the Carbon Challenge

A load of (eco)balls…

I noticed the other day that John Lewis have recently launch an ‘eco-products’ section on their website. I have to say I am impressed. The site is split into five sections, energy efficiency, fairly traded, organic, recycling, sustainable, and eco-friendly making it really easy for the casual shopper to find the eco-product they’re looking for.

Having explored the site, what I was particularly pleased to see was the wealth of supporting advice and information giving people the context as to why they should consider eco-products.

One of the most interesting products John Lewis has on sale are the eco-washing and tumble drying balls. Whilst the eco-balls cost more to purchase initially (£30), they are effective for 750 washes. This has a double benefit. Firstly you don’t have to spend money on washing powder / liquid – and secondly you’re not flushing detergents into the sewage system. There is actually a third benefit too and that’s the fact eco-washing balls work effectively at 30 degrees centigrade meaning you can save energy too given most standard washes are at 40 degrees centigrade, or hotter. The tumble drying balls help to reduce the time it takes to dry clothes – and can save up to 25 per cent of electricity in the process.

So, if you get a chance why not visit the John Lewis website?

Inspector Gadget

Gadgets are not going away anytime soon and they are collectively prodigous consumers of natural resources, so I was particularly taken by an article in the “In Gadget” section of the Sunday Times yesterday. It revealed that Konarka - an American energy company - have just unveiled working solar cells that can be printed directly onto flexible plastic, using standard ink-jet technology. Rather than being made from expensive and rigid silicon, Konarka’s solar cells are made from cheap organic polymers. The potential for this product is enormous. You quite literally put the cells anywhere - from mobile phones, MP3 players, or even on a hat!


I am not, however, advocating that we should just sit around and wait for a technological fix to solve climate change. I still believe that all of us must act now to reduce our energy consumption BUT what a bonus it would be if these solar cells became the norm and helped to transform the way we power our gadgets!

Carbon labelling: The solution – or a barrier?

Matt Wright, Director of Customer Insight at the Energy Saving Trust takes a look at the issue of carbon labelling...

_________________________________________________________________

On Monday, Valerie Elliott, the Consumer Editor of the Times wrote a piece about the validity of food labels in respect of organic pork. The crux of the article was that consumers are being misled, and confused as to what does or doesn’t constitute organically raised pork. The article went on to say that the RSPCA has written to Defra demanding descriptions used by some supermarkets be changed to avoid consumer confusion. Now you’re probably wondering what this has to do with climate change. Well, I thought the article was interesting because it highlighted one of the major problems surrounding the proposed carbon labelling schemes being touted around at the moment. They are intended to make it easier and simpler for the consumer to know how much carbon has been used to make a product. The real question is whether they achieve this aim. I am not sure they do.

Our research certainly supports the fact that people want to have the option of buying energy efficient products. Our own Energy Saving Recommended scheme uses a label (see below) that makes it easy for consumers to identify the most energy efficient products. The evidence shows that it works. The reason for this is fairly simple. The label only has one - very easy to understand – meaning, which is “This product is one of the most energy efficient on the market”. Now that’s not to say the mechanics of the scheme are not robust. Every product has to undergo rigorous testing by an independent test centre before we allow the Energy Saving Recommended label to be used on it.  And, evidently in order for people to know what the label means, we’ve had to market it. To this effect, we have promoted it through our website, press, TV and radio advertising as well as numerous PR initiatives.

So, back to carbon labelling. Does putting a carbon value on a product make people more or less likely to buy it? Well, there are a couple of considerations. Unless you define what a good or bad level of carbon is for each product then how will the consumer know whether the carbon figure given on the label is high or low? Another is, how long will consumers spend comparing the carbon value of one product against another? The answer, according to Wal-Mart’s Senior Director of Global Supplier Initiatives, is not long at all - "I don't know many customers who spend a lot of time in the grocery store looking at labels”. Closer to home, Nick Monger-Godfrey, Head of Corporate Social Responsibility for John Lewis & Waitrose said “I don’t think there’s enough research done that say there’s real consumer interest to procure products on the basis of carbon intensity”.

The bottom line is that there may be scope for carbon labelling in a few years time, but only if people sufficiently understand what the figures represent – and how they can compare them. As it stands, carbon labelling seems to me to smack of an idea which hasn’t been properly tested on the very people who are meant to act on the information i.e. individuals like you and me.   We need to stop overcomplicating things. There is so much conflicting noise about climate change coming from various organisations and the media anyway it seems illogical to make things more confusing for the consumer by asking them to consider and compare carbon values as well. There is even the possibility that carbon labelling could put some people who were looking to save energy off all together! A nightmare scenario. For us, the expansion of the Energy Saving Recommended scheme, across an ever increasing range of sectors and products represents the best and simplest way of giving the consumer instananeous knowledge of which products are the most energy efficient.

Instantly understood: the Energy Saving Recommended logo

B&Q stop selling patio heaters…

As Phillip Sellwood is away this week, Julian Roberts and Sara Neame – Joint Head of Communications at the Energy Saving Trust have written a guest blog in his absence.

The Financial Times today ran an article about B&Q stopping sales of patio heaters in all their stores as they are so environmentally unsound. The DIY store will stop selling the heaters after their current stock of around 20,000 runs out. The heaters have grown rapidly in popularity, in part due to the smoking ban meaning more people are sitting outdoors in pubs and cafes.

This announcement is great news for us at The Energy Saving Trust, as we have been pushing to get them banned due to their enormous C02 emissions. Patio heaters were the subject of our Green Barometer II report in July, which took the media by storm, creating debate up and down the UK. Our aim was to tell people the hard truth about patio heaters – and we certainly identified some shocking statistics. Ownership of domestic heaters is set to double from 1.2million currently to 2.3million in the near future, according to our Green Barometer II report. As 50 per cent of the UK's carbon emissions come from what we do in the home as well as our domestic transport choices, this is really bad news for the environment.  2.3 million domestic patio heaters would emit the same amount of CO2 in a year as driving from Lands End to John O'Groats 200,000 times. The Energy Saving Trust estimates that the average patio heater uses the same amount of energy as a gas hob uses in six months and emits around 50kg of CO2 per year! But while a hob is an essential item used every day in most kitchens, patio heaters clearly are not!  It seems insane to attempt to heat the air outside; surely it's far easier to stick on a jumper?! Most of the heat simply disappears up into the atmosphere anyway; you can actually easily see the heat emanating upwards from the heaters on a cold night.

The problem is both domestic and commercial – with the smoking ban forcing people outside, pubs and restaurants are increasingly using patio heaters. With 60,000 pubs and 25,000 restaurants in the UK- not to mention the thousands and thousands of clubs, hotels and cafes – this is a very large scale problem! B&Q’s decision to stop selling patio heaters is therefore a huge step forward. As one of the largest suppliers of patio heaters, they are playing a lead role in reducing the use of energy-guzzling patio heaters. The Energy Saving Trust is working hard to encourage the removal of all energy inefficient products from sale. We also have an Energy Saving Recommended scheme, which promotes the most energy efficient products on the market, giving consumers the option of choosing products better for the environment and better for their wallet.

The Lights Are Going Out (at last)

The end is night for the inefficient incandescent light bulb

Well no sooner said then done.  Some of you will have read Matthew’s guest blog regarding energy efficient lighting in my absence last week and lo and behold we now have an announcement at the fag end of the Labour Conference to take the decision (although some might say re-take the decision) to phase out the brightest 150 watt bulbs from next January and thereafter stopping selling 100 watt bulbs by January 2009, with the remaining standard incandescent light bulbs to be removed by December 2011. 

As quoted in the Times, I am actually delighted that the Government has made this public announcement, but I think it just indicates some of the tough decisions that will need to be made with regard to new electronics coming onto the market place.  Instead of spending huge amounts of time banning, outlawing or phasing out existing and new technologies, such as standby, set top boxes etc, we should be putting much more emphasis at a national and international level in ensuring these products are manufactured to a highly energy efficient standard in the first place.  Retailers need to take a responsible attitude to giving their consumers information on which they can make a sensible purchase decision and following that up with information that ensures that people can make real choices.  We would not allow products to be produced and launched into the market place which were patently unsafe to us as individuals, I would suggest that some of these products are equally unsafe for us as individuals in terms of the impact they have on our climate.

So Sunday it’s off to sunny Blackpool (here’s hoping) to see what the Tories have got to say on the subject.  It should be an interesting contrast to last year’s event which saw the ascendancy of David Cameron - it now has all the hallmarks of a Plantagenet succession plan!

PS - if you want to read more about the phasing out of  incandescent light bulbs then visit the following...

Evening Standard online

BBC online

The Guardian online 

Energy saving lighting: Separating fact from fiction

Philip is on holiday this week. In his absence, Matt Wright - the Energy Saving Trust's Director of Customer Insight - has been passed the mantle and written a guest post.

If you were to believe everything you read in the papers, hear on the radio, or see on television, you might be mistaken into thinking that energy saving light bulbs, whilst being environmentally sound, aren't actually very good at the job they’re designed for - lighting. You'd probably also be under the impression that they're bigger than standard bulbs, aren't suitable for half your light fittings and not dimmable.

Stripping away the negative myths surrounding energy saving lighting and the following facts emerge:

• Energy saving light bulbs use up to 80 per cent less electricity than a traditional bulb but produce the same amount of light – they use a different technology to traditional bulbs, enabling them to produce a highly efficient light using a fraction of the energy.
• Advances in technology mean that energy saving bulbs are now available in a wide variety of fittings, shapes and sizes. Nowadays, there are even halogen and dimmable energy saving bulbs on the market.
• Depending on how long your lights are in use every day, just one energy saving lightbulb could save you up to £7 a year. And because it will last up to 10 times longer than a standard bulb, it could save you around £60 before it needs replacing.
• Fit all the lights in your house with energy saving bulbs and you could save around £600 over the lifetime of the bulbs.
• And before you ask, these savings take into account the higher cost of energy saving lightbulbs. These days, the average price is only £3 a bulb, so you'll usually recoup the extra outlay within a year.

Of course, altering the public's perception about energy saving lighting is easier said than done. One of our spokespeople - Frances Galvanoni - was recently on the Today programme on Radio 4, busting the myths surrounding energy saving lighting - never an easy task, when John Humphreys is interviewing you. Clearly this discussion was a hot topic amongst the public, given the pages and pages of responses posted to the associated Radio 4 online web-board, entitled “What are the merits and problems of so called energy saving light bulbs? Should we all be switching our bulbs to the energy saving variety?” You can view the debate by clicking here.

That said, our own research confirms householders are starting to embrace energy saving lighting into their daily lives. More than half (52 per cent) of those without any energy saving bulbs say they plan to fit them and for those who have already adopted the use of energy saving bulbs, over three quarters (79 per cent) plan to buy more.

There is one final (and psychologically difficult) barrier to overcome in order for energy saving lighting (and in fact many other environmental products) to become the norm; making it aspirational and desirable.  If we're being honest, the word 'cool' or 'aspirational' is very rarely used in the same sentence as 'environmental'. That’s why we are absolutely delighted that the Tom Dixon Energy Saving Installation took place in Trafalgar Square between 17th and 19th September, during which time a total of 3,500 Glowb energy saving light bulbs were used and given away over the course of the three-day installation.
This is a double-win – firstly because if the 3,500 energy saving light bulbs given away are used in place of standard 60 watt equivalent bulbs, then 754 tonnes of carbon dioxide and £212,000 would be saved in electricity bills – and secondly because the bulbs were presented in an innovative, attractive and eye-catching display - something which will hopefully make them more aspirational to those who viewed the exhibition.

We’ve also recently published a guide to energy saving lighting. You can download it for free by clicking here.

Innovative, creative and energy saving - the Tom Dixon Energy Installation

Patio heaters ban debate hots up

Well, what a fuss we appear to have caused with yesterday’s media exposure of the environmental damage caused by patio heaters. It looks as if ‘just wear a jumper’ is going to go down in folklore, just as ‘just say no’ to drugs perhaps! Even I was taken by surprise given the amount of coverage we received given, quite rightly, the media focus on the terrible floods going on at the moment. However, it is evident  that our Green Barometer report on the environmental folly of patio heaters has caused a debate in the media and in homes across the land. Not surprising really - we're asking people to change their behaviour and stop using patio heaters. A black and white issue, which has generated strong opinions both for and against the idea. The story was picked up by most of the main stream media, whether broadsheet, radio, TV, or Internet. We even made it onto the Reuters world wide media stage.[I've included some links below to some of the stories].  Quite a feat for a product that the industry says only has 600,000 adherents. It's interesting to note that this is the same figure that has been quoted the last two years. Perhaps we should have the National census, something like the gun amnesty - trade in your patio heater for a week – it’d be interesting wouldn’t it?

What was also interesting was how each individual industry responsible for environmentally damaging products blames the other – in this case the manufacturers of patio heaters claiming they are no more damaging than phone chargers or plasma TVs - as if that some how excused the environmental damage they cause. I’d be interested to hear your views on this. I was also struck by how poor the information is around some of these products, which is probably why our story was so well picked up by the media.

By the way, just one small thing, but important… the organisation I represent does not belong and is not part of the Government. We are a private, independent organisation which enables us to speak out about these issues, like patio heaters in a fashion that – were we a part of Government – we could not. All this debate around environmental impact of patio heaters happened on the same day that parts of Oxford became an island. I wonder if the irony will be lost on people.

If you want to know how to live a low carbon life, check out Chris Goodall’s new book, called “How to Live a Low Carbon Life - the individual’s guide to stopping climate change.”  It's an excellent read, very practical, full of factual data about appliances, travel, aviation etc and bang up to date.

Whoops - I nearly forgot to include those media links to the patio heater coverage! Here is a selection...

My interview about patio heaters for Reuters

Articles:

The Mirror

Which

BBC England

The Telegraph

Daily Mail

Reuters

The Publican

This is London

The Scotsman

The Herald

BBC Scotland

This is Aberdeen

Also, don't forget to have a look at our latest Green Barometer report. You can click here to download it.