by Kathryn Corrick“If you can’t measure it, you can’t manage it”, is an oft used and misused quote in business, attributed to the business management theorist Peter Drucker (points to anyone who can actually find when and where he actually said it) and attributed to a certain style of management consultancy.
The Labour government has often, and in many cases rightly, been criticized for taking such measurement + management sentiments to the max with target driven policies. Yet there is one new initiative where such thinking is desperately needed otherwise it is doomed to only go as far as any good PR person can take it – the media and no further.
To make matters worse the big launch of this project, supported by the Guardian, has all the veneer of measurement – or at least a target – in its title.
Yes, 10:10. Ten percent by Twenty Ten. http://www.1010uk.org/
For those readers unaware, this climate change initiative, with plaudits from the great and good, launched earlier this week, asking the people, businesses and organizations of the UK to pledge to cut their emissions by ten percent in 2010.
VIDEO HERE
According to the 10:10 website, 10:10 was prompted by actor Pete Postlethwaite ambushing the Minister for Climate Change, Ed Miliband, with a giant pledge. “If you commission a new dirty coal power station then I promise to never vote Labour again – and give back my OBE”.
And so the myth begins.
The Ten Percent target appeals. It is a clear goal, and many of us are incentivised by goals. In fact the 2010 appeals, it has a ring. Top marks for branding. But the campaign lacks very simple, but essential set of elements for success:
• How do I as an individual or business know my current carbon emissions?
• How do I as an individual accurately measure my decrease in carbon emissions?
Ie. How does any individual or business signing the pledge know if they have made their ten percent or how they are doing on route?
Giving people tips on how to cut their energy usage is all well and good but there are a litany of campaigns that have already tried this method, why should 10:10 (other than having a bit more money, nice branding and welly) be any different?
But across Whitehall, or Victoria Street, an answer may lie. When he was at DEFRA older brother David started support for work a few years ago that is now beginning to flex its muscles.
AMEE, the Avoiding Mass Extinctions Engine, otherwise known as “the world’s energy meter” has been working with the government for a number of years. Its data was used to launch the government’s own Act On CO2 campaign launched back in 2007 - where incidentally you can calculate your carbon footprint.
AMEE provides “a common platform for all kinds of energy profiling and measurement, thus enabling accurate carbon footprinting”. To do so, they have collated data.
What’s more the data is open, it’s a bit like a Wikipedia for carbon data with tight peer review. A standard set of data came from the initial work for Defra and Act On CO2 but this is added to as the project develops. The data is now being used and added to by companies such as Google, Morgan Stanley and the Irish government.
Recently AMEE launched Real Time Carbon. It shows visitors in real-time the amount of pollution output by all the electricity generated for the National Grid, as it changes through the day. The tool is designed to encourage people to use electricity when it is at its greenest. Until recently this measurement was only a single static figure given each year by the government. Such data enables decision making.
When it comes to enabling decisions and incentivising individuals to cut their carbon emissions 10:10 could also do no worse than have a glance over at Nike. Yes, the sportswear manufacturers. A few years ago they brought out an iPod Sports Kit – a personal trainer that monitored and helped you with your running, using data collected in real-time from a shoe insert, all to your favourite music. As well as playing music the software gives you your time, distance, pace, and calories burned as you run. The data is then uploaded to your computer to monitor progress, and for further tips on how to improve.
The system has proved incredibly successful for Nike and lifted sales but it also clearly shows a structure for helping people to change an aspect of their lives:
• a clear goal
• a way to benchmark and measure progress
• success criteria and motivations via music.
• tips on how to improve
• rewards for reaching the goal
If 10:10 is to be more than a PR exercise then the initiative needs to consider these aspects as well as using work and research already paid for by government. Whilst 10:10 has clearly laid down the goal it will need to do a lot more if it is to truly succeed.
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
StumbleUpon
Action? None.
"If you disagree with me you are an idiot and want to destroy the planet."
This seems to be the message being put out by certain groups and individuals that, in my opinion, have an agenda or have been brainwashed into believing anything they are told and not questioning.
Chris Morris and Cake anyone? Various stars saying you should not eat cake or the Paul Daniels one about the elephant.
They took what they were told at face value and didn't stop to think "let me just check..."
My concern is that the politicians seem to be saying we can control nature. If we tax this and tax that and stick up a few windmills it will all be okay.
Erm, right. I would rather that whilst they were trying to reduce C02 levels in case that's part of the issue, they were also doing something to defend us if they aren't.
As regards the scientists going on about global warming and how we should always listen to them, didn't they predict an ice age coming up about 20 years ago?
Also good to know that they were wrong about the Earth being flat too. Otherwise MP's wouldn't be able to fly off to far away places to have meetings on C02 emmissions...
Of course, of course Mon Braves, exactement - Le EU, Oui, oui, an EU-SSR-Land-Land Tax Grab!!
It will be 'taxed' just like the new Labour Tax (if they get back into power in 2010), it will be called a 'Personal Carbon Tax', but it will really meant 'Taxing The Air We Breath' and 'Taxing Sunlight'....
but...
Essentially we want the same thing
Are you really sure about that?
You want to openly spend money on doing real stuff for a specific reason, that people can agree with or disagree with.
Meanwhile the climate brigade want to take money from us to spend on things they want to spend money on for no apparent benefit...
As OH said - if £5,000 extra tax lowers CO2 levels, does £10,000 extra tax lower them by twice as much?
Even if 'climate change' can be stopped by reducing mans CO2 emissions - how many government ministers have given up having foreign holidays?
Oh.. that serious then... ha ha ha
I sense that the there will be popular fury against a 3rd runway and not least beacuse of the sight of a village nearby having to be forcibily removed. I sense another Gurkha moment but multi-polar this time ....should the forces in power do not take a moment and reflect. The world indeed is changing.
Essentially we want the same thing but we have very different starting points and thus different paths to achieving the same goal. You believe that we, humankind, can control the forces of nature whereas I don't. I believe that nature will do its worst and if we prepare we can at least survive and prosper.
Slowing down what you believe will take massive amounts of resources and time, but taking a proactive approach to defending against what nature throws at us will ultimately be more productive and ensure the security of resources for future generations.
Future events will prove one of us right and one of us wrong. We'll have to wait and see, but in the meantime can you explain where the money taken in taxes will go to resolving the percieved problem? Because at the minute, I can't.
By the way, my position isn't one of anti-science, its one of disbelieving the illogical conclusions of scientists who need funding from governments, governments who stand to gain much from the proliferation of current thinking in the scientific community. I despise the abuse of logical science which should be evident by my views on many subjects. I've read the arguments of one side and the other, but when one side begins to act like some sort of cult, when they resort to name calling and defamation of character to achieve a goal, I see something very different to what you see. If you percieve that as anti-science, sobeit. I see it as politics and finance messing with something they don't really understand, but both will profit from by getting the masses to believe that the end of the world is nigh. Coincidently what religions have been doing for centuries, but them MMCC is not a religion, is it?
The advantage of your position is that you don't have to take responsibility for anything. It either happens or it doesn't- it's an external force (which remains unexplained but it's an anti-science position so you don't have to play by the rules, that's fine.) If it doesn't you get to say 'I told you so' and if it does you just get to say 'let's make the best of a bad job, there's nothing we could have done anyway- mankind take the wrath and build some higher sea walls.'
I'm going to go for the taking responsibility route....
My interest is in the nature and design of the proposed mechanisms.
As I said in one of my first posts on Labour List Keeping the Donkey Healthy one of the key problems with CO2 is that it is intrinsically worthless. This means that it can only be "monetised" by political and administrative means ie government fiat.
No surprise then to find that the most assiduous proponents of emissions trading and carbon credits are the same people who brought us the Credit Crunch, which of course came about through monetising something worthless - to wit the Bank IOUs which are redeemable for....errr....more bank IOUs.
Kathryn's post demonstrates another major problem with CO2, and that is the difficulty of measuring it.
Why bother? CO2 is largely the result of burning non-renewable carbon-based fuels for heat, power, transport etc. I fail to see what is so difficult about measuring carbon energy use via a registry of carbon fuel sales.
Carbon dioxide is a by product of carbon fuel use: saving the one also saves the other.
Our problem is that we are not assigning the correct value to carbon-based fuels.
My proposal is to monetise the energy content of carbon - which is intrinsically valuable - and to do so by issuing Units redeemable in energy.
How this works is that a gradually increasing levy - at point of sale - on carbon fuel would be introduced, thereby creating a "Carbon Pool" fund in £ sterling, and the population would be compensated with an "energy dividend" of Units.
People could redeem these Units against energy use, or save energy and exchange the Units for something else they value.
The Carbon Pool fund would be used to invest interest-free directly in renewable energy production and in energy saving projects, and these projects would reimburse the Pool at the market price either in energy Units purchased from the Pool(in the case of energy saving projects) or in energy supplied to the Pool (in the case of renewables projects).
By unitising and monetising energy, it is possible to make the transition to a sustainable economy in a simple but radical way.
Instead of accounting in £, $ or € we would account in energy.
And yes, I guess I am pessimistic about what the future holds because all I see is thousands of people trying to convince millions of others that increased taxes and trade agreements made over fancy meals in other countries will have any effect on the changing climate around us. The real challenges are overlooked because the latest politician wants to make a name for themselves, but give it a year or so they won't be dealing with environmental issues anymore, they'll be in charge of the MoD or agriculture. Then we have an all new wannabe who spouts off rubbish but never gets anything done.
I'd very much like to be optimistic. I'd very much like the Labour Party to be realistic about the energy needs of the country because I'm convinced the Conservatives won't do anything other than make sure their pals in the corporate world are okay. I'd like to see positive action, not gimmicks like the wind turbines or pathetic targets that pretend to deal with the issue whilst ignoring the real work that needs to be done.
Can I ask Anthony, if in a decade the sea levels begin to drop rather than continue to rise as they have done for hundreds of years, what would you make of it? If the CO2 link proves in the future to be wrong, how would you react? More to the point, given that you will probably be in politics or at least around politics for the next few decades, would you advocate the repayment of all 'green' taxes? Would you insist that all the energy companies reimburse all those climate change levies? And how would you explain to the electorate why the rusting lumps of metal on Britain's hillsides didn't actually do what they were supposed to do and the rolling brown outs are a daily occurance that the country has to deal with?
I could be wrong, but then my way of thinking doesn't involve changing people's entire lives and taxing them for the priveledge on the strength of a maybe. When the resources run out, when the National Grid is overloaded or if the sea levels do actually rise a couple of metres, what use will carbon agreements be and can a wind turbine be quickly turned into a canoe if we need to?
You are a pessimist though. Fair enough. And I am an optimist. We'll see what happens I guess.
As I said, its based on a singular premise and unfortunately that now means that science and government are now concentrating on a side issue trying to slow a process that can not and will not be slowed. In the meantime defences for the inevitable and solutions to solve our dwindling resources are not being dealt with while articles and websites like the one the article links to continues to waste time.
Feel free to call me a denier if that makes you warm and fuzzy, but can I recommend you ain't solving nowt by name calling and trying to make out I'm some sort of nutter for speaking common sense on an issue that is rarely dealt with in the correct way.
here here...
If it really matters then ration it - if not then get stuffed.
If I pay another £5K a year, will that make the sea levels go down? Will £10K make it go down even more?
Anybody wanting my money (apart from an armed thief) is going to have to come with a better argument than "get real and face it".
Climate Change is what the planet does. It has always done it and it will always do it. (Pst - Happens on every other planet as well, don't tell anyone)
I dont what the tories plan is as i am not a Tory , I was just asking how buliding a third runway will help cut our carbon foot print.
We seem to be good on words but our actions are opposite
The idea that only government can understand what to spend money on is retarded.
If you want to increase green taxes then that's fine with me, in return lower income tax, capital gains tax and inheritance tax.
The answer is that they don't.
A sustainable future will be neither low tax nor libertarian and I think this will be a source of a major split on the Right.
Can I recommend that you read the series on climate change that I've been running on my blog. Today I had a guest post from a Professor of theoretical physics dealing with denial.
Enjoy
And before you label me with the term 'denier' or any other deregatory term that you think will suit my way of thinking about this, I do believe the climate is changing and I would prefer rather than seeing time wasted on endless debates and 16 couse dinners for politicians that we actually do something constructive like rebuilding the depleted or non-existant coastal defences or come up with a viable energy plan that won't leave the national grid suffering brown outs over the course of the next decade.
And whoop de doo, so Postlethwaite won't vote Labour again and he'll hand back his OBE. Well cry me a river and call me Alice. So he didn't care that we entered into an illegal war? He's not bothered about the diminished democracy we now live in? The broken promises, the poor economical decisions or the failed social experimentation? No, he's bothered that we all believe in some science that is all based on a singular premise and we comply by reducing what we do whilst paying more to do so just so we can meet a target that sounds really good when you convert it to a web address.
Forget the simple fact that it isn't an achievable target. Bypass the reverse actions by this government such as the new proposed runways for an airport that has lower passenger levels and doesn't actually need it. And scrub the real issues related to energy security and the transportation needs of a heavily taxed nation. No, what we as a nation need is something gimmicky, somthing with a catchy theme tune and a splash of graphic design because that will solve everything, along with the empty promise that wind turbines can provide reliable cheap electricity for generations.
It'll take a couple of years, but at least there is the certainty that aspects of all this will be shown to be the rubbish that it is. In the meantime good luck with getting people to pledge towards a goal that is neither needed or wanted in the real world and ignore the work that actually needs doing, happy in the knowledge that we won't have the electricity to be able to access websites such as this in the very near future. Imagine the reduction in our carbon footprint when the power goes off though!
If we are going to cut or carbon foot print , why are we buliding another runway at heathrow?
No - labour miss the point, they take a measurement and then set the measurement itself as the target - so they can avoid addressing the real issue that they originally measured. So you get 'unemployed' people being reclassified so hit reduction targets without increasing the proportion of people employed; or reclassifying partitions as walls so you hit targets for 'single sex wards'...