SprintBio - Distibutors of environmentally friendly boilers, burners and heat pumps

There are some pretty contradictory measures coming out of Westminster these days. Just as it looks as if the Transport Secretary, Geoff Hoon, is to announce the forthcoming expansion of Heathrow’s runway capacity (which will see annnual flight numbers jump from around 480,000 to over 700,000), we are also learning that the government last night moved to tighten its commitment to meeting an 80% cut in CO2 emissions by 2050.

I am beginning to wonder if there is any communication within different government departments at all these days, or if everyone is blindly running around trying to meet individual centrally imposed targets, without much regard for long term consequences…

It seems pretty clear that something will have to give here. It is blindingly obvious that such reckless airport expansion will be yet another jigsaw piece in the bigger environmental catastrophe, no matter how much more efficient planes get (I strongly doubt that using a lighter paint on the outer shell of a jet will offset damage of the extra 220,000+ flights).

Geoff Hoon is talking about congestion and economics as the two justifications for the expansion plans, conveniently forgetting that both are only short-term arguments while the environmental ramifications of the decision will have far more long-lasting consequences.

Yes Heathrow is congested - and yes the expansion will greatly improve the passenger experience of using the airport. Except we are forgetting that we should be finding ways to discourage flying and working towards a reduction in the industry’s carbon footprint so that we can avoid ruining the planet, in case Geoff doesn’t remember. I don’t think saving 30 mins in a security queue when flying on holiday to the Canaries outweighs worsening the risk of environmental catastrophe…

But it’s not all about convenience says Geoff; the expansion will help attract more industry and create new jobs, which ultimately is the most important thing in these times of economic crisis and it is this that is the most overwhelming factor in the decision. Except that again such gains will be only short-lived as the inherent unsustainability of attracting industry dependent on such infrastucture will later become evident. What happens when we really, really have to face up to the environmental consequences? (i.e. when even short term economics will not be an adequate counter-argument).

It seems to me the logic of Hoon’s thinking is basically to bury our heads further into the sand on the issue of climate change - because other matters seem more pressing today. I am not criticising Hoon for wanting and finding ways to create jobs or boost the country’s infrastucture; my only complaint is the laziness and inherent short-sightedness of the solution he is currently in the process of approving. Not to mention the fact that the move is akin to political suicide when public opinion strongly opposes the expansion - but that is merely his, and Labour’s, loss (the Conservatives are opposed to the plans and look set to reap the electoral rewards for this in the next general election).

In the current economic situation the argument of economy over environment is mightily attractive to many, and indeed a government which appeared to be more concerned with the latter would probably not stand much chance in the next general election. But the point is that we have arrived in this economic mess because we made stupid, short-term decisions for a quick gain. Surely we are not about to see yet another such move with regard to Heathrow? The lesson is that sustainable development and growth is the only way out. If it takes a little longer than the quick-fix then so be it; most people would rather this than face such a crisis again in 10 years (or probably even sooner). In short, pretending climate change isn’t as big an issue as the economy, or even continuing to see the two as unconnected, is not only foolish but also downright reckless.

Dejan Levi

NB To find out more about the campaign against Heathrow expansion visit the ‘NO campaign’ website at www.stopheathrowexpansion.com/

Last week UK Coal announced a forthcoming joint venture with Peel Energy which will see 14 former colliery sites owned by the company used to erect 54 wind turbines, generating up to 133 megawatts of electricity per hour (enough to power 80,000 homes). Unsurprisingly UK Coal shares jumped 10% in response to the news - leaving me wondering why more energy companies aren’t applying similar tactics to beat the recession?

The fact of the matter is that by demonstrating a greater degree of long-term viability and preparation for the energy markets of tomorrow, UK Coal is financially a far more attractive prospect for traders and shareholders. The investment is sounder now that the company is unveiling moves that will help it compete succesfully in coming years, and in doing so is also improving its immediate current standing in a tricky situation.

The lesson seems pretty clear - obviously implementing such moves is not easy, with credit so unobtainable and cash for new ventures all but dried up, but if companies can find a way to finance such initiatives they will reap the rewards not only tomorrow, but also today. UK Coal for example is now in a better position to build on the positive shares bounce with more money in the company coffers than before - the second step will now be easier as the company tries to move forward.

Cutting jobs and closing down factories/plants/offices is another often used crisis-busting tactic, and one that often brings about a short-term recovery in share prices when times are tough (though sadly for those whose jobs are sacrificed this is of course little consolation). Sometimes such moves can represent a sensible option for companies - though it must be stressed that they represent only short term solutions, and require far more complex new strategic initiatives if a company is to continue to enjoy success in the marketplace. In other words, simply losing money at a slower rate is not an adequate fix for such problems - companies must also address positively why they individually are not performing better, and if required overhaul the nature of their operations for the demands of today.

I am pleased to see UK Coal taking steps to do so last week, and even more pleased that the market has moved to affirm the value of such measures with a share value increase, hopefully acting as a catalyst for spurning other energy companies into realising that, for them at least, the only way out of this recession and into future success, is with positive and effective renewable energy. Those that get the message I feel will be the ones still around and successful ten years from now…

Dejan Levi

For years I have had to debate with eco-sceptics about the significance of being not only involved and aware of the climate change issue, but also pro-active in addressing it. Too many times I have heard the excuse that the UK is just a relatively small player (in terms of population and emissions) to make any effort worthwhile and basically, as long as the US or China continued to snub Kyoto or other similar efforts, then we were all doomed…

Finally, after last week’s US election, I think such views will have been relegated from being foolishly dismissive and irresponsible, to downright untenable. The simple reason for this is that, with Barrack Obama in the White House, the developed world stands a real chance of uniting to lead the kind of co-ordinated global effort that is essential if we are to arrest the current slide towards environmental disaster.

For the first time since the issue has been a major one in the public consciousness (alas it has been on the minds of many scientific experts for a good deal longer) we have the political personnel to work together and support the policies and initiatives that are so needed. It is impossible to underestimate just how significant it is to have the world’s biggest polluter and contributor to climate change (the USA) acknoweledging the problem and joining in with fixing it.

For this reason it is crucial that the EU does not allow the economic crisis to derail such efforts at a time when progress and positive action is far more palpable than at any time during the previous eight years of Bush’s reign. Obama intends to discourage the use of coal-fired power stations using heavy tax restrictions, and will veto many of Bush’s environmentally damaging policies (such as his relaxation of oil drilling bans on the Alaskan wilderness). The EU would do well to match these moves with equivalent ones this side of the pond, especially as the UK plans a significant expansion of its coal-generation capacity.

Of course we cannot expect to fix things overnight, and indeed it will be a few more weeks before the man is even in office - but the point is that amidst all the significance of the election in terms of the history of US race-relations, we must also remember that for the first time there is a man in the White House who intends to make tackling climate change a political priority. We must not desert the cause now when such powerful re-enforcements are arriving to the front - rather it seems essential to step-up our efforts both as individual citizens, and as a global political power, and work to avoid the environmental destruction that draws ever nearer on a daily basis.

Dejan Levi

Leaked documents seen by the Guardian this week (http://tinyurl.com/4643b9) suggest that the EU council could use the current economic crisis as an excuse for reneging on previous climate change targets and commitments. The council is set to meet this week and will discuss whether to sidestep proposals to increase the EU’s target of a 20% cut in emissions by 2020 to 30% (which will come into effect if a global deal is signed).

The question is why this is even being considered in the first place, and what consequences could we face as a result? Is it not more rational to see this as another exploitation of the public’s fear over the economic crisis (which on a daily basis takes on newly mythical levels of potency in mainstream media reporting), to abandon something which is deeply neccessary but fundamentally politically difficult?

Is the ‘extreme situation’ of the financial crisis not simply being used to reconfigure our notions of what is acceptable in terms of government policy and business practice, and to legitimise failure to meet crucial targets?

Presumably the key tenet of this reasoning is that in the current economic climate we cannot afford to let energy costs increase any further, as people struggle to pay their heating bills this winter. This is a perfectly reasonable concern and must be responsibly addressed.

The idea is that if the climate change commitment is relaxed then EU countries could go ahead with plans to increase coal power generation capacities which in turn would provide cheaper energy so that household bills could be kept down. In theory this would be an effective (and probably popular) short term solution to the economic issue. It all seems perfectly simple and logical…

However the problem is that these exceptional circumstances are acting as an excuse to forget the core facts of climate change - that the cheaper fossil fuel solution brings devastating long-term consequences, something that is now commonly understood in the public domain as indisputable fact. To revert to such solutions essentially amounts to saying; ‘renewables are expensive, let’s just use coal and forget about the environmental issues - it is an economic crisis after all…’

Instead of basically looking at ways to take the easy way out, the EU should be facilitating a more adequate solution. Why not look at subsidy package to help ease the impact of rising household bills over the next few years to quite literally ‘buy’ time to make a significant improvement to renewables capacity?

This whole measure of avoiding targets would no doubt be an effective way of maintaining the status quo (or roughly thereabouts) but the whole problem is that while potentially easier (both for governments and populations) this represents a childish attempt to bury our heads in the sand and hope the problems we face will somehow not be here the day after tomorrow.

Even the 30% cut which is proposed as part of this deal is considered by many experts to be an absolute minimum (and in almost every case only just a stepping stone to further reductions) - so to start wavering at this early stage poses a real threat to a long term process in its infancy. The EU as a leading economic and political institution in the world should surely be focused on leading by example rather than destabalising an essential global effort.

As I write this the meetings will surely be commencing in Brussels for what promises to be a crucial chapter in the future of EU climate change policy and indeed of the world. When the US obstinately obstructed the Kyoto agreement it damaged the entire effort to a degree that set progress back a good few years - for the EU to do similarly now, remembering not only Kyoto but also the increased significance of such a move at this even later stage, would be verging on the criminal were it not so frustratingly and mindlessly short-sighted. We’ll see what decision the next few days brings from Brussels…

Dejan Levi

Wide-ranging new coalition backs eco-towns

A coalition of organisations working in environment and social justice is now fighting in support of eco-towns and highlighting the benefits the settlements could bring.
The coalition is issuing a rallying statement, saying it believes eco-towns provide the opportunity to build homes and places of the highest design and environmental standards, providing blueprints that can be used to influence future developments.
Read the rest of the article about the new coalition’s support for the eco-towns.

Watchdog reviews eco-town proposal

A watchdog has been launched in Leicestershire to meet with developers over a controversial eco-town plan. “Pennbury” is one of 15 earmarked sites to make a Government shortlist, of which 10 will be given the go-ahead. But the proposed 15,000-home development, for land near Stoughton, has sparked fierce protests from residents who say it would put too much strain on local roads and services.
Read the rest of the article on the eco-towns watchdog.

Eco town dwellers may be monitored for green habits

Residents of the planned eco towns in England could face strict monitoring of their travel habits, home insulation and even wasted food, to ensure they are truly living a “green” lifestyle. Experts advising the government on its plans to build up to 10 eco towns by 2020, yesterday called for ministers to toughen environmental standards for the developments with monitoring to ensure their carbon footprint is three times smaller than the British average.
Read the rest of the article on the monitoring of the eco-town home owners.

Dozens of ‘eco-town’ plans lodged

More than 70 plans for new “eco-towns” have been lodged with the Scottish Government. The huge response is part of an initiative to create new green communities that will be exemplars for developers to follow. Environment groups have reacted positively but have emphasised that the projects must go beyond zero-carbon buildings to be sustainable in their entirety, and include strong public transport links to limit emissions from cars.
Read the rest of the article on thescotsman.com about the plans for the Scottish eco-towns

Would the proposals for eco-towns be beneficial for Scotland?

A year ago, the Scottish Government issued a challenge to local authorities, builders and planners to increase the rate of new housing supply to at least 35,000 new homes a year by the middle of the next decade.
Cue environmentalists expressing outrage at the loss of green belt to unchecked urban sprawl? Well, no actually. The reason, I think, had something to do with government beginning to get serious about making at least some of these new communities sustainable.

Read the rest of the article on thescotsman.com about the Scottish eco-towns

Ben Caldecott has writen a great piece in this week’s Guardian (http://tinyurl.com/4ej29p) highlighting the fact that daily decisions regarding the environmental impact of our lifestyles are sometimes unnecessarily complicated. Far too often making the green choice is ridiculously unaffordable, time-consuming, or perhaps even impossible.

Like most people I’m prepared to make some effort, but at the same time can only do as much as my free time and finances allow. With this in mind here is a list of 5 policy ideas the government could implement, which would make being green a whole lot easier - starting today (feel free to add your own ideas in the comments below).

1. Subsidise rail and coach travel during periods of school hoidays.

With cheap air travel contributing so much to the climate change problem it seems like a sensible place to begin. Tony Blair controversially said that it was ‘unreasonable’ to expect people to take holidays nearer to home on account of the environment. But the real issue is cost - not climate change. After all it is perfectly logical that a family of four might choose to fly to Spain or Italy for a holiday when a ticket can cost as little as £40, while a train to Cornwall or the Welsh Coast might easily cost upward of £60 per person.

By focusing only on summer holiday periods the scheme could be managable financially and would make the choice of holidaying domestically far more attractive, meaning the greener choice is also the cheaper choice. The scheme could be managed with a ‘Holiday Railcard’ (available on an individual or family basis), much like a Young Person’s Railcard, which can be purchased for a fixed sum (£20?) per year, and grants 50%-off rail fares for example.

2. Increase the subsidies available for domestically produced food.

In doing so such environmentally friendly options (home-grown fruit and veg for example obviously has far fewer food-miles attached than imported food) would be more financially viable - a key factor in consumer choice in the current climate of rising food prices. Such an initiative would have to be managed in accordance with EU rules on protectionism and trade but is easily possible. The subsidies can be granted on the condition of lower wholesale prices being offered by farmers (thereby not simply working to boost farming profits).

3. Grant local councils additional funds to implement plastic recycling.

Most UK local councils now run some sort of recycling scheme, mainly collecting glass, aluminium and paper on a weekly basis. However, due to the higher costs and more complicated processes involved in recyling plastic few councils will touch it. With some degree of investment, plastic collections could also be incorporated into such schemes making it far easier to reduce landfill site impact in countryside areas.

4. Fund free domestic insulation upgrades for pensioners.

With many older people due to be left vulnerable this winter by high heating costs the government is being called on to provide increased winter fuel credits for pensioners. Why not also fund free efficiency assessments and upgrades (if required) so that the problem is tackled on a long term basis rather than on a yearly makeshift level? It would satisfy older people knowing that the problem would not cause fresh anxiety each year, and make the choice of saving on fuel use far more possible.

5. Introduce environmental awareness information into the national curriculum.

Ok, so this one would not reap immediate benefits, but could work to improve the level of education and awareness of young people relating to such matters. It would be perfectly feasable to include a few relevant topics in secondary school science and geography syllabuses for example. In the long run a more clued up population will find it easier to support environmental initiatives, and will be better informed for the choices presented by future challenges.

Such proposals would all require varying degrees of investment, but most would yield cheaper consumer essentials for taxpayers and so could be justifiable from this basic financial level upwards. Not only a step in the right direction, they would also make decisions made at an individual level far easier and go some way towards removing the ridiculous financial and time costs often incurred by those seeking to do the right thing.

Dejan Levi

Spain has recently announced a significant move towards the use of domestic solar water heaters in a bid to improve self-sufficiency and lower rising household bills. The goal is eventually to emulate Israel’s domestic water heating situation where 90% of homes are equipped with such heating systems, meaning that hot water supply has near zero financial and environmental cost. But such countries obviously have quite an advantage over the UK in the solar energy stakes, and alternative solutions must be sought if the UK is to achieve something similar.

It is not that solar heaters are unavailable in the UK - they are - and can provide a significant portion of a household’s water heating energy needs, especially in areas of Southern England. But whichever way you look at it the numbers just can’t match those of Israel and Spain in terms of broadness and scope of viability. Solar water heating has a part to play, but so too must alternative solutions…

The two aspects of approaching the problem involve reducing the amount of water required from a mains supply, and secondly reducing the amount of energy (again from the mains supply) that is required to heat this water.

In order to tackle the initial issue there is a highly viable solution available for UK homes; rainwater harvesting. Such water can be collected either from a large surface such as a building’s roof or from a large ground area, and can be used for flushing toilets, watering gardens or even supplying the washing machine.

With average daily water use in the UK currently at 150 litres per person, rainwater harvesting has a significant part to play in reducing our dependence on mains supplies (not to mention household bills, especially considering the imminent water price increases scheduled for 2010).

The second issue, of water heating, has multiple solutions and should be assessed on an individual basis depending on particulars of location and weather of your area, but the main options involve the aforementioned solar panel systems, to biomass boilers as well as ground and air source heat pumps (more information on these technologies can be found on the ‘case study’ section of this page).

The bottom line is that such technologies will not be suited to installation in all UK homes, but also that at the same time there are many that would benefit financially (in terms of reduced household bills) by adopting such tools, especially in the current climate of rising household bills. Perhaps it is time such moves were no longer considered a shopping or home improvement choice, but rather incorporated into a government housing intiative to inform those who could benefit about what is available and how such changes can be implemented.

The collective environmental benefits would encompass helping meet housing goals of reducing the average UK household’s carbon footprint, with obvious environmental benefits for all, as well as being a more short term crisis solution with regard to the current cash squeeze and climate of rising costs.

Dejan Levi

The issue of sustainable food provision is hotter than ever in the UK as we try to move away from cheap, but actually rather expensive (in terms of environmental impact) food. We have grown used to walking into our supermarkets and seeing all manner of out of season or exotic items lining the aisles; whether it be Florida oranges in December, Spanish tomatoes in January, or even wild Alaskan Salmon and New Zealand lamb to name a few.

But what would one’s diet look like if we tried to adopt a near enough zero food-miles approach to our dinners? (N.B. Strictly speaking zero food miles would require all food to be produced in our back gardens which is perhaps a bit of a stretch - for the purposes of this article, zero food-miles refers to as close to zero as possible - but for someone who still buys, rather than produces, the food they eat).

With this in mind let’s look at which fruit and veg is domestically produced here in the UK.

1. Potatoes are one of the UK’s major arable crops. Sown in April and harvested throughout late summer and autumn, with an average of roughly 82% being used for UK consumption. They provide a versatile basis to many common meals and are available (and affordable) all year round. Apart from counting as one of your five-a-day fruit and veg portions, potatoes are a great source of energy and are low in fat (depending on preparation methods of course)

2. Peas and beans. Planted in either winter or spring, the UK has been growing such crops for over 3000 years, with just over half of today’s harvests being used for livestock feed, and the rest for human consumption. Interestingly perhaps the most common type of bean in UK supermarkets (the navy bean which is used in for baked beans) is not grown domestically but imported. Importantly peas can be a valuable source of iron - especially for vegetarians looking to compensate for the effects of reduced meat (and hence iron) intake.

Other notable, but less significant (in terms of land involved) crops are:

3. Cabbages and Brussel sprouts - High in Vitamin C and amino acids (which have great anti-inflammatory benefits).
4. Carrots - As well as Vitamin A (beneficial for vision), carrots are high in anti-oxidants and dietary fibre.
5. Turnips - High in Vitamin C.
6. Cauliflowers - Like brocolli and cabbage, cauliflowers are high in several phytochemicals, including sulforaphane - a beneficial anti-cancer compound.
7. Broccolli - Like peas a great source of iron, and sulforaphane (see above).
8. Lettuces - High in Vitamin A (improves vision) and folic acid.

As for fruit, the UK mainly produces currants, strawberries, blackberries and gooseberries, as well as cucumbers and tomatoes (often considered vegetables due to their ’savoury’ nature - but technically speaking the presence of seeds places them squarely in the fruit category) - all in all more than enough variety for an interesting and balanced diet. Similarly with regard to meat production there is plenty of domestic lamb, beef and pork produced locally, as well as abundant fish supplies such as Scottish Salmon, or trout and mackerel. Such options are drastically more environmentally friendly than the aforementioned Alaskan Salmon, and New Zealand lamb options.

As more and more people take an interest in the nutritional aspects of the food they buy, as well as the environmental and social impacts of producing it, it seems there has never been a better time to consider reducing our intake of exotic imported food and instead focus on developing a rounded, balanced and healthy zero (ish) food miles diet.

With some effective planning and raised awareness it seems it is not only possible, but also not at all difficult, to satisfy both the body’s nutritional, and the appetite’s imaginative, needs while reducing the environmental impact of enjoying our dinners here in the UK.

Dejan Levi

OFWAT has today been hearing the proposals for future price changes from the UK’s major water suppliers. In short they have nearly all announced above inflation price increases (apart from Welsh Water, whose restraint in such a climate is commendable) - mainly citing growing population as an excuse for sometimes up to a 26% rise for 2010-15.

Unsuprisingly share prices jumped in response as shareholders salivated at the prospect of even higher profits for the coming years. Many feel OFWAT has once again stood aside to allow private companies to hold the public to ransom. The question is: at what point will we seriously begin to question the wisdom of privataly owned water suppliers in the UK?

It’s probably best to start off with some more details about yesterday’s announcements, so here is a summary of the proposed price rises for 2010-15:

Company - % increase

Anglian 3.5%
Bristol 26.0%
Cambridge 20.0%
Welsh Water 0.0%
Essex & Suffolk 2.8%
Portsmouth 7.0%
Severn Trent 1.0%
South Staffs 11.0%
South West 12.5% (metered) / 40% (unmetered)
Tendring Hundred 13.0%
Thames 16.0%
United Utilities 11.0%
Wessex 16.0%
Yorkshire 0.6%

The rates vary drastically but most are over 10%, with a couple over 20%. How can such a drastic increase be justified? Well, some companies have stated growing populations as a worry; but does Bristol water for example seriously think that between 2010 and 2015 the population of their catchment area will increase by 26%??

What is the long term picture here? How will prices look by 2020? Presumably the set of increases for 2015-20 will be even greater - Bristol water customers for example could find their water costing over 50% more in just 12 years than it does now (assuming a similar increase next time round).

Accesss to clean water is a fundamental human right, and to be in this situation in a developed Western country is verging on the unbelievable. Perhaps the companies saw their opportunity with the climate of generally rising costs of living and hence decided to get a piece of the action. The fact that some companies have announced either no increase (Welsh Water), or only roughly 1% (Severn Trent & Yorkshire) above inflation is clear indication that the others are misleading and exploiting the public.

Privatisation was touted as a sure fire guarantee that prices would be driven down through market competition and that customers would reap the benefits of such a move. It now seems clear that exactly the opposite is happening.

Surely price increases should be capped by OFWAT - after all clean water should not be treated the same as petrol or energy provision. It is not a consumer commodity but a cornerstone of human health and life, and to have it treated as a profit commodity by the UK government seems absurd. Elsewhere in the world 90% of water supplies are state owned, recognising the fundamental nature of such a service.

It is time OFWAT and the government started regulating the sector properly - and with the public’s needs placed first and foremost; they could start by seriously scrutinising this week’s proposed price announcements and taking steps to protect the vulnerable public from such profiteering.

Dejan Levi