Climate Change Quackery

I agree we should be taking the problem of climate change seriously - based on the risks suggested (if not proved) by the scientific evidence, supported by the much greater certainty of problems with the security of our energy supplies when we have so much reliance on fossil fuels from unstable political environments.

But the problem should be given a bit of perspective - it is one of a number of potential threats to our continued existence on the planet (at anything like current population levels), and when allocating resources careful consideration needs to be given to the balance between the mostly certain cost of taking a preventative measure, the possible effects of not taking a preventative action, and the likely costs of mitigating these potential consequences if they do come about.

Cambridge City Council spends hundreds of thousands of pounds of taxpayers money each year on 'the climate change agenda', including a dedicated 'climate change' officer. Where this work is targetting investment that will reduce the energy costs of running the Council, and there will be cost savings going forwards, then great. Trouble is, I fear a lot of the money being spent in this area is more about being seen to do something, than a considered pragmatic response to the problem.

These fears have been heightened by an email received this week, inviting me to a workshop on the topic 'decarbonising Cambridge':

"The Decarbonising Cambridge study is being undertaken by energy consultants and town planning experts on behalf of the City Council. The study will provide part of the evidence base from which the City Council will develop policies aimed at controlling carbon emissions from new developments and increasing the level of local renewable energy supply. These policies will form part of the emerging Local Development Framework, the key set of documents that will influence the shape of Cambridge’s future growth."

Excuse me - 'decarbonising Cambridge' - who dreams up this quackery - if the City Council is really trying to remove all the carbon from Cambridge, we are all in real trouble.

Yes, local government can play a role in energy efficiency, supporting renewable energy production or lower energy lifestyles through the planning system, but the biggest way of persuading individuals that a low energy approach is a good idea is for such measures to unequivocally save them money.

As sensible as measures like low energy lightbulbs and energy efficient buildings might be, if the climate change threat is real, self-flagellation by the chattering classes, coupled with policies that could cripple economic development and therefore have a disproportionately damaging effect on the less well off (people and countries) aren't the answer.

The best responses to the climate change threat are going to involve technological revolutions in the generation, transmission and storage of renewable energy - and it is unlikely that these changes will require local or even national self-sufficiency in renewable energy production.

If the measures local authorities take now, particularly in the knowledge based powerhouse that is Cambridge, succeed in crippling economic development and consequently delay technological progress, to say they might be counterproductive would be an understatement.

Climate Change starts at the Guildhall

I visited the Guildhall just before Christmas to check out a local planning application. My abiding memory of the visit however was that the whole building appeared to be stifflingly hot.

I wrote to the building manager, who explained it was down to problems with the heating controls adjusting after a power surge. I don't think this is good enough - it must be possible to avoid wasting energy in this way.

The Liberal democrats like to talk the talk on climate change, with all the fervour of a true believer. The Council employs at great expense a 'climate change officer', and has huge budgets it spends on telling us we are all doomed, and making people feel guilty about their own behaviour.

Meanwhile, on one of the coldest days of the year, the heating in the Guildhall was swelteringly hot, and staff were busy trying to open windows to cool down. As ever with Lib Dems, its more important to be seen to be doing something, than actually fixing problems.

I think we do need to take some serious steps to tackle the risk of global warming and energy security (which is somewhat different to signing up to every conceivable suggestions from the latest doomsday cult on the subject). Most likely solutions are going to involve major changes in the production, storage and transmission of energy, many requiring technological breakthroughs - very little of which Cambridge City Council can do anything about (short of fixing its planning policies so Cambridge can continue to be a world leader in technology development).

When it comes to what individuals (and local authorities) can do - I suggest the best approach is to highlight the costs of being profligate with energy - the only thing that will make sufficient people change behaviour is if reducing Co2 production is a significant money saver. Which brings me to the real sense of outrage about the Guildhall being swelteringly hot - it is Council tax payers paying for all that waste.

Conservative run Windsor and Maidenhead Council has not only installed smart metering in Council properties, but the usage is available online - allowing residents to check all the time if their Council is wasting energy, and encouraging them to keep bills low.

Why can't Cambridge City Council be more enlightened about climate change, and focus on saving money not on climate change ideology.

Saving the planet - or just costing the taxpayer?

At last nights Strategy Scrutiny committee that I am a member of, the great City Council property sale continued. It was agreed to sell the former Yasume club premises on Auckland road on the open market, which will mean the substantial proceeds will be spent on other capital projects around the City, which is fair enough.

It was also agreed to dispose of 1-36 Simons House, and 18-25 Rackhams Close, Cambridge to Flagship Housing Group, on a long lease. The terms are confidential due to the negotiations required with the other parties involved, (not to mention pretty incomprehensible to work out the precise economic effect on each party, having read the confidential report) but the proposal does involve demolishing existing buildings including bungalows, and incurring significant construction costs on new buildings with very high energy efficiency ratings.

Great - I'm all for taking steps to reduce total carbon dioxide production, the problem is that it was impossible for Councillors to work out exactly how much carbon dioxide would be saved - or indeed if any at all would be saved, as there is no analysis of the carbon dioxide cost of refurbishment compared to rebuilding, or of the annual carbon dioxide savings. As such, we have no way of knowing if we are getting good value for the huge additional costs of creating a zero-carbon or near zero-carbon buildings (whatever that means), or indeed if there are any carbon dioxide reductions at all in the short term.

It is far from clear that the information given to Councillors when making these disposal decisions is sufficient to ensure we can scrutinise that Council tax payers are getting the best deal. I have an action plan that I will be trying to get the Council to adopt to protect the Council tax payer better:

When the Council disposes of a property at below its open market value in order to meet other policy objectives, any reduction in value should be scrutinised as would any other council spending, the cost of meeting each policy objective should be separately considered, to determine if we could get better value in a different way.

To be specific, when we are spending any money on 'climate change agenda' projects, especially meeting low carbon building standards, the proposals should be accompanied by an estimate of the carbon dioxide saved, over what timescales and at what cost. All carbon dioxide production is the same in terms of climate change damage, it is pointless spending a fortune on high profile projects so we can claim to be saving the planet, if much more effect could be achieved on less glamorous measures like insulating existing properties.

Finally, I think the Council should prepare a list of property it owns, along with most recent estimated market value, rents received and carbon dioxide usage per square metre, for annual review by Councillors on the strategy committee. We could then scrutinise that the Council is obtaining the best rents possible, or if accepting lower rents, we are happy with the reasons why. Such a list may also prompt suggestions for more innovative redevelopments of underused sites, and finally, we can make sure spending on climate change is directed at the most inefficient buildings in the most cost effective way.

As a footnote, the third disposal decision was pulled at the last minute as it became clear there had been insufficient consultation with both ward Councillors and Community services about the effect of losing community use of the buildings. There does seem to be a gulf between the Council's aspiration to engage interested parties when making decisions, and the reality. The Lib Dem Executive Councillor made a revealing comment when discussing another agenda item: 'The Council is seen as authoritarian entity... [by businesses, colleges etc] ...that doesn’t necessarily listen to what people are saying.' You don't say!