Supplementary memorandum submitted by
the Centre for Sustainable Energy (CSE) (Cit 15a)
Q1. Please could
you let the Committee have some more information on the work done
by CSE for the Climate Change Programme on the potential role
of local authorities in reducing carbon emissions? (Question 140)
Further to your letter of 10 November, please
find attached our work for the Climate Change Programme on local
authorities.[3]
Q2. Please could you provide evidence of
take-up of insulation following CSE programmes in schools? (Question
145)
Please see table below from the evaluation of
energy matters. It shows that the focus of energy saving measures
installed as a result of Energy Matters tended to be on lower
cost measures (where the young children prove more effective than
professional advisers). This is principally because the energy
matters resources did not include information about grants and
discounts on insulation measures (cavity wall and loft)—which
is the main trigger for take-up from professional energy advice
provision. The full evaluation report on energy matters from which
this table has been taken can be found at http://www.cse.org.uk/pdf/pub1021.pdf.
These measures are separate and in addition to the energy saving
behaviours which our original written evidence to the EFRA committee
referenced.
Table 4
Energy efficiency measures
installed by parents since
Energy Matters
|
All Energy Matters Respondents
| Children 6-11 | Children 12-18
| Benefits of Energy Advice Survey 2002-Respondents who received advice on measures to install
|
| Base: All Parents | 148
100%
| 89
100% | 52
100%
| 1,229
100% |
| Number who had since installed: %
| % | % | % |
| Low energy bulbs (CFLs) | 40
| 46 | 33 | 30
|
| Energy efficient appliances | 15
| 16 | 15 | 2
|
| Draughproofing | 11 | 13
| 10 | 20 |
| Double/secondary glazing | 10
| 12 | 8 | 7
|
| Heating timer/programmer | 9
| 11 | 8 | 2
|
| Loft insulation | 7 | 8
| 6 | 32 |
| Block gaps in skirting | 7 |
8 | 8 | n/a |
| Floor insulation | 6 | 8
| 4 | 1 |
| Hot water timer | 5 | 8
| 2 | 1 |
| Solid wall insulation | 5 |
8 | 2 | 1 |
| Loft hatch insulation | 5 |
4 | 6 | n/a |
| Loft hatch draughtproofing | 4
| 4 | 4 | n/a
|
| Cavity wall insulation | 3 |
2 | 4 | 19 |
| New CH boiler | 3 | 4
| 2 | 6 |
| Hot tank thermostat | 3 |
2 | 4 | 2 |
| Pipe insulation | 3 | 2
| 4 | 2 |
| Radiator foil | 3 | 6
| — | 3 |
| Radiator shelves | 2 | 3
| — | 1 |
| Hot water jacket | 2 | 1
| 4 | 7 |
| Room thermostat | — |
— | — | 2
|
| Thermostatic radiator valves (TRVs)—
| — | — | 2
|
| ANY MEASURES | 54 | 58
| 52 | 70 |
| Average number measures installed1.4
| 1.7 | 1.2 | 1.5
|
| | |
| |
I also draw you attention to details of an education programme
we ran for sixth-form students (The Climate Change Challenge)
which can be found at http://www.cse.org.uk/cgi-bin/projects.cgi?
education&&1068 (follow links on RH side of the page for
a conference report etc (or click here on http://www.cse.org.uk/pdf/sof1094.pdf).
Q3. Are you concerned that the importance of the message
about tackling the causes of climate change might be lost in any
confusion resulting from the range of targets and commitments
set by different initiatives and pledge schemes? Should NGOs try
to co-ordinate their approaches?
I think there is a danger of assuming that the public's inaction
in climate change is a result of confused messaging. There's some
poor messaging around which assumes that everyone thinks like
we do about the issues rather than really understanding where
they are "at" (taking account of differences between
people too) and taking them from there.
I think it is more that: (a) most people do not have a sense
of need to act now (as opposed to some time in a while); (b) most
people have a sense (not helped by some of the pressure groups)
that the government isn't doing enough (so why should I do my
bit etc) and; (c) (as I said in the oral evidence session) the
political position that "it'll only work if the whole world
acts" and the comments along the lines of "what about
China and India?" leave most people feeling (appropriately)
impotent—with no sense of the importance of collective individual
action backed by government which leads global progress. The overwhelming
sense I suspect most people have is that it is important to act
but it can't be that important to act now because a government
which keeps telling us it is urgent seems to be slipping the clutch
rather a lot on setting in place measures and actions to tackle
it and allowing things which contribute (coal fired power stations,
aviation expansion etc) to continue unchecked.
I have never been a particular fan of co-ordinated messages
since there are too many "others" outside the co-ordinated
group who will create noise and confusion anyway—and it
isn't necessarily NGOs that are going to be the main carriers
of messages to stimulate action. You just can't co-ordinate that
much. It would be good if the government co-ordinated its own
messages on a consistent basis (as per my oral evidence—(i)
explaining the importance of collective action, (ii) showing how
government is doing its bit and requiring industry to do the same
and hasn't got contradictory policies such as airport expansion,
and (iii) promoting the importance of UK leading the way not because
politicians want the glory but because the global solution will
only work if someone starts the dance—the UK started the
last industrial revolution which caused climate change, so why
not start the next one to control it?)
Also I think that different people have different tastes
and needs in terms of information, motivation, underlying values
which determine their action etc. A co-ordinated campaign would
struggle to address this. In the same way that there are many
different brands of soap to suit different tastes, there can be
many different routes to action on climate change. Soap brands—often
produced by the same company—are promoted in different ways
("luxury", "freshness and vitality", "economy/long-lasting",
"convenience", "health and security—anti-bacterial",
etc) depending on the target markets.
To extend the simplistic soap analogy, the key job for any
co-ordinated campaign led by government is probably to explain
the importance and mutual benefit of washing regularly and to
show (honestly) how its own washing routines are measuring up—and
how by washing regularly we set a compelling example for others
to follow.
Q4. How far will phase three of the EEC go towards securing
recognition of the value of "soft" measures in tackling
climate change?
I think it will depend on the extent to which "soft"
measures are allowed as qualifying measures within EEC and the
extent to which Defra, knowing that there remains some doubts
over the evidence, is prepared to allocate savings and lifetimes
to "soft" measures in advance (and thus create a commercial
case for suppliers to do "soft measures" within their
EEC schemes). As we said in the recent EEC3 consultation response
we wrote for the Energy Advice Providers Group of the Energy Efficiency
Partnership for Homes:
"We strongly believe that it would be preferable to
include energy advice in EEC3 and risk getting the numbers slightly
wrong than to leave it out and avoid stimulating and supporting
activities which are very likely to have a positive benefit which
has yet to be accurately determined."
I have attached this consultation response for the Committee's
information.[4] It is in
the public domain and may therefore be quoted if the Committee
sees fits.
Simon Roberts, Chief Executive
Centre for Sustainable Energy
November 2006
3
Local & Regional Action to Cut Carbon: An appraisal of
the scope for further CO2 emission reductions from local and regional
activity: Report to DEFRA for the UK Climate Change Programme
Review. Not printed. Back
4
Not printed. Back
| 
