Hill+Knowlton Strategies

Day 2 at H+K’s Energy and Industrials team and yesterday I found myself at the Policy Exchange’s lunchtime debate on one of the industry’s current top hot topics: shale gas.

Armed with a colleague’s business cards (mine are yet to be ordered!) I arrived with preconceptions based on limited industry knowledge and a series of questions: Is it as bad for the environment as the media would have us believe? What about the local impact? Is shale gas a transitional solution to our energy challenges? Are there sizeable economic benefits to be realised? What can be learnt from the US’s boom?

The first to speak was Andrew Austin, Chief Executive Officer of IGas, sharing with us the industry perspective. As you might expect Austin is a big fan of shale gas. Sitting on what he believes to be enough coal bed methane to provide 50% of the UK’s energy needs for the next 50 years, IGas has an established and vested interest in the industry. Austin’s argument was centred on the proposition that shale gas is much less harmful for the environment than coal. Stating that the UK’s strong history of regulation thwarted concerns arising from the US’s experience, he also noted the industry’s potential to lower energy bills, reduce concerns over energy security, and provide thousands of jobs, contributing to economic growth. Whilst these points are strong and indeed timely, Austin didn’t provide sound economic data to support his argument: something picked up on later in the Q&A. 

Next up was a very different perspective: Doug Parr, Chief Scientist at Greenpeace UK, discussing the environmental concerns. Here too was an unsurprising position: Parr was of the view that shale gas provided a transitional fuel, but one that should not be exploited at the expense of the environment. He pointed to notable Environment Agency failures on regulation (incineration gas, water policy, common fisheries policy) as a reminder that just because shale gas can be extracted safely doesn’t mean it always will be. Parr refuted Austin’s key argument of the benefits of gas over coal, stating that “the straight replacement of gas for coal simply doesn’t deliver the [CO₂] cuts we need.” He also noted that reputable sources, including Deutsche Bank, have concluded that shale gas won’t have any significant cost benefits. Parr left us with a sombre conclusion that shale gas “isn’t and shouldn’t be considered a nirvana for our energy system.”

Dr Pierre Noel, Director of EPRG Energy Policy Forum at the University of Cambridge, followed with his insight based on rigorous research. Dr Noel took the somewhat unpopular position that concerns over the environment should not be considered energy issues, and lie outside of the industry’s scope; not a view I can admit to sharing. He stated that shale gas was “potentially but not necessarily” a good thing for climate change – dependent upon a credible carbon reduction policy. Regarding the economics, Dr Noel noted that since the beginning of the recession, gas consumption has consistently fallen in Europe, so “it would be foolish to have a decarbonisation policy based on cheap gas only.”

Finally Tom Greatrex MP, Shadow Minister for Energy and Climate Change, shared with us Labour’s political standpoint. His position was one of pragmatism over ideology, in the form of regulation. A rather dry speech ensued, focused wholly on the importance of sound regulatory policy. What I found most surprising was that it took until this point of the debate to hear the F word: fracking. Up until now no speaker had dared utter it. Greatrex showed dismay that the Environment Agency has only one person working on shale gas, but largely skirted over the environmental issues and gave a slow summary of the importance of sound regulation, transparency and rigour. His, and presumably Labour’s position, was cautiously in favour, so long as the regulation is in place.

So as the debate drew to a close, what had I learnt about this contentious energy prospect? Forgive the stereotyping, but my lunchtime learning concludes that: the industry is pro-shale gas, environmental NGOs are concerned, academics are unsure, and politicians are cautiously pragmatic with a focus on regulation. Much as I had presupposed from my uneducated beginnings only an hour prior!

And my own view? Shale gas certainly isn’t a panacea to our energy future, but it does offer the promise of (potential) cost benefits and (potential) reduced environmental impact vis-à-vis coal. It’s unlikely the UK will see a revolution like the one underway across the Atlantic, but if we learn from their experiences and apply rigorous regulation, it certainly offers an interesting addition to our energy mix.

Having closely followed the February IP week conversations that were taking place around the risk of supply disruption and forecasts on the price of oil, I am not surprised to see the escalating price of fuel driven by the on-going tensions with Iran.

According to This is South Wales, the average price of a litre of petrol on Wednesday last week was 137.34p. Moreover, the AA  predicted that the record high price of 137.37p, achieved last May, will soon be passed. The price of petrol rose 1.25p a litre last week alone.

Overall UK drivers are spending £6.81 million extra a day on fuel compared to a year ago, and £24.2 million more a day than they were two years ago.

The trade body for independent petrol stations, RMI Petrol, has joined the debate over the weekend, predicting that petrol could reach 142p per litre and diesel 150p per litre in the next month due to several factors, including: the situation in Iran, uncertainty over the ownership of Coryton refinery and threat of a strike by tanker drivers. The RMI group of 6,000 independent fuel retailers warned that the rise will push up UK inflation levels and potentially cause more damage to the currently unstable UK economy.

RMI have joined the AA in calling for the government to abandon the 3p increase in fuel duty, planned for August. They AA are also asking that the government remove the annual RPI increase in fuel duties.

This all comes ahead of National Fair Fuel Day tomorrow, where FairFuelUK will conduct a “Mass Lobby” directed at MPs to help convince the Government to cut Fuel Duty. The campaign group intends to deliver a report to 10 Downing Street tomorrow, claiming that a 2.5p-a-litre fuel duty cut would create 180,000 jobs. Alongside the report is a petition with over 130,000 signatures in support of the Fair Fuel UK Campaign which have already been handed in at No 10. Another 40,000 have been collected since then.

All of the above puts more pressure on Chancellor George Osborne to reduce the tax burden on drivers in his Budget later this month.

Hello world. This is my first post on the H+K Energy + Industrials blog, and since I’m still learning about the sector I’m basically going to write about myself. Think of it as an introduction.

As a new grad, I’m being rotated through sectors at H+K and Energy + Industrials is my first stop. What’s really struck me about the sector is that it’s incredibly challenging, but in a really rewarding way. I’ve been really pleased with the breadth of issues I’ve had the chance to get my head around in the first few weeks. I’m really enjoying getting into the issues which drive global businesses and feel safe in the knowledge that I’ll never be bored here. I’ve even become a bit of a supply chain logistics geek. I never saw that coming!

I’ve also been delighted by my team, all of whom have been really supportive. I was amazed at the lack of a ‘bedding in’ period. I felt right at home straight away and ready to get my teeth into some real work. Best of all was the urban golf night they held to welcome myself and new Team Coordinator, Susie into team. Whilst my lack of a swing made the night a bit of a ritual humiliation, it didn’t feel like deliberate hazing.

All this is well and good, but what’s most important of all to my general happiness is the quality of treat on offer, and this is perhaps the area where E+I excel the most. Our treats aren’t just any treats…they’re Foyle’s Fancies.

Welcome to Hill+Knowlton Strategies’ regular update on key European regulatory developments that will directly impact businesses in the energy sector.

This edition of the H+K Strategies Brussels Energy Newsletter looks that the energy priorities of the new Danish Presidency of the EU Council of Minsters and the energy roadmap 2050.

Read on for the latest developments, impacts and opportunities surround these issues in Europe.  

Danish Presidency of the EU Council – Energy Priorities

Latest Developments

On 1st January, Denmark assumed the rotating presidency of the EU Council of Ministers, taking over from Poland for a period of six months. As holder of the Council Presidency, Denmark is responsible for setting the agenda for intergovernmental discussions and leading the negotiations with the other EU institutions. At the same time, however, its priorities are closely linked to the European Commission work programme for 2012.

While the ongoing Euro-area debt crisis will continue to preoccupy meetings of heads of state and government, at ministerial level the Danish government intends to advance its agenda of a responsible, dynamic, green and safe Europe. Indeed, energy issues form a substantial part of the Green Europe focus area, with many policy proposals which were introduced in 2011 still on the table and at crucial stages in their negotiation.

First, the proposed new energy efficiency directive, intended to set a common framework to promote energy efficiency across the EU, is a major priority, with the Danish Presidency aiming for an agreement before the end of June. This ambition may be thwarted by delays in the European Parliament adopting its position due to the vast number of conflicting positions being put forward by MEPs, while the national delegations in the Council have proposed limiting the scope of the public building renovation requirement to buildings owned by central governments.

The proposed infrastructure package is the Presidency’s second priority, where it will work for the development of an effective and intelligent transmission network, so as to enable the integration of large-scale renewable energy into the EU’s energy supply. The proposed new legislation will enable a streamlined mechanism for identifying cross-border “projects of European interest”, within a set of strategic corridors and priorities, which will benefit from a shorter permitting period and streamlined administrative procedures. Third, negotiations on the proposed regulation on the safety of offshore oil & gas activities will be a further focus of the Presidency. As an oil and gas producing nation, Denmark has a clear interest in this proposal, particularly as it seeks to extend the regulatory approach of the North Sea nations to all European waters. While it is fairly unlikely that an agreement be reached before the summer, the Presidency will work to ensure that discussions get off to a good start and seek to make its mark building on the expertise which comes from decades of exploration and production in Danish waters.

All this is set against the backdrop of the debate on deepening the EU’s CO2 emissions reduction targets. Discussions over a possible move to a 30% target for 2020 (up from 20%, compared to 1990 levels) were put on ice under Poland’s presidency, due to that country’s objections to such a move given its high share of energy-intensive industries and reliance on coal. While Denmark has traditionally been supportive of stricter emissions targets, the new Presidency has mollified its stance in order to garner Polish support for a draft resolution on the Commission’s recent roadmap to a low-carbon economy in 2050. The text now before national delegations refers to the fact that if the EU achieves its 20% energy efficiency objective in 2020, then 25% emissions cut may be possible, without referring to this as a target. The Danish presidency has similarly been careful to ensure that references to deeper cuts between 2020 and 2050 are portrayed as possible milestones, rather than explicit targets. This debate will also feed into attempts to find agreement on endorsing the 2050 Energy Roadmap (see article below).

Impact & Opportunities

The six-month Presidency term is an important opportunity for Denmark to present itself as an influential EU Member State capable of assuming leadership in a new institutional set-up (since December 2009, the European Council has a permanent president chairing the meetings of the 27 heads of state and government, which clearly weakened the role of the EU Council Presidency). This is especially important given that Denmark is a small country which remains outside the Eurozone, and is one of the few EU states to currently have a left-of-centre government in the current climate of economic austerity. While the sovereign debt crisis in the Eurozone is dominating EU strategic decision-making, Denmark will be keen to push forward on the above energy objectives, not least because the investments required to deliver energy effi¬ciency improvements and infrastructure connections are seen as a means to create jobs and growth.

Energy Roadmap 2050

Latest Developments

On 15 December 2011, the European Commission adopted the “Energy Roadmap 2050” Communication which explores the challenges posed by delivering the EU’s objective of 80- 95% decarbonisation by 2050, while ensuring at the same time competitiveness and security of supply. The sectoral roadmap is one of several that follow the Commission’s all-sector “Low carbon economy roadmap”, released in March 2011, which compares a scenario of global action with a unilateral scenario.

The analysis set out in the long-awaited Energy roadmap explores five scenarios created by different combinations of the four main decarbonisation routes – renewables, energy efficiency, nuclear and carbon capture and storage technologies (CCS) and contrasts these with a ‘business-as-usual’ approach.

In outline, the projections include a scenario in which the EU improves its energy efficiency, enabling renewables to provide 64% of electricity consumption by 2050, and a ‘high renewables uptake’ scenario where they would provide 97% of electricity consumption, with nuclear power and coal almost eliminated from final energy use. A third scenario would see no energy source preferred, with each competing on a market basis. Decarbonisation would instead be driven by carbon pricing.

The two other scenarios explore a “low-nuclear” scenario where coal power plants using carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology make up the difference along with renewables and a scenario with the highest share of nuclear energy at 18%, which would still be a decrease from today’s 20%. Inclusion of a sixth scenario, which combined energy efficiency and increased use of renewables, was being urged by the Commission’s Climate Action department. This was, however, opposed by Energy Commissioner Günther Oettinger, on the grounds that such a scenario can only be considered after Member State support for the proposed new energy efficiency directive becomes clear.

All in all, the roadmap finds that, although the decarbonisation routes would demand large upfront capital expenditure until 2030, by 2050 investment costs would be roughly the same owing to increasing fuel costs. Continuing current policies would bring total energy system cost to 14.6% of European gross domestic product (GDP) in 2050, roughly the same as the other scenarios. This compares to the 10.5% of GDP spent in 2005.

However, according to Mr Oettinger, the final configuration is likely to be a mix of the projections, following a debate with a wide range of stakeholders. As a result, he expects to “achieve clarity with investors” on what future strategies are worth pursuing by 2013 or 2014 at latest. He expressed his wish for the adoption of a new EU binding renewables target for 2030 by 2014 to give low carbon investors long-term certainty. The roadmap currently suggests a renewables share of about 30%.

The roadmap is more careful in its wording and, arguably, less ambitious in its scope than previous leaked drafts. The final version stops short of recommending targets, a key source of controversy, while it recognizes that EU Member States and investors need milestones.

While some Commission officials expressed criticism over the Roadmap’s lack of ambition, Green groups praised the roadmap’s demonstration that a high uptake of renewables would come at little extra cost compared to a business-as-usual scenario. But they maintain that the Commission has purposefully underestimated renewables potential.

The Danish Presidency of the EU Council is to prioritise the reaching of an agreement between Member States on endorsing the Roadmap, although discussions are likely to be impeded by disagreements between Member States over interim targets to 2050.

Impact & Opportunities

The debate over further targets and milestones for the years to 2050 will be a key element of continued discussions around the Roadmap. An earlier draft said that “further renewables targets for 2030 could be an option since Europe is currently on the right track to achieve the targets for 2020”. In the same paragraph, which has since been scrapped, interim targets on CCS and energy infrastructure were envisaged as a possibility. But the roadmap says that the modelling for these scenarios is dependent on a global climate deal, which could be many years away. The Commission consultation on a post-2020 renewable energy strategy, running from 6 December 2011 until 7 February, has been an opportunity for stakeholders to voice their views on whether there is a role for further renewable targets and the findings will feed into the discussions. The upcoming Communications on CCS (by the summer) and energy technologies (in Q1 2013) should also be closely monitored.

 Industry in general has been strongly pushing the need for regulatory certainty and clarity over whether there will be further targets, in order to be able to make necessary investments, a point which is readily accepted by Commissioner Oettinger. The coming months will therefore offer the opportunity to make such arguments to policy-makers, and to offer suggestions as to what the policy framework should look like post-2020.

Shadow Defence Secretary Jim Murphy said defence was the first responsibility of government, as he launched Labour’s consultation on the party’s vision for UK defence policy earlier this week.

The consultation laid out three key areas of focus: the current security landscape and threats to the UK; our strategic approach in terms of national values and international collaboration; and defence infrastructure including kit, equipment and capability.

Having never heard Mr. Murphy speak before, I have to say I was impressed. Speaking at Policy Exchange, he was supportive of the Afghanistan mission (noting though, that it is increasingly “calendar-led”, rather than “conditions led”) and agreed with Foreign Secretary William Hague’s recent comments that the Arab Spring will be as defining for the international security landscape as 9/11. However, when the inevitable criticism of Coalition policy came, it was delivered with a dry wit and he came across as an incredibly reasonable man.

Quick to position Labour as a defence-friendly party, Mr. Murphy was particularly critical of the Government’s cuts to the Ministry of Defence budget, saying “David Cameron has shown an ambivalence towards defence policy which lies in stark contrast to the commitment shown by previous leaders, including Tony Blair or even Margaret Thatcher… The government’s rushed review has been driven by savings not strategy. The government did not match ends with means, precipitated strategic shrinkage by stealth and has left us with dangerous capability gaps.”

While light on detail – perhaps to be expected from a shadow minister in a consultation document – there were three points that points in particular that stood out:

• BIOTERROR. I was expecting cyberterrorism to be pointed to as a key threat, but not bioterror. While I agree in the long-term, in the immediate future I’m of the mind-set that more damage can be done through cyberterrorism than with anthrax, small pox or virulent strains of bird flu
• The C-word: there’s not a politician in town that doesn’t use the c-word…cuts. What was interesting, though, was the language used by Mr Murphy, referring to a “coalition of cuts” when describing how countries – particularly those in Europe – should collaborate on defence policy in terms of budget
• Values, not just interests: refreshing to hear a politician acknowledge in plain English that defence policy is at least in parts driven by values – not just national interests; in other words, let’s be clear that we’re not in Afghanistan strictly to protect Britain from terrorism, but to also build a democracy.  Values usually get lumped with development policy, and Mr. Murphy and one of the other speakers, RUSI’s Malcolm Chalmers, both reiterated that defence and development could not operate in isolation. Maj. General Tim Cross also spoke, and he made compelling points about the need to consider the infrastructures of peace when entering in to conflict – this resonated with me in particular given my work with the Global Peace Index

I was expecting more meat on the policy bones, but I was nonetheless impressed by Mr. Murphy. Time will tell whether Labour is in fact the “party of defence” that it is trying to position itself as, but I certainly expect to see more from Mr. Murphy in the future.

As some of you know, International Petroleum Week took place in London this week.

For the second year in a row, the risk of supply disruption was the dominant theme at the conference, where the main worry was Iran (a shift from Libya in 2011).

The event, which brought together influential traders and executives in the energy industry, led to many talks and forecasts on the price of oil – with some ventured forecasts hitting $150 a barrel or higher dependent on the large supply disruption involving Iran influences the energy market.

The FT reports that Wall Street banks briefing their clients during IP Week have painted a bullish outlook. However, Christophe de Margerie, Chief Executive of French oil group Total, tried to calm the market by claiming it had had no trouble finding alternative sources of crude since it ceased trading with the country earlier this year. That message was supposedly reinforced by the International Energy Agency.

Another topic of interest at the conference was minister of state for energy at DECC, Charles Hendry’s opinion on the Coryton refinery.

The Global technology Forum published an interview with the minister. “We think Coryton has a very real future in the UK economy. Of the Petroplus refineries, it’s probably the stronger one and therefore while there is clearly  challenges facing the refining sector across the whole of Europe, Coryton is in a strong position to survive in the future.”

He added that they are currently preparing a strategy paper which will be published in Autumn of this year about “how we view the importance of that industry and we have an organisation called the Downstream Oil Industry Forum which brings together industry and government to work on that.”

Other highlights of this year’s programme included a focus on Russia, The Arctic and CIS, with a presentation from Jonathan Kollek, Senior Vice President of Sales, Trading and Logistics at TNK-BP, and a talk from Paul Corcoran, Financial Director at Nord Stream AG about Nord Stream’s ability to help companies meet European Gas Demand.

There was also a focus on deep-water offshore with presentations from Ali Moshiri, President, Africa and Latin America E&P Company at Chevron  and a discussion on partnerships with Kjell-Erik Oestdahl, Executive Vice President Operations at  Schlumberger.

We will be closely monitoring the shift in crude oil prices over the coming months as the relationships between Iran and other European states develop.

Now that the dust (snow?) has settled following this year’s World Economic Forum, I wanted to shed some light on what I’ve learned about the annual Alpine gathering.  I’ve had had the opportunity to attend the Forum three times; the past two years working with my colleague Lalu Dasgupta on communications for Brand South Africa.

“To fail to plan is to plan to fail…”

If there’s one thing I’ve learned about WEF, it is to go with the flow.  I’ve learned this the hard way, causing myself undue amounts of stress and panic trying to control a carousel of changing diaries, changing venues, changing agendas. Yes, of course one needs a plan, a schedule, a programme. But plan for that plan to fail, and you’ll be a step ahead of the game.  One of the most beautiful things about WEF (besides the stunning views) is the serendipitous encounters and impromptu meetings that happen on the Promenade, in the corridors of the Congress Centre and over a nightcap in the bars. You can’t plan for these, but if you plan to be flexible, you’re guaranteed to have a more productive WEF than if you insist on keeping to a schedule.

My chance encounter with the Mayor of London

Getting on the list

Remember that bit about planning? Ignore it. Just kidding – but if you’re looking to hire a venue for an event you best move quickly! Again, I speak from experience. The best chance you’ll have at securing a venue is to book it in for the next year while you’re in Davos.  The venues tend to have a “grandfather clause” with all their bookings, so book early…or at least get on the waiting list.  South Africa moved from the bar at the Belvedere to the wonderful Kirchner Museum this year, and when we were scouting for new space I was informed that one space had been used by the same company for more than 10 years, and there were wait lists six-deep for some of the other spaces. I’ve now been to most of the venues in Davos – either on reconnaissance missions or for events – so if you have any questions or need suggestions, drop me a line at sjurkowsky@hkstrategies.com

It can’t all be doom and gloom…have a beaver tail

Canadian delicacy on offer

For such a sleepy little town, Davos offers a wealth of branding opportunities.  While WEF is serious event hosted in a particularly gloomy context, there’s still a flock of companies and countries looking to showcase their wares, build their brand and attract investment.  My favourites include the branded buses (like these from South Africa!), the Canadian Beaver Tails pop-up pastry shop and Mexico’s fiesta night.  For years, the South African delegation has shown their pride by wearing scarves in the national colours, and these have become such a hot commodity with WEF guests that more than 300 were handed out this year!

Increasingly, it’s the countries that are leading the way at WEF, from emerging markets to G8 nations – and the ones that do it best are the ones that approach their branding with a little creativity and tongue-in-cheek humour.

President Zuma visits the South Africa Business Hub and meets with the Brand South Africa team (all proudly wearing our scarves!)

I’m already looking forward to WEF 2013, with hopes that we’ll be gathering in a more upbeat climate. If we’re not – and that’s likely to be the case – I’ll still be there wrapped in my South African scarf, ready for more serendipitous encounters and the chance to learn, debate and discuss the continuing global transformation.

Shale gas and fracking are considered dirty words in much of Europe – and yet the number of shale gas wells drilled and fracked in Europe remains small. Opposition has surfaced here much more quickly than the infant industry is developing.

The shale gas industry has not yet had a chance to prove that there have been many lessons learned from the US where it has truly flourished and is now a victim of its own success in terms of the sharp decrease in gas prices. But in the US, shale gas has put the country in a position where it will soon be self-sufficient in gas and potentially a net exporter and it has created many tens of thousands of jobs.

The same could certainly happen in Europe, where there is a clear need for increases in energy sources in order to keep the lights on over the coming years. This is something that has been highlighted again by the recent European cold snap that has seen wholesale gas prices rising by over 30% (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-16916577), supplies from Russia being tested to the limit and the Italian government huddling in crisis talks and contemplating using fuel oil instead of gas. This will have inevitable consequences for European consumer energy bills – something that shale gas should eventually help to counteract in future years.

Earlier this week, Ofgem published a report that it had commissioned with Poyry, the international energy consultancy. The Impact of Unconventional Gas on Europe  looked at the UK, European and global shale gas markets and reviewed many of the challenges the industry faces. Chief among its conclusions was that the major challenge that shale gas faces in Europe is political, as a result of negative public opinion.

The Gasland movie (http://gaslandthemovie.com/) has had success in highlighting the environmental concerns and has raised industry standards, but we need to be careful that it does not alarm the public. The public needs to believe that technological advances and changing standards will ultimately help them keep warm and keep energy bills down.

The industry admits that European shale gas wells will be more challenging to develop than those in the US; they are deeper, are situated near more heavily populated areas, the subsurface rights do not exist in a way that incentivises landowners to allow development and they remain unproven commercially. But the benefits of providing domestic supplies of energy from an energy source which emits lower levels of greenhouse gases than the European staple of coal are likely game changing and will have gas exporters reliant on European markets watching closely.

The industry stands at a moment where it needs to respond to critics – sensibly, carefully and ensuring best practice. If Europe doesn’t push forward to develop this source of energy, then the shale gas bandwagon will inevitably roll on into developing markets and without the benefit of the learning and standards set by a well regulated Europe. Europe will also lose the stimulus of job creation and growth from shale gas exploitation and in these times of austerity this is not something that Europe can afford to shun without careful consideration.

It seemed appropriate that a blog post today should focus on Valentine’s Day and love.  But how to link this to energy?  After a quick trawl of the web it seems that it’s not actually as hard as you might think…

Here are my top five picks:

1. Energy Saving love ideas:

The Energy Saving Trust has listed a number of green ideas for showing “not only your loved one, but also the planet” how much you care!  These range from volunteering to insulate the loft, to making recycled gifts, to a simple early night under the covers (purely so you can turn down the thermostat and save on the heating of course!).

2. A romantic trip on the EDF Energy London Eye:

Possibilities are endless with the EDF Energy London Eye (cl).  On sale today are a ride in a Valentine’s Cupid Capsule, a Valentine’s Champagne Experience, or a Red Rose Experience.  Take your pick.

3. Too much smog = no chance of a snog:

Greenpeace East Asia is highlighting air pollution in China today with a Valentine’s Day campaign that shows a poor Chinese couple who can’t kiss because they need to wear air filter masks.

4. Yorkshire loving:

Energy advice firm Yorkshire Energy Services has identified a number of money and energy saving tips on its Energy Help blog – candlelit dining to save on the electicity; a low-cost, low-carbon walk in the moonlight; potted plants vs cut roses.  (I particularly like the last one!)

5. Anti-Valentine poem to energy companies:

Perhaps my favourite of the lot - and for those of you who find ‘the day of love’ a bit too sickly sweet – take a look at environmental site edie.net.  It’s running a story today about a break up poem by Matt Harvey that’s been sent by the ombudsman to energy companies.  The light hearted message is aimed at “encouraging energy companies to work towards healthier relationships with their customers” – suggesting that energy companies should be doing a bit more to woo their customers.

Any other crackers you can think of?

In the Energy and Industrials team we are partial to some tech prowess, especially if that technology is geared towards saving energy, saving money or looks particularly nifty (remember those Back to the Future self-lacing shoes Mr Chris Pratt lusted after?).

Detailed here you’ll find just a few of the weird, wonderful and stylish energy-saving or sustainable products and gadgets that I find quite snazzy.

Cardboard fun



You might not be able to use it outside, but hopefully cardboard furniture which is 100 per cent recyclable will soon be all the rage. From beds to work seats all you have to do is fold it together and voilà!

Sun in  a jar

Solar-powered lights have always been popular for guiding people up garden paths the world over  but not many people have ventured to using them indoors which is why I like this next product; the Sun Jar. Just sit it on your window sill during the day when you’re at work and then use in the evening when you come in.

Speakers

Personally I love these acoustic iPod speakers which are made from reclaimed wood and old instruments; let’s face it they would look great on anyone’s mantelpiece.

Keeping warm (yes that is a picture of Matt Damon in a ’slanket’)

From my days living in a drafty student house it was either a choice of wearing a blanket around the house at all times or trying to find an inexpensive way to save heat. After exhausting all the usual tips (foil behind radiators, draft protectors on doors) we found the most effective product we used was window insulation glaze. It costs around six pounds and is basically sticky backed plastic for your windows which really does work!

These are only some of the products I have come across recently but it is clear to see that eco and sustainable goods are a growing market with websites dedicated to selling everything from homemade wind turbines to recycled cushions made from plastic.