Hill+Knowlton Strategies

I like Boris. I really do.  In fact all my family are fans.  One of my three year old’s favourite books is Calm down Boris – about a messy-haired, friendly monster that goes round causing mischief.  Following the London mayoral elections in 2008 a bookseller set up a stand outside City Hall and shifted hundreds of copies. 

However, has he gone a step too far with the London Cycle Scheme that’s set to start later this week?  The theory behind it is good.  Providing an alternative, greener way to travel across the city is an excellent concept.  I can even see a rank of docking stations from my office window in Soho Square so there’s an even greater reason to banish those little one to two mile black cab bookings for a client meeting that each add greenhouse gases to our already polluted skies.

It’s not for me though.  I for one though won’t be using the scheme.  A straw poll around the Energy & Industrials team at work suggests I’m not alone.  Here are just some of the reasons why: 

• Free to use for the first half hour.  Great.  It’s not free though is it?  And it’s complicated.  First of all I should really become a member, then I need to pay an access fee, then I need to pay a hire fee.  It looks like it’ll be cheaper, quicker and simpler to get on the tube.  Particularly when the costs escalate rapidly after the “freebie” half hour.
• Whilst you can hire a bike, it seems that there’s no way of hiring a helmet to go with it.  The Melbourne bike hire scheme was a flop because it’s illegal to ride a bike without a helmet and – like London – they weren’t provided.  I used to cycle between Clapham and the office every day so can confidently say that London cycling takes a certain sense of determination and bravery.  James Cracknell is currently fighting for his life following his bike accident last week, and arguably would have been killed on the spot if he hadn’t been wearing a helmet.
• If the bike gets stolen or damaged there’s a £300 fine that I’m hit with.  No thanks.
• A number of the bikes have been produced in, and shipped from, Canada.  So not supporting British industry, and failing on environmental standards too.
• Oh, and it’s also a bit of a monster of a machine apparently.  23 kilograms to be precise.  That’s double the weight of a normal bike and doesn’t sound too easy to handle.

Boris has got a lot riding on this scheme.  Yesterday marked two years to go until the start of the 2012 Olympics, and the roller coaster that is Boris’ popularity had him soaring this week.  Some are saying that it’s a rise before a fall, and that failure of the Cycle Scheme could ultimately cost him his job.  I hope it doesn’t come to that, but equally I hope that the teething problems above – and there must be many more – get sorted out quickly.  Maybe then I’ll give it a try?

A commitment to deliver an annual energy statement ‘to set strategic energy policy and guide investment’ was a key plank of the coalition government’s energy policy. In a flurry of new consultations, calls for evidence and publications, the first statement was delivered today.

The final day before the start of the summer parliamentary recess would be the perfect occasion to rehash and reannounce old initiatives – so is that what has happened, or am I being over-cynical?

Well, there are certainly some elements that we have heard before – for example a review of the role of Ofgem, and a drive to greater transparency in consumer energy billing have both been hinted at in recent months. That said, the additional level of detail and timelines announced today are both new and very welcome.

Both of the above will certainly generate coverage tomorrow, as will the genuinely new announcements, such as the initiative to identify additional CCS projects worthy of public sector investment.

And of course, all of the detail announced today contributes to creating a more stable environment for investment in the energy sector, stability which is desperately needed in both the newer and more ’traditional’ energy sectors at the moment.  

The mixture of more detail on existing policy, together with some completely new initiatives, seems a good one. Too much of either would not be credible. Here’s hoping that future statements follow the start made today.

 Now this is clever. Get the actor most associated with oil to front an ad campaign for solar energy.

J.R.Ewing

Launching last week, SolarWorld make quite a splash with an ad fronted by Mr Oil Baron himself, J.R. Ewing. The ad campaign, with Larry Hagman’s most famous alter ego, has proved a coverage generating hit getting a largely positive and amused response to his perceived u-turn. http://tinyurl.com/33rxxa7

The knowing nod to the bygone days of ‘glamorous’ oil  made me think how hard it actually is for most big energy companies to reconcile the traditional parts of their energy business with the new energy side.

We should be celebrating investment in the world of solar energy and I find it extremely rewarding to work with companies who can communicate positive achievements in renewables. However, the hard fact is that on their own renewables don’t yet provide the solution to all our energy needs. Whilst it would be great to decrease our dependance on the traditional energy sector and completely embrace solar, wind, geothermal etc. etc. we do have to accept that energy companies need to provide energy for today as well as tomorrow. Sadly, renewables don’t yet have all the solutions.

Perhaps instead we should be doing more about our own energy consumption habits so that we can be in a better position to deliver the energy we need to tomorrow.

Perhaps.

It would be good though to know what J.R. has to say about that.

Things are looking bleak. As the Government continues to predict that it will become ‘the greenest ever’, it is increasingly realising that – as Liam Byrne so eloquently put it – ‘there is no money left’.

Yesterday afternoon the Committee on Climate Change (CCC) released details of a new report that claims the UK risks failure in its quest to pioneer a low-carbon future unless it takes measures to protect and increase spending.  Low-carbon initiatives, it said, must continue to get Government support or risk falling into the ‘valley of death’ where they never reach the market.

The timing of both announcements is sure to grate on Chris Huhne and co, who, just last week took steps to cut £34m from the country’s low-carbon technology programme. Difficult questions are sure to be asked.

But this perceived ‘lack’ of investment is nothing new. The CCC claim that Britain already lags behind other developed nations in terms of the proportion of GDP spent on projects to help the country meet its carbon-reduction targets. While Japan invests 0.9% of GDP for example, Britain invests just 0.1%.

Last week I visited the Sustainable Futures exhibition at London Design Museum and witnessed first hand the role innovation and creative thinking has to play in developing the next generation of green technology.

Focussing on using local, natural resources to create and maintain a low-carbon footprint, designs range from those focussing on large communities – such as city developments in Abu Dhabi and Brazil – to ideas that help you monitor your own carbon footprint (Carbon Ration Book anyone?).

(My personal favourites include the ‘Virtual Water Footprint’ and ‘Changing Habbits’ initiatives – worth checking out)

Notably, designs from the UK were in relatively short supply. Those that did begin life in British brains remain pretty much unknown – coincidence? Perhaps. But surely this is a chance we can no longer afford to take.

As Buckminster Fuller once said, ‘the best way to predict the future is to design it’. Britain’s green future rests on giving those with innovative solutions the tools they need to make them fly. Only time will tell whether the Government’s recent cuts will damage its chances of developing a sustainable future for the UK.

Interesting story by Robin Pagnamenta in the Times yesterday.  The CEO of Sita UK - one of the country’s biggest waste processing companies – has said that up to 17% of the UK’s electricity needs could be generated by burning waste and methane from landfill sites.

The UK currently incinerates 10% of municipal waste – compared with 78% in Switzerland and 72% in Germany.

Despite dramatically increased recycling in the UK we still dump 50 million tonnes of waste a year.  On the plus side incinerating waste reduces landfill, and Sita generated over 1 million MW hours of electricity last year; which is enough to power 215,000 homes.

There’s always a flip side of the coin though, and town planners will often reject proposals due to concerns over air pollution.  Sita has recently had a planning application denied (by 20 votes to 1) for a proposed waste incineration plant in Cornwall.  Friends of the Earth says that burning waste worsens climate change; undermines recycling efforts; and causes pollution from air emissions and toxic ash.

I can’t see us ever getting to the same levels as some of our European cousins when it comes to burning our waste for power.  It’s worth remembering though that the average person ends up adding 509kg of waste to landfill sites, so think again next time you reach to open the bin, and  where possible!