MikeB’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  But why not use what we have?

  New energy efficient buildings are going to be vital of course, but why have a go at 19th century buildings?  There are huge numbers of older buildings throughout the western world which represent an vast amount of embodied carbon.  There are plenty of ways to make older buildings more efficent (in a sympathetic way), and in many cases, are more efficient than the structures put up in the last 30 years.  
  Building a home from scatch may allow you to incorporate the latest in energy saving technology, but almost every house built today still uses a large amount of cement, wood, glass, etc - all of which have a carbon footprint which has to accounted for before any savings can be made by the news houses design.  By contrast, my 19th house only has to save current carbon use.  Reuse, and recycle first, rebuild where you can't.On Architect R.K. Stewart on building the future of sustainable design posted 1 year, 6 months ago 7 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  These environmetalists...

  In fact most environmentalists were warning quite some time ago that first generation biofuels were unsuitable for large-scale use (old frying fat to power your local bus, yes; large-scale use in every car in Europe, no).  It was governments and certain interest groups (such as german car makers) who though this might be a great 'get out of jail free card'.  Biofuels have real promise as part of the solution (as fuel for ultra efficent hybrids for example), but these will be the 2nd and 3rd generation fuels, not the current ones.  I've read a number of articles decrying 'greens' for backing biofuels, but all seem to have conjured these greens out of thin air, instead of looking at the facts.On With food riots raging, let's open the books on the finances of Big Ag posted 1 year, 6 months ago 21 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Cheap is not cheap...

  The article grossly simplified what Pollan has been saying - which is that food has become cheaper, but you pay for it in other ways.  Subsidied corn syrup, large amounts of salt, fat and various other bulking agents end up in 'cheap' food - but all too often they are empty calories, paid for in higher rates of obesity, heart problems, cancer rates, etc.

  And of course these are the sort of food the poorest  are able to afford/access.  Reading Nickel and Dimed, you quickly realise that the people using hamburger helper will still be using it if the price of beef was 10% lower - the cost of food is not too high for them, its that they simply cannot make enough money to live on in a way we would all like.

  Preparing cheaper foods is often time-consuming (which if your working three jobs is simply a non-starter), and requires a certain level of knowledge of cookery.  Over the years, we have gradually become de-skilled in the sort of areas which allowed our grandparents to live on relatively little (cheap cuts of meat, combining leftovers, etc), and supermarkets now seldom sell the sort of basic cheap ingredients which you can use.  My local supermarket only sells prime cuts of beef; to buy cuts such as shin or skirt I have to go to the farmers market, which is gradually dying in part because most people would prefer to simply drive to the supermarket once a week, load up and drive away again.

  Far from the farmers market being for elitist liberals with cash, I find that eggs, butter, cheese, and meat are no more expensive, and often cheaper than the supermarket, and mostly better quality too.  There is a better profit margin for the seller, and I know where my food comes from.

  We have become used to cheap food, so cheap that in the UK we can waste up to 40% of what we buy in simply throwing it out because we bought too much, left it in the fridge too long, etc.  If you add to that the wastage from the long buying, processing and shipping chains we now see with supermarkets, there is a huge amount which is simply written off as the cost of doing business.  

  The price of food is rising, and the price of oil will push that far higher still. Cheap food is over, but that does not mean we need to starve, instead we need to rediscover what good local, seasonal food is, and treat it as something to be bought and eaten with pleasure and respect.On Why Michael Pollan and Alice Waters should quit celebrating food-price hikes posted 1 year, 7 months ago 27 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Where is the wind?

  What happened to the off-shore wind idea - its still sort of going, but like most things to do with energy policy in the UK, its too little, too late.

  The people who run UK energy policy (politicians, senior civil servants and lobbyists) have consistantly backed big techno-fixes such as nuclear and central generation by gas/coal over energy efficiency, alternatives and renewables. Yes, they have proposed a tidal power project, but it will cost at least $24 billion dollars and will flood large amounts of unique wetlands and will change the hydrology of an area only recently flooded in heavy rain.  Another techno-fix.

  A White paper of only a few years ago saying that nuclear was not needed was overturned last year by the lobbying of the nuclear industry and the fear that Putin would cut off supplies of gas.  Coal is also back in favour, with large subsidies for what is left of our coal industry, and Eon has just been given permission to contruct a very large, not very efficient and extremely carbon dirty coal fired power station.  Emails between the government and the company show that there was a request for the government not to ask to have carbon storage equipment fitted, and they happily obliged.  Since carbon capture is a technology which the government says its very hopeful about, you suspect that not everyone believes, or is willing to pay for, the hype.

  Where they have funded renewables, it's been on a very small scale, and for very limited periods.  Seemingly, its enough for the departments involved to just go through the motions.  When they did go for windpower, there was seemingly no attempt for tie it in with other technologies, and  many windfarms got held up by objections, often fanned by nuclear-backed anti-wind groups.

  The governments stance on energy efficiency and small-scale generation has been lamentable, with programmes suddenly being cut, little money in the first place, and little information on how to claim for grants.  Our housing stock is the least efficient in Europe, and current regulations (which will not be raised for the building industry for some years), are so low, that a recent survey showed that Tudor, and then Victorian houses were the most efficient form of construction.  Modern construction came some way down the list.

   Local councils have started using their local powers to try to get developers to incorporate at least 10% of renewable capacity on site for each developent (the Merton rule), a rule developed because of the vacuum at central government level.  The building industry came very close to having them scrapped entirely last year through lobbying ministers.

  The government has also said that it wants zero-carbon towns to be built - but no one can actually say what 'zero-carbon' will actually mean.

  In short, energy policy is a mess, consistantly giving in to special interests, having unreasoned faith in technology and mega-projects, whatever their previous failures.  Peak Oil is simply not spoken of, and climate change is something which they would like to do something about, but not in a way which would annoy anyone.  

  Lets just say it isn't like Sweden...On British government embraces a nuclear-powered future posted 1 year, 9 months ago 13 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  John Snow

  John Snow spent many years trying to convince politicians and the public at large (never mind his own profession) that the miasma theory was wrong.  Unfortunately, having published a paper on his theory in 1849, and then a very convincing explaination for the 1854 outbreak in 1855, his explaination was still being resisted in the 1860's.  Alas he died of a stroke in 1858, arguably bought on by the stress of his campaign.  One man can make a difference, but its very hard work.

  As for S & N - I suspect that they wrote a book for the reviewers of the NY Times, rather than a one for environmental action.  Simply not very interesting, or useful, other than to those who would rather us all simply fry.On The right way to interpret Shellenberger & Nordhaus posted 1 year, 9 months ago 10 Responses