Why I'd turn off the lights

Went to a talk about Dublin city energy last night, given by sustainability engineer Joe Hayden of Codema as part of the city library science week programme.

I'd heard about Codema before (City of Dublin Energy Management Agency), but hadn't realised the company was set up by Dublin City Council, and that there were some 15 other similar companies, set up by local authorities around the country.

Joe Hayden gave an interesting presentation about Ireland's energy use and our dependence on imported fossil fuels: 90% of our electricity, for instance, is generated from imported oil, gas and coal. As a result, Joe argued that 'peak oil' has major implications for Ireland, and arguably of more immediate importance than climate change. Especially as Ireland is the last customer at the end of a very long oil and gas pipeline, making our supplies increasingly vulnerable.

Dublin city spends (if took Joe's figure down right), €20,000,000 a year on energy alone. But an estimated 20% of all our energy use in Ireland is 'wasted'. That's a lot of money, and it doesn't include the money and fuel 'wasted' or lost, because of the inefficiencies involved in converting oil and gas to electricity, and the inevitable losses that happen when electricity is piped down the National Grid.

So, it was reassuring to see the ILAC library staff turning off all the PCs and lights as we left. Even if, 200 metres away on O'Connell Street, Dublin's new Christmas lights tree was left burning night.

It's made of very low energy LEDs -- cheaper and even more energy-efficient than the compact fluorescent lights being championed by the Minister for the environment. But that's another story.

Image: from http://www.dublinblog.ie/

What to do with recycled materials?

There must be something we can do with all the recycled materials now piling up in the country?

A dramatic drop in the prices paid on international markets means that Irish waste companies have rather a lot of material which they are currently storing, presumably with more arriving every day.

(Image: enviro-solutions.com)

The cost of storing all this waste presumably means that companies will need an even better price if they are to recover their costs. Hence the suggestion that waste collection charges would have to go up.

But surely, since these are useful materials, there is something creative we can do with them? Some new businesses that could be started?

Suggestions on a postcard please to the Environment Minister's new action group, which has been given until mid-November to come up with some options.

What's green, and earning money?

Expect to hear more about the Danish island of Samsø which, thanks to a massive community effort over the past decade, is now self-sufficient in renewable energy.

The 4,000 inhabitants spent €54 million (raised in local taxes and investment), to install nearly a dozen wind turbines on land, and the same again offshore, plus banks of solar panels, and some biomass generators.

The scheme has been so successful it is selling electricity to the mainland and generating an income for the locals -- albeit about €68 per household a year.

Shows what can be done. Looks pretty idyllic too -- we predict a boom in ecotourism there.

Do you count your carbon?

If you knew a product's carbon footprint, would it influence what you buy? Could carbon-labelling help reduce a country's greenhouse gas emissions?

Tesco and other British high street multiples are introducing carbon labelling on selected products, and the Japanese government recently announced something similar.

But, I'm not convinced that this carbon labelling will work.

First, counting carbon (and the other greenhouse gases) isn't easy: accurate calculations are difficult to come by, and specific to each context (change what you feed the chickens on a particular farm, and the carbon count for the supermarket chicken korma dinner changes dramatically). Then, there is the problem of what to include -- only carbon? Other greenhouse gases? And how do we take account of the 'virtual water' contained in products?

Food product labels are already littered with data (calories, 'nutritional' information, and 'may contain nuts' allergy warnings . . .) and at a time when shoppers are probably most interested in what something costs.

Printing calorie information on food products hasn't exactly stemmed the rise in obesity. And if we can't as a nation manage a lo-cal diet, what chance for a lo-CO2 one? Meanwhile, Tesco has just announced a big drive to introduce yet more cheap ranges of low-cost products. Guess we can say goodbye to the organic aisle.

Hotel towels and 'green wash'

Hotels worldwide have cottoned onto the benefits of not changing guest towels every day. Usually, there is a sign inviting us to join them in doing our bit to help the environment.

But are they really helping the environment? Or hoping to save money on their laundry bills?

I've been pondering this since reading about how hotels can make their 'towel reuse signs' more effective by wording them carefully. You can read about the study in the enjoyable and generally thought-provoking book Yes! 50 secrets from the science of persuasion.

Sure, less laundry is 'a good thing' -- it translates into less water wasted, less energy and detergents used, and less linen trucked around the place. But let's have a little honesty here.

I have yet to see a hotel announce that, thanks to guests reusing their towels, the company saved €xxx on its laundry bill last year, which it donated to a named environmental charity*, and with your help they'll save, or 'raise', even more this year.

Now, that's a wording that would really convince me not just to reuse my towels -- but even bring my own.

*With the receipt displayed proudly in the hotel lobby

How many people are there in the world?

6,681,394,380 . . . and counting . . . rather fast.

Today, July 11, is World Population Day, inaugurated in 1988 by the United Nations to mark the day when the world's population hit five billion, July 11, 1987.

The counter is at www.worldometers.info, where we learn that the absolute growth in population today (at the time of writing) is 135,468. Watching all the numbers spin around can be mesmerising. And worrying.

Some of the counters clock up slowly -- the number of women who died in childbirth, for instance, although that depressing total is already over 330,000. Reassuring, on the other hand, if we can believe the statistics, that world expenditure on education is nearly twice military expenditure.

Other eye-catching comparisons: as a committed city cyclist, it's nice to see that twice as many bicycles have been produced as cars this year, although I'm intrigued to see that there are three times as many computers as bicycles.

And can there really be nearly half a million new book titles so far this year? (Enough to humble any author who will soon be adding to the pile!)

What to call the new book?

Since I'm hoping you might buy the book when it comes out in the autumn (!), I'd value your comments on possible titles (see shortlist below).

Whatever about judging a book by its cover, a good title certainly helps. In the four years or so since I had the idea for a book of tips on sustainable living -- subtitle: '101 ways to save money, time and some of the planet's other scarce resources' -- it's gone through several working titles. The current shortlist includes:

Drive like a woman, shop like a man
Swedish researchers found recently that women travel and drive less than men, and men buy fewer things than women. Currently my personal favourite working title -- but don't let that influence your comment!

Borrow this book
Can't see the publisher and booksellers liking this one!

Live like granny
May be a bit too 'sandals and lentils', and harking back to the bad old days?

Do things by halves

Live life unplugged
But already commonly used e.g. for blogs

Lights on, and nobody home?
Too widely used to mean somebody is not all there?

Still, sparkling . . . or sustainable?
Not sure that a question works in the title

Shop naked
Hmm. What people would find if they Googled for Mary Mulvihill + naked?!

But what do you think -- do any of these catch your book-buying eye? Make you want to read more?? Comments (just click below) welcome.

What price cheaper food?

What would you do to bring down the cost of food?

Rising food prices are a worry for many, but for impoverished people living close to the edge, more expensive food could mean starvation.

Writing in New Scientist, Deborah MacKenzie argues that one of the main factors driving recent price hikes is the growing demand for meat among increasingly prosperous people in developing countries. (Other factors include demand for biofuels and the fact that food production has not kept pace with population growth.)

The options? New Scientist argues that the answer is government-funded science to increase yields, and infrastructure to get the resulting technologies to farmers, even though that can take 15-20 years to happen.

Now don't get me wrong -- I'm a meat-eating, former agricultural research scientist . . . but surely it would be much quicker, cheaper and simpler if people were encouraged to eat less meat? I, for one, am happy to start today. What about you?

Misleading energy ratings

Buy A-rated electrical appliances, we are told, because they are more energy-efficient.

Not so, says Brendan Boardman of the UK’s Environmental Change Institute, writing in the latest edition of Chemistry & Industry magazine. It seems that it is easier for larger devices to achieve an A-rating, even though they consume more electricity on average than smaller ones. The problem arises because energy levels are calculated on relative values (kWh/litre).

The net result is that manufacturers make ever bigger appliances, and consumers are encouraged to buy them.

Moral of the story? Remember that every appliance has two price tags: the purchase price, and the price you will pay for all the energy it will consume during its lifetime. And an A-rated appliance is not necessarily the best buy, financially or environmentally. Caveat emptor.

Electricity use and prices soars

Bad news but also some good news in yesterday's report from Sustainable Energy Ireland on our soaring electricity use, and the ESB's application for a 30% increase in the price of electricity.

First the bad news. There are nearly 1.5 million households in Ireland now (up 43% since 1990); our homes are larger on average than elsewhere in the EU, and thanks to the boom years of the Celtic Tiger, packed with power-hungry appliances such as American fridges and large-screen plasma TVs, and constellations of recessed lights. We are also heating our homes more than before -- a toasty 6° warmer than in 1970, if UK trends also hold here.

The net result is that Irish people are now using 62% more electricity per person than in 1990; which is a staggering 27% more than our British counterparts, and over 30% more than the EU average. We are a small country, but clearly punching way above our weight when it comes to consumption and emissions.

The good news? Well, if British households can survive on significantly less electricity, then there may be hope for us. And while no one likes to see electricity bills rise by 30% -- especially with 10% of households already experiencing 'fuel poverty' -- a price hike might prompt us all to economise. More effective at reducing consumption than the government's promised ban on incandescent lightbulbs. Maybe we could start by turning the thermostat down 6° -- back to 1970?!