Introducing green cuts

It is good to clean up the environment but is climate change a result of Human activity. James Lovelock would say that all life on earth effects GAIA but at what point did we state some analysis would say that as soon as we become settled and started farming 12,000 ago the change start, but this may just be down to other factor that we have no control over.

An Austrailian professor has written a book hevean and earth I think that suggests that human activity as far as climate changes goes is having very little effect.

Which then become a big is for policy maker

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Before you all start I will ask my usual green question. Over 98% of all the electricity used by mankind is generated just one way, what is that way?

Oh god, this is just pathetic. Total stunt. As see through as a string vest without the string. See you all later.

Following GO's pitiful PR excursion to a hardware store I'm sure the lefties on here can come up with a few light bulb jokes...

Q. How many Tories does it take to buy a light bulb?
A. ?

Nick

Well they could start by turning off the lights in Government offices when they go home!

More seriously, as someone who knows a little bit about the subject - I used to be responsible for the offices of a big public sector organisation - I would risk a small wager that it's actually quite easy to cut 10% of the carbon emissions of most office-based organisations within a year if you are determined to do so. Turning the heating down 2 degrees, the lights mentioned above, cutting down unnecessary travel, concentrating on fewer buildings with the space used more intensively, installing better glazing and heat management, buying more efficient appliances, etc. Cutting staff numbers and encouraging home working by others would also contribute.

All this would have capital costs, cause disruption, be unpopular with staff, and might raise operating costs, so much so that it could be judged on balance not worth the effort.

But that doesn't affect the narrow point.

Is there any evidence that Government have tried seriously to do this? I saw little sign when I visited Government offices in several departments over the last 10 years.

I see no-one wants to talk about the leaked CRU E mails. This is a huge story. You only have to read them to see why.

Of course it is achievable and so are 5% efficiency savings but that does not mean that the Tories (and Labour) wont dress up service cuts as positive achievement. The problem is the incompetence of public sector senior management who are only good for presentation and survival!

Firms with a lot of transport CO2 will make the biggest savings by addressing those, organizations which are mainly office based will make their savings via better use of lighting and heating, more efficient IT systems, etc. The fact that the civil service doesn't have huge transport overheads is therefore irrelevant.

'Cutting staff numbers and encouraging home working by others would also contribute.'

People working from home (or at home on the dole) don't need heating then...interesting....

Most genuine schemes for reducing emissions initially involve extra expenditure but produce savings in the future. These range from grandiose schemes for tidal power generation to simple home/office insulation and roof top solar panels. They fit perfectly with current economic needs. Expenditure and creating extra jobs now, and savings later.

So why come up with this silly idea? The Tories must think we are all stupid.

I don't know about the government offices, but something I've found in pretty much every office I've worked in is that the air conditioning is doing far too much work in the summer - it ends up being colder in the summer than the winter. So that would cut a fair amount from the carbon emissions - scrap air conditioning and get windows that open.

Cut cut cut!
Other than a face saving or headline making policy what would they do for the country?
For the People?
For jobs?
I am more interested in jobs personally.
How about switching off every other street light? That would save a few pounds?

Stunt is the easiest word to sum this up. And trying to portray the tories in any light other than the bad tory. While it is easy to cut down your footprint if need be, announcing it as a policy just reeks of popularism.

4#

You're quite right Saga. I couldnt agree more.

Its his weakest, most transparent piece of naked propaganda blogging yet.

4. At 10:45am on 24 Nov 2009, sagamix wrote:
Oh god, this is just pathetic.

=========================================

No Saga, it's YOU who are pathetic. At least these are positive proposals that actually do not hurt (actaully help) us, the poor persecuted taxpayer, seeing as all the New Labour fat cats live it up at our expense.

Savings can be made in overall office energy use. How many civil service types are travelling up and down (and in and out of) the country on needless 'diversity research' trips and the like? How many civil service office printers get their toner cartridges replaced according to a specific schedule rather than on an 'as needed' basis? All this happens, and much, much more, in the public sector (I have a cousin who works in the civil service, and even he is aghast at how much energy - and money - is wasted - doesn't stop him though from taking his taxpayer funded trips to Singapore, Malaysia, etc every couple of weeks). Whereas in the private sector, where I used to work before I retired last year, companies were already in an aggessive energy saving mode, not so much to save the planet, but as a means to simply survive under crippling Labour-imposed taxation.

At least Osborne has some positive proposals that are actually workable - more than can be said for the 'do nothing' Labour crowd (my, how their accusations against the Tories this time last year come back to haunt them!).

Dear oh dear
So departments that do not make savings would still be given less money to spend on energy bills by the Treasury.
So the Cuts are being introduced regardless.
Please tell me no one is falling for this nonsense.
sagamix at 10.45 called this "as see through as a string vest without the string". I think he was being too kind

Well, that's what made Britain great - moaning that a challenge is too hard. Come off it, a measly 10% cut shouldn't be so frightening.

10#

He didnt say they didnt need heating. He was making the point that a domestic property is usually a lot more energy efficient than a corporate or particularly a government building. It doesnt cost as much to heat, to light, to air condition.

And, if you're working from home, chances are you will probably be more careful about the amount of power you use during the day.

Thats all he was getting at.

Once again we are dealing with a story before it has happened - "today George Osborne WILL announce...". Why - to generate a load of polarised response and counter response.
Personally I work from home and have done for the past 6 years, the saving to the planet is the amount of fuel I now don't need when I used to be up and down the M1 every day wondering what the point was at the same time burning more and more petrol.
I'm more interested in what the politicians are going to do for the working people to make sure they have jobs and homes and can contribute to society. Lets have you looking at this Nick instead of giving us non-stories on what might be done in Whitehall.
Lets have ALL the politicians learn that they are not as respected as they once were and stop giving the soundbite nonsense that no longer endears them to the population

7. At 11:07am on 24 Nov 2009, Nick wrote:
I see no-one wants to talk about the leaked CRU E mails. This is a huge story. You only have to read them to see why.

So I`ll talk about it and try and be simple.I have not read the emails but my understanding is the gravamen of the charge is that a leading researcher from UEA used the term "Trick" to describe how he was trying to relate two mathematical models of climate change.

English is a wonderfully flexible langauage and a judgement on the use of "Trick" and other terms will await the results of an enquiry.There is however a beautifully simple explanation.If you are engaged in a task,repairing or making something, you may be asked, however did you do that? And may innocently reply, the trick is...You see,no fraud,no chicanery,simply the pride of a good craftsperson.

#10 anthonygh wrote:
"People working from home (or at home on the dole) don't need heating then...interesting...."

Actually you are right. Most of the time, apart from exceptional cold snaps, healthy adults don't need to heat their homes during the day. I have the windows open and the heat turned off almost all winter. But I was brought up in a draughty house without central heating, and told to wear extra clothes when it was cold.

So most organisations could save a larger sum of money by turning the heating down.

I won't advocate compulsory cold showers though, at least not until Brown has borrowed another trillion.

I work in an IT company. About a year ago a team started a project to eliminate waste. They checked every server machine on site and discovered that there were hundreds that were running 24x7 but weren't needed all that time. They switched them off. It saved power directly, but it also reduced heat output, so reduced air conditioning costs.
They took out some light bulbs across the site too, and used energy saving ones, and introduced motion sensor switches for out-of-hours savings. The savings are colossal. I am sure civil servants can save a huge amount, even without addressing travel.

This is quite pathetic. The council that I work for has tried this, infact, we had a phased approach of cuts in budget by 2.5% a year for 3 years. Result? Most departments simply overspend their budget, with schools being the worst! This simply wont work unless there is money behind it to enable these savings, whether thats in terms of energy awareness training (it costs money, and you need to do more than just stick up a poster by the coffee machine) or projects to insulate buidlings etc.

George Osborne could jsut as easily announced a 90% cut in CO2 emissions from government departments next year, its got as much chance of happening. Either he is a fool (for not realuising how difficult it would be to cut emissions without spending money) or a knave (for dressing up a cynical cut as a "green measure")

The biggest savings would be if politicians and public sector workers stopped travelling as much. All the travel to the climate change conference is discretionary; use your discsretion and dial in to a conference call! That would save millions of air miles.

Interesting how many Labour supporters here are anti-climate control, simply because it was a Tory that said it.....

Gordon Brown has been bleating about Climate Change for years, and doing nothing meaningful about it. Did that warrant a single blog from Nick? No. As soon as George Osborne mentions it, it's a trick/scam/blatant electioneering/unachievable/whatever. Talk about political bias.

As people here have said, it's achievable if the right measures are taken. One of these, not raised by the Labour supporters here, will doubtless include the smaller State that the Conservatives have pledged. A smaller State machine needs less energy to maintain - pretty straightforward. That will help greatly towards this, if not achieve it on it's own.

But then, some here are obviously not interested in the facts.

On another point, Nick - why no mention in a blog of the Iraq Enquiry, or Gordon's 'support' of Harriet Harman whilst she is prosecuted for having a car crash whilst on her mobile phone (alledgedly)? I would have thought they were far more newsworthy.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

When I was at school I can remember coming in one warm May morning to find the classroom sweltering because the radiators were running at full blast even though there was no need for them to be on. When we asked our teacher why the heating was on he replied that the school was given a heating allowance for the year and if they didn't use it all up it would be cut so they kept running the heating when it wasn't needed.

Surely this is wasteful in terms of CO2 emissions? Why not allow schools to carry over this allowance to the following year so they use it up when it would be most needed, i.e. autumn and winter?

21. anthony piepe:

Of more concern are the seemingly blatant attempts by the CRU to undermine the FOI request process.

24. At 11:51am on 24 Nov 2009, John Ruddy wrote:

"This is quite pathetic. The council that I work for has tried this, infact, we had a phased approach of cuts in budget by 2.5% a year for 3 years. Result? Most departments simply overspend their budget, with schools being the worst!"

The George Osborne initiative in the news is about saving energy, not cost (though that will follow). It isn't pathetic, it can be done easily.

Your post shows why your council failed. You say it "tried this." Trying isn't useful - doing is what is required. And your council can't DO anything - the workers themselves have to be involved.

If anything is pathetic in GO's proposal it is the challenge of 10% - that can be achieved easily. But GO is not stupid enough to set a real challenge at this point. The real challenge would be 20 or 30%. He should aim for that when he is in power.

#27 Piepe wrote:
"Time warp Britain: Pre- Maastricht,pre Lisbon,-Pre Keynes"

The Conservative Party supported the global fiscal stimulus. I see no evidence that they are pre-Keynes, as you call it. Of course there are various interpretations of Keynes amongst mainstream economists (intellectual life does not stand still), as I'm sure you know.

You are trying to construct an "ignorant Conservative, ignorant Osborne" political narrative. This narrative is not based on facts.

Things like this - both Labour and Tory - are just reactionairy. They see themselves slipping in certain polls, so bring some buzz word filled, impossibility into the media for a few days, to give themselves a boost.

Will any of this actually come close to happening? Probably not. A valian effort at it perhaps, but it's probably quite impossible.
But that's probably not the reason for it.

The two polls the tories are being hurt in is green credentials, and economic pessimism. Many people simply not believing the "doom and gloom" cut cut cut scenario.

So expect Cameron and Osborne to be in the media promoting both in the future. Green credentials, and a faith in the economy. And Brown probably doint the same, to counter.

From the polling websites I have read, it seems apparent to me that Cameron's "age of austerity" speech is probably rather dated now, and won't be very relevant this time next year.

Big companies are looking for increased growth first. Not cuts.

So I'd honestly expect Cameron to start talking up growth, and boosting the economy and forget his immediate strategy of serious cuts.

On the flip side, from what I've heard, Labour's pre election budget will be full of upper-middle class tax rises, and getting rid of most upper class tax breaks. And increasing upper-middle class national insurance contribution.

Based on their own polls that the majority of the country support that over spending cuts.

That will be the election battle, and is probably the reason Brown is still in a job.

Labour seem keen to tax high earners to the hilt to cut the debt. A populist sort of proposal.

Cameron's problem being, if he did the same, he'd probably be ousted by his own party members.

Tax rises like that will win every single time, over public sector cuts.

I honestly see a hung parliament. I don't think enough people will vote for cuts over tax rises.

I could imagine that councils/government could cut down on costs AND save the environment by not sending out hard copies of "important" documents.

If they made all these available on-line (yes in multiple languages if they really feel the need) those of us who actually need them can go find them.

My 7 suggestions for reducing carbon emissions:

1 A 'green' tax on meat.
2 Heating thermostats that don't go above 20.
3 A bodyweight limit for air passengers.
4 A ban on patio heaters and bottled water.
5 More nuclear energy.
6 A traffic ban in city centres and the introduction of rickshaws.
7 Statutory time off work for growing vegetables on your allotment.

To be fair, I don't think the planet needs saving. It'll probably be fine, although we won't.

Can anyone tell me anything that Osbourn has yet said as shadow chancellor that has been workable and or in the best interests of all the people of this country. It once again smells of desparation and fear.

Sad, isn't it?

Brown will take an entourage to Copenhagen (to meet many other leaders flying in with their groupies) and "experts" also flying in with enormous carbon footprints, to tell us we should cut carbon emissions.

I've seen newspaper (quality, not chip wrappers) suggesting 20,000 people will be in Copenhagen. To discuss how to stop climate change. It's a nonsense, isn't it?

The climate changes. Always has, always will.
If all this stuff were wrapped up as "stop polluting and wasting natural resources", I doubt that anyone would object.
I don't like a "scientific concensus" that is driven by government funding. Sounds too much like the scientific accord that "proved" Galilleo was wrong...

But government departments can't work out that turning off the lights, flying around a bit less, going home a bit earlier and stopping introducing rediculous legislation (that has to be printed, using chopped down trees) should be tackled...

I'm sorry but I don't get why this is labelled as 'pathetic'?

What on earth is wrong with trying to cut down the amount of energy that government uses? If anyone has ever spent time in local council/government offices then you will know that they are very poorly insulated and use decades old heating and air conditioning systems

Whilst there will be initial extra cash needed in some areas this will be recouped quite quickly and the long term benefits outweigh the inital cost

I think this is a good idea - but I would say that some money needs to be put up front for certain items (ie new heating systems and insulation etc) but there's nothing wrong with the principal idea

I would like to see homeowners who make an effort get reduced council tax as well - why should I be punished for making an effort to insulate my home and use rainwater for the loo's?

8) Make joggers run in hamster wheels to generate elctricity.
9) Use politicians hot air and empty promises as a renewable energy source.
10) Ban all laptops for civil servants. They'll only lose them

Having worked in both environments it is clear that there is ample scope for at least 10% reduction in government spending. Profiligate use of lights, cavernous offices with just one or two people in them, enormous corridors and halls - the list is almost endless. If the Government departments actually had to pay rent for the space they occupoied they would shrink down faster than a slug sprinkled with salt!!
And just look at the money Mandy is spending on his working environment.

This government is splashing our taxes against the wall like a drunk with money to burn.

36. grandantidote wrote:

"Can anyone tell me anything that Osbourn has yet said as shadow chancellor that has been workable and or in the best interests of all the people of this country. It once again smells of desparation and fear."


Grand, your olfactory organs are overreacting again. Or is it just your dog come in from the rain?

I wish that the cameras would pan round and show us the number of lights used in these posed interviews. A nicely lit Mr Osbourne quietly steaming in the heat from the lamps, in front of journos trucked in by taxi and he talks about going green ? Less of these sound bite gatherings will save a few tonnes of CO2. Please do as you say Mr Osbourne ! Give your little speech-ets outdoors, and you will save on make-up as well.

It's quite easy have the government ever heard of Video conferencing. How much carbon emmisions are used jetting off to supposively reduce green house gases??????

4 sagamix

"Oh god, this is just pathetic. Total stunt. As see through as a string vest without the string. See you all later."
====================

So you think that a proposal for the government to reduce its carbon emissions by 10% is "pathetic" ? Why is this ?

Nick

"Labour points out that in the past 10 years, they have struggled to cut carbon emissions by 10% in central government "
============================
New labours failure to achieve anything should come as a surprise to no one. There only tools to address any problem are spin, smear, suppression, stealth tax, and spend taxpayers money. No prospect of any real action amongst that lot.

I wouldn't be so dismissive, there must be significant scope for saving energy and the associated carbon emmissions and costs within the running of central government. But what incentive is there for departments to do so ? Their income is assured from the taxpayer. Without any incentive the outcome is inevitable, as demonstrated by New labour. Perhaps the emmission cuts would be linked directly to the salaries of the heads of the departments, or to the expenses of the department ministers. That should soon flush out the problems with implementation!

I certainly think it's worth investigating......clearly the party of tax and waste think otherwise.

PS Nick, I do understand your being anti this. If this can be applied to the government, then the BBC cannot be far behind ......

#32 Mike N

It's not impossible at all, I think 10% is a very conservative (excuse the pun :) reduction

I work for a large multinational and last year we had a 'save for growth' drive, A/C was reduced throught the summer, the thermostats in winter were turned down 2 degrees and the IT deparmtent started with energy effiency programmes for our server suite

All employees had to switch of PC's at night (it's amazing how many don't bother....) and all bathrooms and hallways were fitted with motion sensor lights that activated after 8 in the evening

All in all the energy savings were nearly 20% and the money saved was used to invest in new projects. Big businesses ahve been doing this for years now

Why can't the government?

#30
Thats my point entirely. The (shadow) chancellor can't just do this, or order it to happen. He needs to spend money on making it happen with the help of the staff in these departments. His idea is "I'll just cut the budget and then they will have to make the savings". Well, I'm sorry, but it doesnt work like that. My council did EXACTLY what George Osbourne is proposing, and it didnt work, because the expectation is that it can be done for nothing.

Lastly how long will this policy last before it unravels - or is it just a pre Copenhagen spoiler.The real question is how much longer has George Osborne got. This was such an unbelievably idiotic announcement. His deputy seems so much more credible.

36 grandantidote: Maybe if you re-read the story behind this blog, you'll get the evidence you seek (even though reading source material before posting is out of character for you)

42 sirbarrbarr: please don't invent some bizzarre scanario in your mind like Osborne 'choosing' to hold a press conference where the media use lighting (instead of it being a necessity in order that their cameras work) and then turn that into a 'practice what you preach' rant. I refer you to post #37, where Gordon Brown and 20,000 others fly to Copenhagen to discuss cutting emmissions. Which of these do you think does more harm to the environment? Answer: certainly not the one which uses a few light bulbs instead of 67 completely full Boeing 737 airliners on return flights.

38 Mighty chewster
#I'm sorry but I don't get why this is labelled as 'pathetic'?

Its labelled pathetic because it is pathetic.

The shadow chancellor who is hoping that his party will win the next GE
has come up with this wonderful idea that to cut whitehall emissions is a big step in reducing global warming, does he honestly think that that idea will change anything if he does then he's even more stupid than I thought. It in itself would make a minute difference but then he has to get someone to monitor it, they will probably drive a car to each of these whitehall offices or they will probably have several of these people popping around to make sure the lights are turned of and the heating down, the expense, and carbon footprint of having these people running around to check on a daily basis or nightly basis.will in all probability cancel out any savings made in each of the whitehall offices Mind you it would perhaps be a more suitable job for George than the one he has.

If all the old buildings in Whitehall were closed, and staff moved to modern office buildings I can quite easily see huge savings in heating. As the old buildings are listed it is unlikely they will have double glazing, ceilings will probably be upwards of 12 feet high, insulation probably non existent...

But it seems like sound bite politics or more likely a distraction from other news. I see Andrew Neil's blog is opening up a serious debate on the environment. Probably explains why currently it is a troll free area.

47 balancedthought:

What? How do you get from this to a query about the sustainability of George Osborne?

Your username and posts do appear to be an contradiction at times....

11. At 11:12am on 24 Nov 2009, stanblogger wrote:
Most genuine schemes for reducing emissions initially involve extra expenditure but produce savings in the future. These range from grandiose schemes for tidal power generation to simple home/office insulation and roof top solar panels. They fit perfectly with current economic needs. Expenditure and creating extra jobs now, and savings later.

So why come up with this silly idea? The Tories must think we are all stupid.

------------

And you seem so determined to prove them right.

41 The Blame Game

#Grand, your olfactory organs are overreacting again. Or is it just your dog come in from the rain?

By a strange coincidence as I read your post my dog did come in from the rain after having a hour of running on a nearby beach, and I can honestly confirm that he smells a hell of a lot healthier than the desperate smell of fear emanating from the Tory camp at this time.

36#

Not that your one-way hearing will process, no.

blame game @ 5

"Following GO's pitiful PR excursion to a hardware store, I'm sure the lefties on here can come up with a few light bulb jokes ... Q. How many Tories does it take to buy a light bulb? A. ?"

Four.

One to take the old bulb out.

One to buy and fit a new one.

One to secure a Mortgage against it.

One to put the claim in.

Within The Rules I hasten to add.

54 Fubar wrote:

Not that your one-way hearing will process, no.

I'm intrigued, Fubar. Do you have 2-way hearing?

38 grandantidote:

Fanciful thoughts there. nice of you to paint such a pretty picture.

However, what about the alternative (as in : the alternative to the way this would be managed by Labour, which is where you seem to be going wrong in your imagery above)? What about NOT having someone running around the country checking all this, but letting local people implement, monitor and report from their local offices (or as I believe the Conservatives have put it "less central control, more local ownership").

This doesn't go against anything the Conservatives have already announced back at Conference in that regard. But I can see where you are struggling to understand the concept of an initiative without a Quango and central control.

56#

Yes, perhaps not the best way of phrasing it, pd.

For two-way, kindly substitute "selective".

Thanks.

55 Sagamix:

Whereas under Labour, you'd have the man responsible for checking that it was changed flipping the bulb in question for another one he owns (both of them being inside London, I might add, and therefore not strictly eligible within the rules for any second bulb allowances.)

34. At 12:18pm on 24 Nov 2009, pdavies65 wrote:
My 7 suggestions for reducing carbon emissions:

1 A 'green' tax on meat.
2 Heating thermostats that don't go above 20.
3 A bodyweight limit for air passengers.
4 A ban on patio heaters and bottled water.
5 More nuclear energy.
6 A traffic ban in city centres and the introduction of rickshaws.
7 Statutory time off work for growing vegetables on your allotment.

-----------------

No problem with about half of these.

1. Great, tax on goods, at the point of spending, is by far the fairest way to tax people. Stick standard VAT on meat, no problem.
2. Fine, but my other half might disagree....
3. Not sure about that. Graduated payments by weight might be fairer (with some sort of legislation for using the extra "green" payment for "green" purposes), but even so, how is it reasonable to the person who is heavy because they are freakishly tall.
4. So if I'm out for a walk and find myself thirsty, I will be forced to consume some sickly sweet additive filled mess instead of water? Disagree, try to cut down on it fine, but you can't ban it altogether. Ok on patio heaters.
5. Fine
6. Fine
7. Open to abuse much?

Not sure what this has to do with the topic though.

May I have the job of resource and energy saving in a Whitehall building. I'll do it for the minimum wage plus a bonus at 20% of savings.
All you cynics will think this good value as will the enthusiasts!

59#

No, they'd outsource it to EDS under a 12 year PFI deal.

56#

On reflection I should have said yes. One way for the sound to go in and another way for the steam to come out when being stirred by the usual collection of wind-up merchants... :o)

54 fubar saunders

#Not that your one-way hearing will process, no.

That doesn't make sense but I take it you meant, none.
Not that it matters the point is if you know the answer then tell me I unlike many on here am always ready to listen to reasoned argument, or was it just that you had nothing to say, other than a snide remark.

#49 Grand

Sorry mate but if you take away the politics and ignore which party made the announcement it makes sense

You think it's pathetic because the tories are shamelessly using it as a policy advertisement - I have no objection to that

I don't care who makes the announcement, I really don't give a stuff if it's a tory/labour/libdem/green/BNP idea - it can't be a bad thing to reduce the energy that government uses can it?

Do you seriously think a 10% reduction in energy is pathetic?

Take away the political aspect for a minute and it makes sense, forget who's idea it is and just think about the idea - not the fact that the tories announced it - just concentrate on the idea of 10% energy reduction and savings and tell me it's pathetic?

If I told you that if you could reduce your personal household energy use by 10% by being more efficient then you would save money and help the environment; would you still think it was pathetic?

Or is it just the politics getting in the way? I have no problem agreeing with any policy from any party as long as it's sensible - this seems sensible to me and I have seen first hand how easy it is to achieve and how large the savings are

"Labour points out that in the past 10 years, they have struggled to cut carbon emissions by 10% in central government - so promising to cut it by 10% in one year with no specific plan about how to do it looks pretty implausible."

So, just because labour aren't capable of cutting costs or emissions, that means that nobody can? With a trillion quid of public debt, methinks your logic is somewhat flawed there Nick.

How have businesses cut costs/emissions? They didn't have a choice, so they did it; they worked out how, and then achieved it. Government needs the same ultimatums otherwise the cuts simply don't happen.

That's what's gone so horribly wrong with public debt; there's been a labour policy of "just throw more money at it" since 1997, they couldn't care less about costs, so costs (and emissions) just spiral out of control.

You need to have discipline; labour don't have it. That's why they haven't achieved cuts or even basic sustainability; it's not because they can't, it's because they won't; their ideology stops them from achieving the very things that they're supposed to achieve.

63 Trying not to do that today out of concern for your health.

31. At 12:15pm on 24 Nov 2009, johnharris66 wrote:
#27 Piepe wrote:
"Time warp Britain: Pre- Maastricht,pre Lisbon,-Pre Keynes"

"The Conservative Party supported the global fiscal stimulus. I see no evidence that they are pre-Keynes, as you call it. Of course there are various interpretations of Keynes amongst mainstream economists (intellectual life does not stand still), as I'm sure you know.
You are trying to construct an "ignorant Conservative, ignorant Osborne" political narrative. This narrative is not based on facts."

The conservatives supported the global fiscal stimulus but not the British one.They opposed the VAT cut,the car stimulus package on both occassions and the expansion of neets.For a fuller response to your other posting you need to go to the last blog.

I don`t think I have said the conservatives are ignorant,that is your inference.What I have said is I see no evidence that Mr.Osborne understands economics or economic history which is a fair comment.

"Labour points out that in the past 10 years, they have struggled to cut carbon emissions by 10% in central government - so promising to cut it by 10% in one year with no specific plan about how to do it looks pretty implausible."
As expected, you find the Nulabour view plausible, Nick, I certainly don't.
They have been outrageously wasteful in every respect since they took office, throwing money around like confetti with little accountability. Perhaps it won't be as difficult as you would like to believe to cut down on the waste.

46. At 12:47pm on 24 Nov 2009, John Ruddy wrote:
#30
Thats my point entirely. The (shadow) chancellor can't just do this, or order it to happen. He needs to spend money on making it happen with the help of the staff in these departments. His idea is "I'll just cut the budget and then they will have to make the savings". Well, I'm sorry, but it doesnt work like that. My council did EXACTLY what George Osbourne is proposing, and it didnt work, because the expectation is that it can be done for nothing.

-----------

I expect the reason it didn't work is due to negative attitude (it can't be done so why should we bother trying), laziness, complacency and lack of incentive.

Do try to stop being so automatically and simple mindedly negative of anything that comes out of the Tory camp. No one in their right mind would see this as, in principle, anything other than a decent idea that may or may not prove to be workable.

I do love the way that it is somehow a bad idea because a tory said it. Have any of you walked outside a government building at night? Every light blazing away like the Blackpool illuminations. There are massive savings to be made. Osbourne doesn't need to spell them out because the government has been bleeting about how to reduce our carbon footprint for years.
Did you know for instance that Walmart saved £1m just by switching off the lights in its vending machines. We are constantly told not to leave our TVs on standby. How many computer screens are left on in government buildings I wonder?

Okay okay, I've had a rethink. Government departments saving energy is a jolly good idea - churlish to say otherwise. Well done George!

Now how about some Politics?

#70 I am not sayiing that this is a bad idea because a tory said it, I am saying it is a bad idea because its not been thought through. You need to change peoples "negative attitude" as you call it. That costs money. Some buildings may have structural issues (eg listed and no double glazing) which may need to be addressed - that costs money.

The idea that you can magically reduce energy consumption by 10% by simply wishing it, or cutting budgets doesnt work.

51 West London Willy

So how did I come to link the tories announcement with George Osbourne errr let me think ....... oh I know he announced it.

And a question you might need to ponder is why is saying that one tory Hammond is more credible than another Osborne, not balanced?

Outside the tory bubble you live in people say things like,..." who is that bloke you know ... hammon harmon the one with grey hair Hammond - I don't like his politics but he is so much more credible than Osborne."

This announcement is paper thin spin.

Regarding Central govt cutting their carbon footprint by 10% in a year - reality is it will take them 6 months to set up a working group of relevant people in each department. Who will then say we need a cross departmental approach. The group will meet after 3 months and will decide to get independent research to tell them the best way to do it. This will need to be tendered out following appropriate procurement procedures. The research will take 18 months will advise that they need to spend money in that financial year to make it happen. There will be new ministers in all the relevant departments and they won't want to agree to any new expenditure at that point in the election cycle. so nothing will happen.

That is why it is pure guff -

64#

Had Milliband Junior have said it, you'd have been cheering him to the rafters for his vision and foresight and denouncing the tories as "do nothings".

But because it was Osborne, it has to be denounced and you have to bring in that smell of fear bilge.

Can you smell the fear of only being one percent ahead of the libdums grandy? Have you seen the Angus Reid poll yet?

49

Every individual contribution is minute. The idea is that they sum up to something substantial. No plan by itself is meant to change the world, your disregard of any saving that can be made on the grounds of being to small is, frankly, quite shocking.

And no they would not need to employ someone new to monitor it. They just wouldn't. Thats all there is to it really. The whole point of this sort of proposal is to get all existing people contributing, not one person who is single handedly going to do all of the work.

Numerous references to "desperate tories". Suspect they are feeling rather relaxed at the moment, at least compared to the current government, who stand less chance than a snowball's in hell at the next election.

TheBlameGame wrote:
"Q. How many Tories does it take to buy a light bulb?
A. ?"

None, their butler changes it for them...

#72 Saga

Easy on the sarcasm Saga :)

It doesn't have to come down to politics every time and be a 'my parties idea is better than yours' with every subject

I actually think that this subject (energy reduction) is alomst apolitical, it just makes sense to do it and it's easy to gain big savings without too much initial capital

Cheap ideas:
1) Ensure PC's are switched off every night
2) Fit motion sensor light switches to non essential lights
3) Make sure the IT dept. hibernates non essential servers and processes at night
4) Turn down thermostats by 2 degrees for heating
5) Turn up A/C thermostats by 2 degrees for cooling
6) Non essential travel is banned (as at my place of work)

There will be money required for certain improvements like double glazing and modern heating systems in older buildings. The fact they are old and (some) are listed does not stop you from fitting modern windows and heating systems - granted these are not the cheapest but they will pay themselves of quickly and the long term benefits outweigh the short term costs

Well done Chewster!

what about the leaky emails. The Aussie professor (see #1) also state
that scientist that do not believe in man made climate change DO NOT GET FUNDED.

There lies the problem and why not reporting on this rather let cover the Tories and allow mud to be through at them.

More sinister bais at the BBC

26. At 12:02pm on 24 Nov 2009, West_London_Willy wrote:

.........Gordon Brown has been bleating about Climate Change for years, and doing nothing meaningful about it...........

*********************
That's the whole point. He can use climate change as an excuse to raise money, but he also knows that as climate change is a natural phenomena, he doesn't actually need to spend the money on measures to combat it.
The only real expense is for the puppet that stands up in Parliament and talks about it, the tame scientists who will 'prove' it's happening because they get a lot of money to say it is and the publicity to try to convince us it's all true.

You may recall that in previous threads I related the new EU political structures to the power of the Franco-German axis,and how important it was to have a Briton of substance like Mr.Blair in the top job to compensate for this on our behalf. "The Times" devoted an editorial to opposing this appointment, Mr.Hague described it as potentially "A hostile Act"

In today`s "Times" we find the following account of current EU machinations. I quote:

"With Paris and Berlin setting their sights on controlling the EUs economic agenda,a former French foreign minister,Michel Barnier,is being tipped to take the plum commission portfolio,overseeing the internal market and financial services.Germany is seeking the industry or energy jobs in the European commission line up..."

Meanwhile the conservatives now complain that Baroness Ashton "Will be handing out the Ferrero Rocher" while the French played more important financial roles".This is Tuesday,on Sunday Mr.Cameron was telling Andrew Marr he didn`t want powerful people in the top jobs,he wanted a non-political Europe,a free trade area etc etc.

The Europeans were amazed at our divided response when Mr.Blair was first mooted.Now they see us as weak.

Time warp Britain: pre-Maastricht,pre-Lisbon,pre-Keynes.

34. pdavies65 wrote:
My 7 suggestions for reducing carbon emissions:

3 A bodyweight limit for air passengers.

Some interesting proposals and I mostly agree with Hayemaker's response @60, but do you not think that rewarding frequent flyers is more of an issue than overweight passengers?

#31 johnharris66

George Osborne is not ignorant but when it comes to the private sector and large organisations, he pretends everything's easy.

BSkyB, for example, has invested in new production facilities, spent millions on consultants and enormous amounts on new bulbs, planting trees in the developing world, etc in order to achieve their 'carbon neutral status'. Things like vehicles can be re-negotiated when they need to be replaced. The project is ongoing and continues to require investment.

Being in the private sector you have to wonder what's in it for them? Of course there's the assumption that consumer likes green, but more importantly, there's carbon credits to trade and using less energy means more profit.

So, government departments? Well, they're going to have to spend big time and not receive any of the benefits plus there's considerably more infrastructure involved than BSkyB. In fact, they'll incur public rath for massive spending and given that most voters don't believe that global warming is our fault, what's the point?

So, getting to the point, for George Osborne I just think that this is another headline grabber aimed at the more ignorant among us. I wish they'd (all of the parties) remember that we're not all daft.

On the plus side, a might encourage a few more people to recycle or insulate their homes as we're swamped with rubbish and energy is expensive.

*81*. anthony piepe

Anthony. Stop worrying so much. The answer is easy. - Get out of the EU.
It would do wonders for your mindset and just think of how much carbon we would save by not having all those MEPs shuttling back and forth between the UK and Brussels.
Come on, you know it makes sense. :-)

#55 sagamix

I knew you wouldn't be able to stay away!

Re - the changing of the lightbulbs, it take it you're referring to the staff involved?

mc @ 78

George Out Chewster In! ... George Out Chewster In!

The Conservatives are showing their good intentions. They will end up, as have Labour, and through incompetence and waste, on the road to Hell (And that ain't very green at all!)

29. At 12:08pm on 24 Nov 2009, TheBlameGame wrote:
21. anthony piepe:

"Of more concern are the seemingly blatant attempts by the CRU to undermine the FOI request process."

Of more concern to whom? Nick says it`s a huge story without saying why, so we are left to infer the worst."Newsnight" picked up on the use of the term "Trick" and proceeded to burble.But as you see, it has alternative explanations other than scientific fraud.

#81 Piepe

Strange how the Left bring out Keynes when they want to justify borrowing in a recession, but are quiet about Keynes when they want to justify increased spending / and or borrowing in a boom.

Brown didn't operate a counter-cyclical fiscal policy in a boom (indeed he manipulated the dates of the economic cycle to justify his borrowing).

So perhaps Brown is the "pre-Keynes" politician.

#78 mightychewster

I think this is fine for a small company but then you'll struggle to do it cheaply and get it done.

If you look at the most ambitious private companies to go carbon neutral, they've spent enormous sums in new infrastructure and employed consultants.

Government departments are far more complicated so would require even more investment plus, once you've done it, you have to keep on doing it - and that doesn't just mean last person out, turn off the lights.

Just had a thought if Labour were to announce such a project to reduce energy in government by 10% they could have a quango to monitor it all. It could be known as REG. But then REG would cost more than the savings but may employ a couple of ex-MPs at double their last salary + a big expense account.

9. At 12:57pm on 24 Nov 2009, grandantidote wrote:
38 Mighty chewster
#I'm sorry but I don't get why this is labelled as 'pathetic'?

Its labelled pathetic because it is pathetic.

The shadow chancellor who is hoping that his party will win the next GE
has come up with this wonderful idea that to cut whitehall emissions is a big step in reducing global warming, does he honestly think that that idea will change anything if he does then he's even more stupid than I thought. It in itself would make a minute difference but then he has to get someone to monitor it, they will probably drive a car to each of these whitehall offices or they will probably have several of these people popping around to make sure the lights are turned of and the heating down, the expense, and carbon footprint of having these people running around to check on a daily basis or nightly basis.will in all probability cancel out any savings made in each of the whitehall offices Mind you it would perhaps be a more suitable job for George than the one he has.

===

I think you have just summed up the stupidity of the creation of the role of Home Energy Assessors in connection with HIPS. All those people driving around, creating emissions, to tell us all how energy-efficient our homes are.

Introduced, of course, by NewLabour.

65 Mighty Chewster

#Sorry mate but if you take away the politics and ignore which party made the announcement it makes sense

No my friend if any party had said it I would think it pathetic, it at the very most be the equivalent to one jumbo jet taking off from Heathrow every year, just the take off that is.

You think it's pathetic because the tories are shamelessly using it as a policy advertisement - I have no objection to that

Yes I do think its attempt at vote catching using the green emblem,
but I think most people will see it for what it is, but I also think that considering we are constantly told by Cameron and bloggers on here what a terrible mess the country is in, that the shadow chancellor has no better idea, or perhaps nothing better to do than come up with a idea that will make about as much difference to global warning than to remove one grain of sand from the Goodwin sands in order to make shipping safer.

#Do you seriously think a 10% reduction in energy is pathetic?

A ten percent reduction throughout the country would be important a ten percent reduction in whitehall offices is a joke that wouldn't last five minutes, The government are spending millions throughout the country paying for roof insulatiom and double glazing, does that ever get a mention and yet that saves carbon emissions a million times more than turning the lights of in Whitehall offices.
I myself have several layers of roof insulation, I have modern central heating, which I use frugaly, I have double glazing, and I stick to the rule in the toilet of if its yellow let it mellow if its brown flush it down, we also have energy saving bulbs right through my home. and yet I see dozens of gardens around me with plastic pools containing thousands of gallons of water drained and refilled every day or two, I see motorways with lights blazing throuh the night, half of them could be turned of at midnight, and so on, a few lights at Whitehall what a joke.
No my friend politics is not getting in the way, but a decent countrywide policy would be worthwhile not silly political gesturing.

My recently expressed view that this blog is more important than newspapers in expressing an alternative view has just been vindicated.One of my posts has been removed.Must have been saying something important.

Both the Treasury & MOD have recently, in the last couple of years or so, moved into new, modern buildings built under PFI contracts which should have been built with more efficient materials, have better heating & venitlation, more efficient lighting and many other energy saving attributes compared to the old Whitehall buildings. The same should surely apply to all the new PFI hospitals.

Nick, I'm sure you or a conscientious MP could ask the following question to either one or all of the relevant ministers.

"Has moving Treasury / MOD / Health Service (delete as applicable) staff to newly built PFI funded offices reduced the energy consumption per member of staff? If so by how much?"

My money is on they simply do not know.

81. anthony piepe

ap, this blog is about energy-saving, not about your chagrin at the Tories having the audacity to decline support for Tony Blair as President of the EU... which may be just as well given newly 'leaked' documents about the Labour government's intentions in invading Iraq.

Regardless of whether humankind is contributing to climate change it is CERTAIN that as the largest employer central and local government ARE responsible for a large proportion of energy consumption. I work in the public sector and if my offices are any example we could reduce bills significantly by just following the simple guidelines already published for home consumers: Reduce your lighting consumption by bulb replacement and switching things off when not in use; turn down the thermostat by 1 or 2 degrees; get rid of inefficient heating devices; better regulate your air-cooling systems; enforcement of PC and monitor shutdown (not sleep) when the user has left work;
These are all behavioural adjustments that can be quickly achieved and enforced, you DON'T need some inefficient project and IT solution that will cost millions.
I definitely think that all energy consumption figures and costs should be published alongside spend on IT and stationery.

All this talk is a load of hypocritical Rubbish.

I still can't believe the Ed Miliband had the bare faced cheek last year, increasing the UK Carbon emission reduction to 80 per cent by 2050 for household (because it was all our fault). Shortly before sitting there sagely nodding next to Geoff Hoon who proceeded to announce the desire for a new runway at Heathrow with an increase of 700,000 more take offs and landing (very green).

Rubbish I tells you

"John Ruddy wrote:
#70 I am not sayiing that this is a bad idea because a tory said it, I am saying it is a bad idea because its not been thought through. You need to change peoples "negative attitude" as you call it. That costs money. Some buildings may have structural issues (eg listed and no double glazing) which may need to be addressed - that costs money.

The idea that you can magically reduce energy consumption by 10% by simply wishing it, or cutting budgets doesnt work."

You can go some of the way without spending anything - switching off lights, decomissioning old inefficient equipment which is no longer used (I have worked with a few councils which replaced their server hardware and still continued to run the new and old servers!), turning down the air conditioning by a few degrees, not running air conditioning in the summer, not printing off minutes for the endless meetings councils seem to have (in my experience anyway - quarter of my time working on site at a council was spent in meetings)

Nick @ 0 said:

"Labour points out that in the past 10 years, they have struggled to cut carbon emissions by 10% in central government - so promising to cut it by 10% in one year with no specific plan about how to do it looks pretty implausible."

And yet Gordon is more than happy to commit us all to reducing CO2 emissions by 80% by 2050.

If 10% in 10 years is a struggle, how easy does he think 80% in 40 years will be?