Efficiency elide

Debates on UK energy policy focus almost exclusively on energy generation/production and often neglect even to mention energy saving and energy efficiency. It’s always going to be cheaper to save energy and be efficient than it is to generate it - not only does it cut household bills and increase the profitability of businesses by reducing their outgoings, it also cuts pollution rapidly, is a very good job creator, can increase comfort, cut noise levels, and can sometimes be done using materials normally thrown away...So whilst we are so wasteful of energy why consider building large numbers of new power stations of any kind? Why is our primary focus not on creating a lower energy, energy thrifty culture? Basic, already existing technologies can be used but the challenge is to combine these with thrifty attitudes and behaviours.

The energy generation debate at present often zooms in on nuclear and wind. Nuclear power is low carbon emission in operation but we’ve had it since the 1950s and it has done nothing to stop climate change. The UK currently has nuclear 16 reactors in operation at 9 different sites - and it’s had more in the past. We've come to rely on fossil fuels and population has increased as has our level and intensity of consumption but expanding nuclear power for decades - and expanding power generation by all methods - has been part of unsustainable plans for industrial and economic expansion. This attitude still prevails. Until we change from unsustainable economic expansion to properly and fully applying sustainable development - including an energy policy with energy saving and efficiency as its primary focus - then we won’t tackle economic, social and environmental problems such as climate change.

The scale at which we waste energy is vast, so the scope for energy saving is huge. For example the Energy Saving Trust said that UK households waste £1.3 billion by just leaving TVs and other electronic devices switched on... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/consumertips/household-bills/9355870/Energy-Saving-Trust-households-waste-1.3bn-for-leaving-gadget-switched-on.html#  . In hard economic times and with energy prices rising you'd think people would be more careful with their consumption but apparently they aren't, so we’ve made little progress towards a energy thrifty culture. Research in 2006 found the UK was top of the European energy waster league. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6075794.stm

Part of the problems is the fact that my local paper can’t even write a balanced and correct piece about nuclear power, let alone cover energy issues in the round as it should do. People are often ill-informed as a result.  Here's my case against nuclear power: http://tinyurl.com/c75rvbg .Here's  a  post arguing for energy efficiency, combined heat and power and decentralised energy: http://tinyurl.com/cxagb4o.  Some thoughts on local renewable energy developments here: http://tinyurl.com/bm5m764.

Halfbaked Hopkins

In the ongoing online discussions on this Post story about the mayoral election Lib Dem Councillor for Knowle, Gary Hopkins chips in this spin,

by gary_hopkins ...Polling shows
1 Non voters and genuinely undecided in a clear lead.
2 Mr Rees in a narrow first preference vote in front of Jon Rogers.
3 The Tories nowhere with their voters either giving Jon First or second preference to keep out Labour.
The other overwhelming stat that comes back is that, liked or not ,George Ferguson is known to that tiny % of the chattering politically active classes but 95% + are completely unaware of him...__________________________________________

My reply: What polling is this? Who is it conducted by? Please give actual figures and the source(s) - otherwise what you say is not backed by facts we can check out. Its quite a common practice for Lib Dems to state a so called 'fact' or a quote in the 'Focus'  newsletters without giving the source for it. Lib Dem materials very often skew figures via very dodgy bar charts and illustrations. If its deliberate its unethical if its not its very poor and sloppy thinking and communication.

By choosing to have a dig at George Ferguson the Lib Dems, a) show they have something to be concerned about and, b) reinforce Ferguson's credentials as a candidate independent from party politics.

[Update 14 Oct: Cllr Hopkins has been challanged three times to produce figures and sources but has not done so - in fact he's made things worse through more party politics and attempted point scoring. No surprise there then.]

Speed support

More people have had their say on proposals for the introduction of 20mph speed limits across Bristol. So far about half of people who have shared their views...which would see the reduced speed limits in place in central Bristol within a year – were in favour of proposals as they stand, while another 20 to 25 per cent have been said to agree to the scheme in principle but wanted to find out more. Here's a copy of my online comment on this story, which attracted a number of 'its a fix' type views which in turn generated this response from Tiny_Steve and from me:



Tiny_Steve - "It's obvious that the Council must have manipulated the figures and the people speaking to the Post were hired stooges. As everyone knows, these comment pages are the only true barometer of the opinions of right-thinking Bristolians. Especially those who have nothing to do all day but sit looking at the Post's website."
______________________________

Well said Tiny_Steve. And it could not possibly be the case that 20mph limits are a reasonably sensible move that therefore has a lot of public support could it. After all the findings of this current exercise aren't at all in line with the British Social Attitudes Survey run for the Department of Transport which found ' "the majority (71 per cent) of respondents were in favour or strongly in favour of speed limits of 20 mph in residential streets"...only 15% were against', or the University of the West of England's review which found ' "there are substantial majorities disapproving of breaking the speed limit, supporting reductions in speed limits including local limits of 20mph"...on residential streets, 76% of people are in favour of having speed limits of 20mph'. And there are no further examples of public opinion eg in York, Oxord and Islington supporting 20mph limits here - http://tinyurl.com/8krqfvq

And its obvious that a candidate stongly opposing 20mph limits will become the first elected Mayor of Bristol and stop this kick in the teeth for drivers...er...isn't it??

Super seagulls?

Seagulls are not the biggest threat to Bristol's heritage, though this Post report says they are. Just compare the scale of total seagull impacts with total human impacts for instance! There are problems caused by droppings, noise and so on but the Post headline and story are an exaggeration. The Post could have made a much better attempt to produce and publish a piece which explores all sides of the issue - after all if we are to solve gull related problems its going to be on the basis of everyone being better informed. This BBC report gives a good explanation of why there are so many seagulls in cities and sets the context for cities and birds pretty well - http://tinyurl.com/ctxm9tk .

Those who may be tempted to advocate shooting gulls need to know that all species of gull are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and the Wildlife (Northern Ireland) Order 1985.

According to the RSPB, 'This makes it illegal to intentionally or, in Scotland, recklessly injure or kill any gull or damage or destroy an active nest or its contents. In Scotland, it is also illegal to prevent birds from accessing their nest, and in Northern Ireland, it is illegal to disturb any nesting bird. In addition, the Mediterranean gull is protected under Schedule 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act, making it illegal to intentionally or recklessly disturb the birds at or close to their nest in Britain or to disturb their dependent young.

However, the law recognises that in certain circumstances control measures may be necessary. Simple nuisance or minor damage to property are not legally sanctioned reasons to kill gulls. The UK administrations can issue licences, permitting nests to be destroyed or even birds to be killed if there is no non-lethal solution, and if it is done to prevent serious damage to agriculture, the spread of disease, to preserve public health and safety and air safety, or to conserve other wild birds...'

Candidate questions

Some interesting questions for elected Mayor of Bristol candidates have been posted in online comments on this Post story. Here's a selection of the best, sorted out from the silly, sarcastic, and more loaded ones...with the name of the contributors first:

·        Fishandchips  - “How will mayor candidates help to guide people to become confident, improve psychological access and strive to be successful in business or in their chosen subjects?”

·         Fishandchips  - “We need a leader who can work with people at every level. My question is how can they demonstrate this quality

·         green_man - “Will you resign, resulting in an election, if a sufficient proportion or number of Bristol's voters petition you to do so?”

·         BCFCfinker - “Will you do what's best for Bristol and not what's best for you?”

·         Kromax - “What will you do to bring employment to Bristol?
How will you open up south Bristol to employment opportunities?

Will you bring trams to Bristol? Will you bring an Arena to Bristol?

Will you bring secure parking for motorcycles/cycles to Bristol i.e. at Temple Meads/ in the centre?

Will you turn off traffic lights out of peak times or alter timing where appropriate?

·         Marshwalker99 - “What experience do you have of managing a complex operation which spends around £1.3 billion pounds a year

Scepticism squashed?

The BBC report that: A formerly sceptical climate scientist says human activity is causing the Earth to warm, as a new study confirms earlier results on rising temperatures...

...latest study, released early on Monday (GMT), concludes that the average temperature of the Earth's land has risen by 1.5C (2.7F) over the past 250 years.

...In a piece authored for the New York Times, Prof Muller, from the University of California, Berkeley, said: "Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming.

"Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I'm now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause."...

Full story and access to lot of data, analysis, comment and debate via the BBC report here. Arguably it is because Prof Muller et al had a moderate, practical, pragmatic scepticism that he reasoned that a change of mind was justified by the evidence. Long may moderate, practical, pragmatic scepticism reign.

Road reason

A blanket 20mph speed limit on all of Bristol’s residential streets will be in place by 2015 (full story and debate here).This is a very good decision. For me the case for 20mph limits is that residential roads are for living not driving in. See here for why 20mph - http://tinyurl.com/bptjkoh
Many of the Mayoral candidates have been advocating it and are backing the decision because they know that its popular with the public. In the 2010 British Social Attitudes Survey 71% of people asked were in favour of 20mph speed limits on residential roads - http://tinyurl.com/cx2r2ca.

Some persist in saying that here is no logical or proven reason for 20mph limits in residential areas  but in fact there's plenty of research around. See this analysis of the effectiveness of 20mph speed limits from the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents (http://tinyurl.com/bqbdogs) for instance. Those opposing 20 mph limits seem to be driven by something other than the evidence and reasoning upon it - see the debate on this story on The Post website here - with even more here - for plenty of examples of abuse, avoidance, denial, misinformation and misunderstanding...

Some repeat myths in their comments eg saying that air pollution would be worsened. Actually 20mph limits will NOT increase air pollution, as shown here  http://tinyurl.com/7gp2j89 and are a key feature of a more sustainable approach to urban living. The key is that the streets involved in this decision are residential streets ie people live there. Living there need not and most often does not exclude driving there of course but lets not forget that cyclists and pedestrians and not just motorised vehicles use roads and that all sorts of community activities can and should happen on residential streets if they are safe enough - and this brings me to another reason why I say streets are for living (by which I meant primarily for living) and that is that if the speed limit is 20 mph, in the unfortuneate event of a collision the people involved are much more likely to live than to die.

Some still argue that roads/streets, even residential ones, are primarily for cars and not pedestrians, cyclists and a range of activities, potentially. However, many of the roads/streets in Bristol were there long before cars were owned and used on a widespread basis and some go back even before the invention of the car. Mass car ownership did not take off in the UK until the 1950's and many things have happened on the roads/streets before and since. A good proportion of Bristol's roads/streets were never designed for cars. Roads are simply thoroughfares, routes, or ways on land from place to place - and in residential areas and in cities serve a wider purpose, including easement. Even where they were/are specially designed for car use why should we not choose, with general agreement, to adjust and manage that, especially in residential areas, so that the balance favours human beings not motorised machines running at a speed likely to kill or cause serious injury? See http://tinyurl.com/2vd7pq and also http://tinyurl.com/cgphzz7.

Others say introducing 20mph limits is a waste of money, can't be enforced and everyone will ignore it. They seem to have forgotten the evidence eg from RoSPA on their effectiveness. 20mph limits have saved lives where they have been introduced in Hull, London and elsewhere. See here. No-one has been able to dispute this evidence in the two lengthy online debates I've taken part in.

Supplementary voting system for Bristol's Mayoral election

Bristol’s first Elected Mayor (and the city’s first Police Crime Commissioner) will be chosen this November using a voting system called the supplementary vote (though I suspect many Bristol voters are as yet unaware of this due to the very poor level and quality of information that’s been made available). This system means you have votes to cast for two candidates ie you can choose first and second preferences. At the count the electoral authorities start by totaling all the first preference votes. Any candidate achieving over 50% wins, though with many candidates standing – including all the political parties plus independents - this is unlikely to happen. If no-one gets 50% the authorities eliminate all but the top two candidates, and in a second round redistribute all the votes for everybody else by the second preference on the ballot paper.

This means you can vote for your absolute first preference without worrying about wasting your vote because you know they can’t win this time. You have your second preference vote to cast for whichever of the likely top two candidates you least object to being mayor or don’t mind them giving them a go. In Bristol the top two look like being independent candidate George Ferguson and the Labour Party’s Marvin Rees, at least for the present (you could vote for someone else as a second preference or not cast your second vote at all, but then would not affect the result at all).

Here’s the Electoral reform Society guide to the supplementary voting system: http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/supplementary-vote/

Eco-Bristol?

Bristol will continue with its 'green' plans even though it suffered a Green Capital loss (see story here). One commenter on the story (YourLakeshore)  said "...it is great news that Bristol came 2nd in the whole of Europe - particularly as it had tough competition and Bristol has made it to the final twice. It also presents Bristol as being the green city of the UK..."

If Bristol is the green city of the UK why then is its ecological footprint only 17th best out of 60 in the country (see ranking and figures here)? Why is Bristol's ecological footprint set to rise with new road building, loss of green spaces, increase in population...? Doesn't there need to be a committment to cut this footprint significantly if Bristol is to be credible in its green claims? It is after all 2.9 times bigger than a sustainable level!

Also, its not really about being in competition with every other city in the 'whole of Europe' but only about competing against those who entered - and on criteria still a very long way from genuinely sustainable cities.

Decision before evidence?

Bristol City Council rejected the chance to build a tram system despite figures showing it would be cheaper than the proposed new Bus Rapid Transit link, it has been claimed....Sustraco claimed that Mr Kent [Bristol City Council Cabinet Member for Transport, pictured left] announced at the end of the meeting that the council had already decided "before the meeting" that the bus option would be chosen. On returning from the meeting, Sustraco officials said they found they had been sent e-mails with a 34-page report attached. The report, which Sustraco said was written before the meeting, detailed the decision without considering evidence submitted in the meeting...(full story here)

Only one conclusion can be drawn from this, if what Sustraco say is true. Tim Kent and the Lib Dem Cabinet running Bristol made a decision involving many millions of pounds without considering the all the evidence. Kent met with Sustraco knowing that holding the meeting was pointless given that decisions had already been made! Unless Sustraco's description is shown to be wayward, this is irrational, unreasonable and deceptive behaviour whatever the merits or not of light rail vs BRT.

Carbon Centre

At last! More serious attention is being given to the accurate measurement of carbon emissions. One might well ask why it's taken so long when our society has been committed  since the late 1980s - in words at least - to sustainable development. Sustainable carbon emissions are the number one performance measure within sustainable development...

A new UK facility aimed at improving measurement of carbon emissions and boosting development of clean technology is due to open. The Centre for Carbon Measurement will be based at the National Physical Laboratory in south-west London. It will raise accuracy of climate data, support better emissions monitoring to ensure a fair carbon market, and verify claims made about low-carbon products...more

Rubbish reporting

What are the journalists at the Evening Post on? There are no details at all to tell readers of this story why the animal rights people were protesting at Bristol Airport. Nothing on which animal rights group(s), of which there are several, including some very different outlooks and methods. Whatever the rights and wrongs of 'animal rights' and the tactics that have been used I'd like to know why exactly the protest occurred.

To make matters confusing the Post additionally reports - under the same headline - what seems to be an entirely unconnected protest in any entirely different place that had absolutely nothing to do with animal rights! The Youth Fight for Jobs story should have been given its own headline if they felt it was worthy of reporting.

Confusion or clarity?

The town green/new Bristol City football stadium in the green belt saga goes on. The latest Evening Post headline says that confusion reigns but the judge '...told the assembled legal teams that he was “minded” to approve the application for judicial review...The judge said he had fresh evidence that he wished to consider.'. This is clear not confusing. The judge is going to mull over some new evidence and deliberate just a bit more. Some journalists are 'easily confused' it seems!!

Hype and humbug

'Work has begun to restore College Green to its pre-Occupy Bristol glory...' says the Post. Now I like my green spaces and have a history of being more than prepared to argue for the benefits they bring, but glory? The glory of the grass on College Green? Massive exaggeration. Over the top bull.

Using the word glory would indicate a highly praiseworthy asset, worthy of adoration because of its majestic beauty and splendour. This is College Green, a formerly pleasant grassy area with a few trees and views of interesting buildings - not the Amazon Rainforest, the Serengeti National Park or the Himalayan mountain system!!

Talking temperatures

What a load of rubbish in this Bristol Evening Post story! The temperature on a single day in a Bristol WINTER compared with the temperature on a single day in the Antarctic SUMMER (Bristol will be cold as the South Pole tonight - snow forecast for the weekend). Such a lack of care over fair comparison. What would the Post be like with setting a complex set of temperature data in its proper context?

Why not instead give some figures for past extreme high and extreme low temperatures along with the average high and low here in Bristol at this time of year? Record Feb high at Long Ashton +18.3 C, record low in Long Ashton -9.7 C (1959-2002), average high 7.7 C, average low 1.8 C (assuming the table of data here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristol  is accurate and reliable). Compared to these averages it is going to be quite a bit colder tonight if we get the - 6 C forecast. Temperatures will vary according to where you are in Bristol, with the outskirts generally a bit colder than further into the city due to the urban heat island effect.

Sound science?

On badgers the Government and the National Farmers Union state that the scientific evidence backs culling. The Humane Society, The Wildlife Trusts and the Mammal Society amongst others dont think the evidence is there to support a cull. The contrast in views of the scientific evidence is pretty stark eg Environment Secretary Caroline Spelman saying 'We can't escape the fact that the evidence supports the case..' whilst Mark Jones, of Humane Society International UK refers to 'compelling scientific evidence that it will be ineffective...'. See http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16183926. If there are likely to be 'no end of difficulties', as PM David Cameron said on Countryfile last weekend, is the policy of culling trials a good one?

Why the differences in assessing the science? When can we and do we trust science and scientists? Here's my screencast on some questions to ask on this topic:


  

Happiness humbug?

This ('Bristol is 'not a happy city' says poll') is really badly reported, though the issue is an interesting one. If 1 in 5 say they are not happy that leaves 4 in 5 that said something else...from neither happy nor not happy through happy to very happy one assumes. So, how is the Post headline justified? We have a few more people in one national survey who said they are not happy, compared the average - but that's not the same as 'not a happy city'. We need more information!


There's also the issue that this is only a snapshot - and is a self-assessment. Don't levels of happiness go up and down somewhat? What is happiness in any case and over what timescale are we talking? And how are happiness levels best assessed?

The story also mixes up happiness and contentment. The two are not the same. Being content is being satisfied, accepting and having desires that are reasonably restrained. Happiness is thought of as being pleased, feeling gladness or joy, though maybe its not so straightforward as this. For more sense than this article and to explore wellbeing as opposed to just happiness and contentment I'd read Martin Seligman's book 'Flourish'.

Seligman interviewed on newsnight http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-Vhjmdp4nI&feature=related

Council Consultation Codswallop

Excellent letter from Anne Lemon Secretary of the Bristol & District Anti-Cuts Alliance here. Reproduced below,

BRISTOL City Council's process of scrutiny and consultation on the budget cuts proposed for 2012/13 is a sham. Discussions are taking place based on the absolute minimum of information that the Lib Dems think they can get away with publishing.

Unless there is a major fightback the budget, which includes the expected savings from closing and privatising care homes and day centres, will be agreed on February 28. But the details of the closures/privatisation and the impact on users and the community won't be announced until mid-March. You can already hear Barbara Janke and Jon Rogers telling us "It was agreed in the budget" if anyone suggests the facilities should stay open. Similarly over £1 million is to be saved by privatising Youth Services, yet no detailed proposals are available.

Either the detailed proposals on these important services must be published now, or the closure/privatisation policies should be removed from the budget. Any attempt by the council to approve the policies as part of the budget without being prepared to discuss the details in public is nothing less than underhand.

Planet, people, problem

Bit of discussion on population between me and rocketbob here following some letter about countryside protection from development. Here's my most substantial contribution:

Yes rocketbob population is a very sensitive issue in many ways, as you say for religion and racism, to name just two. All the more reason for wide-ranging, inclusive debate before any changes are decided on. It wont be easy. I would propose we aim for optimum population by reason, information, education and any changes we can establish a reasonable consensus on. This has the advantage of breaking the taboo on this debate and being less controversial but the disadvantage of perhaps not being enough to achieve meaningful change fast enough. Its better than no action at all and allowing problems to build such that we are forced into draconian action by events. The point is on a finite planet and in a finite city resources available are limited and so there are limits to population size and growth rate whether we like to acknowledge them, as you do, or not.

Dont take my word for it. In Sir David Attenborough’s view, there is no major problem facing our planet that would not be easier to solve if there were fewer people and no problem that does not become harder — and ultimately impossible to solve — with ever more. We must find agreed ways to achieve optimum population in cities, countries and around the globe and especially those with already high populations, those with intense impacts and those with very rapidly growing population and impact intensity. See: http://populationmatters.org/

______________________________________________________

*We [Bristol] have a population of about 441,300 - the largest city in the South West.

*Bristol's population is expected to reach 559,600 people by 2028

*http://www.bristol.gov.uk/node/4169

*World population reached an estimated 7, 000, 000, 000 ie 7 billion last month.

*http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-15391515

*2 extra people every second, that is 200,000 each day or nearly 80,000,000 per year is human population growth on this planet - all needing food, water, warmth, shelter and aspiring to have good choices and a decent life.

Five a day

Very informative feature on the BBC website showing that on average from 1999 to 2010 five people were killed on the roads every day (see map of road deaths in the Bristol area for this period - click to enlarge). The time lapse maps are really striking.

Britain has one of the best records in the world for road casualties. However, hundreds [more like thousands] still die on the roads every year. In 2010, the police recorded 1,850 deaths, 22,660 people seriously injured and 184,138 who received light injuries.

About this data:

Using official data recorded by police in Great Britain between 1999 and 2010, we have plotted every road collision in which someone died. In all, 36,371 fatalities are marked on this interactive map [click link to BBC site bottom of this post]. You will also find partial data for Northern Ireland, for 2004-2009.

Detailed information about each crash is recorded by the police at the scene. It is subsequently transferred onto a computer database. This is available to researchers from the Economic and Social Data Service. As with any large collection of data, there will be errors and omissions that occur in this process and some of these will be found in this map. The BBC apologises for any distress or offence that may be caused by the inclusion of these errors.

If you find any errors, please use the feedback form below and let us know. We will endeavour to correct them where possible.

Feedback: Road casualties feature

Answers to some of your frequently asked questions are here.

BBC News - Every death on every road in Great Britain 1999-2010