also providing desalinated water to desert regions as a valuable byproduct, as well as air conditioning for nearby cities.

Europe could build a new high-voltage direct current electricity grid to allow the easy, efficient transport of electricity from a variety of alternative sources. Britain could put in wind power, Norway hydro, and central Europe biomass and geo-thermal. Together the region could provide all its electricity needs by 2050 with barely any fossil fuels and no nuclear power.

This would allow a 70% reduction in carbon dioxide emissions from electricity production over the period.

Autumn temperatures to hit new high

More evidence of global warming (as if we needed it) from Mondays Guardian.

Apparently average UK temperatures for September, October and November look set to break the 12C mark for the first time.

The previous highest temperature for autumn in central England was 11.8C, set in 1731.

A spokesman for the Met Office said it is "virtually certain" that this autumn will be the warmest for 300 years, and the forecast for the next few days is for further mild weather.

The spokesman also said it is "possible" that 2006 could be the warmest year on record, despite the cold spring.

Switch to eco bulbs

Great piece in last Sundays Observer about whether or not we should switch to eco bulbs.

According to this piece compact fluorescent light bulbs use five times less electricity to do the same job and produce 60-70 per cent fewer CO2 emissions than normal lighting. I was also amazed to be told at the Green Tea in Newbury (which followed the showing of "An Inconvenient Truth") that if every household fitted one of these bulbs we could shut down one power station!

Some good examples are shown here and here and given the green score for our household we will be stocking up on these.

How green are you?

How green is your household? You can find out by going to http://www.greenscore.org.uk/ and completing their online GreenScore questionnaire and see what results you achieve. Then see their tips to help you improve your score.

My green score was 45% - not very good in my opinion

My Energy Score was 19% - Tips can be seen here

My Water Score was 55% - Tips can be seen here

My Rubbish & Shopping Score was 22% - Tips can be seen here

My Transport Score was 41% - Tips can be seen here

I was particularly surprised by this last score given the number of cars and motorbikes in our household and the fact that we take a long haul flight at least once a year.

You can also measure your carbon dioxide emissions here