General Conclusions
Submitted by admin on April 4, 2006 - 02:15.
6. GENERAL CONCLUSIONS:
The mindset and ramifications for future energy strategies
6.1. An inevitable question asked at conferences is, “Wouldn’t all this sort of stuff be better done through the Building Regs and shouldn’t central Government take the lead in sorting the problem out.” The clear answer to this is no – localization is the future - for four main reasons!
First: there is an age old planning profession adage along the lines of – the building regs are there to guide the wise and control the stupid, but planning is the art of the possible. Put in this context, the BRs will only ever deliver a minimum standard, but subtle planning at a local level can achieve so much more.
Second: Initiatives like the 10%(+) policy create pride and recognition at a local level. Combating climate change has to be a collective commitment and the “establishment” will not be able to do it for people. We have a responsibility to ensure that people understand why and how we are trying to combat the threat - and a local 10% policy is a good way of doing this, because by nature people often respond more positively to local initiatives rather than national ones (this is simply because it makes them feel they have some active ownership of an idea rather than passively having something foisted on them from outside). General George C Marshall, the US Chief of Staff during WWII, encapsulated the need for societal collaboration when faced with the problem of mobilizing an entire nation for war, when he said, “To mobilize we must develop a technique and methods so simple that the citizen of good common sense can readily grasp the idea.”
Third: It fosters healthy competition between boroughs. There are already examples of boroughs exploring the possibility of raising the percentage target or lowering the thresholds in a creditable desire to be green pioneers. Croydon, North Devon and Calderdale can already make claim to this.
Fourth – and perhaps most importantly: It preserves initiative, innovation and imagination and at a local level. It is local ideas that are pushing the sustainable frontier and not the centre. The new frontiers can’t be explored from behind a Government policy desk!
6.2. All the most innovative advances in combating climate change have come from what could be described as the “local” level. Like the Merton 10% policy, the Woking district heat and power scheme was an initiative of local Council officers and not people sitting in some central Government department. They are officers who get hold of an idea like a dog gets hold of a bone – and have been given the freedom and support to explore possibilities and push out into the frontier – and in so doing will occasionally unsettle the sensibilities of the “establishment” by testing the limits of what might be considered legal or generally acceptable.
Private enterprises like Solar Century or Good Energy were set up by individuals or were offshoots of specialist energy companies. They do not owe their existence to the “centre”. No Government Department told Bill Dunster to design BedZED, or David Somervell to put all Edinburgh University’s buildings on a CHP tri-generation network – they were their ideas and their visions. And the future visions keep coming through such things as the development of new urban wind turbines like the Windsave, Swift and the vertical axis Quiet Revolution. And of course through companies like B&Q who in the case of the Merton 10% policy, sense the future.
It is about the decentralization not just of energy generation and distribution, but decentralization of the mindset. Localization will always provide the best incubator for new and radical ideas. The “centre” should be constantly alert to the new and its role should be to consider how it can be replicated and what the ramifications for the future might be.
6.4. The energy future
To understand what the future energy profile of the country is going to be then one has to understand what the key drivers will be. These key drivers will not be central government strategies, amorphous targets or grand policy initiatives, but will come from the blunt micro-economic realities of what Joe and Joanne Public dictate. In years to come the energy that people will want will be the cheapest energy, and that will be the energy that they have some sort of ownership of. The reason why they will want ownership is because it will be the best way of protecting themselves from future energy price rises. By 2015 it is certain that B&Q and other suppliers will have installed a wide range of renewables on houses all over the country. The average house could very likely have a mix of solar thermal, micro-turbines and micro-chp - with any extra energy needed being bought in from the local district heat and power network. It’s also worth bearing in mind that there were 5 million homes built in the UK (mostly in the SE) between 1925 and 1939, and by 2015 most of their roofs will need replacing – and this will present major opportunities for the solar PV tile industry.
This local and personal level vision of an energy future reflects a key aspect of human nature, that of ownership. For better or worse, people want ownership of their homes, transport, communications and access to information, and as such will invariably want it over their energy as well. The answer to the UK’s future energy needs may be found amongst humble local government, innovative and forward looking firms, and residents simply wanting to insulate themselves from the remorseless rise in fossil fuel energy prices.
Whether this general premise impacts on the nuclear debate is open for discussion..!!
6.5. In conclusion - as far as the 10%(+) policy is concerned it is an elegantly simple thing that local authorities can do to play a part in actively combating climate change. It has the added bonus of not costing them nor the Government any money. By being a prescriptive policy it forces developers and house-builders to invest in energy efficient design, new technologies and their own modus operandi. It is an investment that they, and the country, will ultimately benefit from at a macro level. It will help deal with fuel poverty (an issue exacerbated by the twin evils of remorselessly rising fossil fuel bills and pension provision shortfalls), it will make business and industry more competitive, and will, of course, play a part in combating climate change.
The mindset and ramifications for future energy strategies
6.1. An inevitable question asked at conferences is, “Wouldn’t all this sort of stuff be better done through the Building Regs and shouldn’t central Government take the lead in sorting the problem out.” The clear answer to this is no – localization is the future - for four main reasons!
First: there is an age old planning profession adage along the lines of – the building regs are there to guide the wise and control the stupid, but planning is the art of the possible. Put in this context, the BRs will only ever deliver a minimum standard, but subtle planning at a local level can achieve so much more.
Second: Initiatives like the 10%(+) policy create pride and recognition at a local level. Combating climate change has to be a collective commitment and the “establishment” will not be able to do it for people. We have a responsibility to ensure that people understand why and how we are trying to combat the threat - and a local 10% policy is a good way of doing this, because by nature people often respond more positively to local initiatives rather than national ones (this is simply because it makes them feel they have some active ownership of an idea rather than passively having something foisted on them from outside). General George C Marshall, the US Chief of Staff during WWII, encapsulated the need for societal collaboration when faced with the problem of mobilizing an entire nation for war, when he said, “To mobilize we must develop a technique and methods so simple that the citizen of good common sense can readily grasp the idea.”
Third: It fosters healthy competition between boroughs. There are already examples of boroughs exploring the possibility of raising the percentage target or lowering the thresholds in a creditable desire to be green pioneers. Croydon, North Devon and Calderdale can already make claim to this.
Fourth – and perhaps most importantly: It preserves initiative, innovation and imagination and at a local level. It is local ideas that are pushing the sustainable frontier and not the centre. The new frontiers can’t be explored from behind a Government policy desk!
6.2. All the most innovative advances in combating climate change have come from what could be described as the “local” level. Like the Merton 10% policy, the Woking district heat and power scheme was an initiative of local Council officers and not people sitting in some central Government department. They are officers who get hold of an idea like a dog gets hold of a bone – and have been given the freedom and support to explore possibilities and push out into the frontier – and in so doing will occasionally unsettle the sensibilities of the “establishment” by testing the limits of what might be considered legal or generally acceptable.
Private enterprises like Solar Century or Good Energy were set up by individuals or were offshoots of specialist energy companies. They do not owe their existence to the “centre”. No Government Department told Bill Dunster to design BedZED, or David Somervell to put all Edinburgh University’s buildings on a CHP tri-generation network – they were their ideas and their visions. And the future visions keep coming through such things as the development of new urban wind turbines like the Windsave, Swift and the vertical axis Quiet Revolution. And of course through companies like B&Q who in the case of the Merton 10% policy, sense the future.
It is about the decentralization not just of energy generation and distribution, but decentralization of the mindset. Localization will always provide the best incubator for new and radical ideas. The “centre” should be constantly alert to the new and its role should be to consider how it can be replicated and what the ramifications for the future might be.
6.4. The energy future
To understand what the future energy profile of the country is going to be then one has to understand what the key drivers will be. These key drivers will not be central government strategies, amorphous targets or grand policy initiatives, but will come from the blunt micro-economic realities of what Joe and Joanne Public dictate. In years to come the energy that people will want will be the cheapest energy, and that will be the energy that they have some sort of ownership of. The reason why they will want ownership is because it will be the best way of protecting themselves from future energy price rises. By 2015 it is certain that B&Q and other suppliers will have installed a wide range of renewables on houses all over the country. The average house could very likely have a mix of solar thermal, micro-turbines and micro-chp - with any extra energy needed being bought in from the local district heat and power network. It’s also worth bearing in mind that there were 5 million homes built in the UK (mostly in the SE) between 1925 and 1939, and by 2015 most of their roofs will need replacing – and this will present major opportunities for the solar PV tile industry.
This local and personal level vision of an energy future reflects a key aspect of human nature, that of ownership. For better or worse, people want ownership of their homes, transport, communications and access to information, and as such will invariably want it over their energy as well. The answer to the UK’s future energy needs may be found amongst humble local government, innovative and forward looking firms, and residents simply wanting to insulate themselves from the remorseless rise in fossil fuel energy prices.
Whether this general premise impacts on the nuclear debate is open for discussion..!!
6.5. In conclusion - as far as the 10%(+) policy is concerned it is an elegantly simple thing that local authorities can do to play a part in actively combating climate change. It has the added bonus of not costing them nor the Government any money. By being a prescriptive policy it forces developers and house-builders to invest in energy efficient design, new technologies and their own modus operandi. It is an investment that they, and the country, will ultimately benefit from at a macro level. It will help deal with fuel poverty (an issue exacerbated by the twin evils of remorselessly rising fossil fuel bills and pension provision shortfalls), it will make business and industry more competitive, and will, of course, play a part in combating climate change.
