Green, ethical, energy issues in the news

Piddles

Climate change: Trees 'most effective solution' for warming

Something the size of Wales would help....

Why Britain's barren uplands have farming subsidies to blame

I'm no fan of Brexit, but at least there's an opportunity to reset these ghastly distorted farming subsidies. Though the chances of the politicians doing anything useful about it in a timescale we need seems remote, after all the promises they've already rashly made.

Martyn1981

This sounds promising. Does anyone know (or can guess) if such fertilisers would be OK for organic farming, as I'd assume that would be an extra boost?

Scientists unveil fertiliser pellets made from captured carbon

Captured carbon dioxide could be used to make fertiliser pellets that can help restore soil health and boost harvests, scientists at the University of Sheffield have declared today.

Researchers at the University's Institute for Sustainable Food have developed pellets made from CO2 and waste straw or bio-dregs from anaerobic digestion (AD) plants. They say the technology could be used as a lower carbon alternative to traditional fertilisers.

The pellets boost yields by 38 per cent and improve soil retention by 62 per cent, lab tests suggests, and could help crops cope better with the drought conditions that are expected to become increasingly common as the impacts of climate change start to bite. The pellets also increase microbial growth in the soils by 20 per cent, paving the way towards healthier soils that act more effectively as carbon sinks.

Piddles

Martyn1981 wrote: »

This sounds promising. Does anyone know (or can guess) if such fertilisers would be OK for organic farming, as I'd assume that would be an extra boost?

Scientists unveil fertiliser pellets made from captured carbon

That's sounds great. There hasn't been much mention of FF fertilisers since I got here. There seems to be so much exciting stuff going on... which ones to place those big bets on??

It has bothered me since you mentioned Ecotricity's 5,000 grass aerobic digester plan that the fields were going to be sown by diesel tractor, fertilized by diesel tractor with FF fertilizers, harvested by diesel tractors and transported to their nearest digester by diesel tractor....

markin

Simple fix, Means test energy use, people with heated outdoor pools can pay 3X and the poor get 30% off.

England statistics:
2.55 million households (11.1%) are in fuel poverty

In 2016/17 there were 32,500 excess winter deaths

In 2018, research published by E3G and NEA found
that, on average, there are 32,000 excess deaths
each year in the UK between December and
March. Based on the World Health Organization’s
own conservative estimates, around 9,700 deaths
are attributable to cold-related ill health prompted
by cold homes.



Around 4 million UK households are in fuel poverty, unable to afford to live in a warm, dry home. National Energy Action is the national charity working to end fuel poverty in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

http://www.nea.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/UK-FPM-2018-FINAL-VERSION.pdf

zeupater

markin wrote: »

Simple fix, Means test energy use, people with heated outdoor pools can pay 3X and the poor get 30% off.

England statistics:
2.55 million households (11.1%) are in fuel poverty

In 2016/17 there were 32,500 excess winter deaths

In 2018, research published by E3G and NEA found
that, on average, there are 32,000 excess deaths
each year in the UK between December and
March. Based on the World Health Organization’s
own conservative estimates, around 9,700 deaths
are attributable to cold-related ill health prompted
by cold homes.



Around 4 million UK households are in fuel poverty, unable to afford to live in a warm, dry home. National Energy Action is the national charity working to end fuel poverty in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

http://www.nea.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/UK-FPM-2018-FINAL-VERSION.pdf

Hi

Whilst poverty is calculated on a relative as opposed to an absolute basis it's effectively a meaningless construct ... 10000 high earning individuals (say £100k/year) live on a small scenic island and that island has one of the highest per capita incomes in the world and is therefore considered truly affluent ... when a single high earning billionaire sees the quality of life on the island he/she builds a mansion and moves in everyone seems just as happy as nothing has changed, they are all wealthy households ... apart from a mean based calculation would deem that the island just moved to the top of the worlds poverty index table with 99.99% living in poverty, whilst in the real world everyone is very well off ...

Although fuel poverty is different, it also uses a relative approach .... if one of the 10000 high earners retires, receives a pension of 60% of median earnings (£60k) and through being retired uses higher than average fuel (even if it's only fractional) then he/she moves immediately into fuel poverty as they would be left with a residual income below £60k ....

In a nutshell, this is the problem with taking the relative approach as opposed to absolute ... in some areas of the world someone who can hardly afford to eat or heat can rank more favourably in the poverty index table than someone elsewhere with a reasonable level of comfort ... it just doesn't make sense to anyone that doesn't have some form of poverty related or political agenda! ...

HTH
Z

mmmmikey

Yep, the statistics make compelling headlines but when you look at them closely you realise that they don't actually tell you a lot.


I would also point out that "fuel poverty" isn't necessarily anything to do with the price of fuel. If housing costs halved then "fuel poverty" would be reduced because the money spent on rent, etc. could be used to buy fuel.


Not saying that poverty isn't a very real problem to be addressed but attributing poverty to fuel costs and trying to fix it that way strikes me as an overcomplicated approach likely to have all kinds of unintended consequences.

zeupater

mmmmikey wrote: »

Yep, the statistics make compelling headlines but when you look at them closely you realise that they don't actually tell you a lot.


I would also point out that "fuel poverty" isn't necessarily anything to do with the price of fuel. If housing costs halved then "fuel poverty" would be reduced because the money spent on rent, etc. could be used to buy fuel.


Not saying that poverty isn't a very real problem to be addressed but attributing poverty to fuel costs and trying to fix it that way strikes me as an overcomplicated approach likely to have all kinds of unintended consequences.

Hi

Agree, poverty is a real problem but there should be a definition based on an absolute model as opposed to a relative one ... what exists now is little more than a construct to grab headlines & column inches ...

Regarding fuel poverty, the official definition is that it exists where household income falls below 60% of the national average (median) after accounting for expenditure on fuel consumption at a level typically applicable for a nominal household of similar size & composition if it were to be heated to a standard temperature using fuel at a nominal average price, but before any other expenditure ...

... odd really if you think about it, you could have two adjacent households with exactly the same level of income & occupation, one fully paid for, leaving considerable residual income to allocate on whatever is required & one rented (/heavily mortgaged) with far less left to spend on anything other the essentials, yet they're both classified as being exactly the same in terms of fuel poverty despite one being far more able to afford fuel than the other ... considering the amount of brainpower that should have been focussed on the issue of poverty, surely they could have come up with a more meaningful (/less illogical) definition ... (?!)

HTH
Z

JKenH

I loooked at the definition of fuel poverty for England and found it quite complicated to work out compared to Scotland and Wales where the definition of fuel poverty is if a household spends more than 10% of its income on fuel costs. If you have a large house like we have and live on a pension as we do I can see it would be pretty easy to fall into that definition without actually feeling poor.

My late mum lived quite happily solely on a basic state pension which I am sure was far less than 10 times her electricity and oil bills for her 3 bedroomed bungalow yet she would never have complained about living in any form of poverty.

Since I acquired solar panels I have watched every unit of electricity produced and consumed and now view every item of expenditure in terms of a day’s usage of electricity. If I buy a coffee out it is 2 days’ electricity. Every mile I drive I see as a unit (kwh) of electricity That makes me see electricity as being very cheap and everything else now seems expensive. You would not believe how many unnecessary journeys I have avoided and how much money I have saved with my new perspective on life. If I was in fuel poverty I am pretty sure I would be able to save a few pence somewhere else in my budget to pay my bill.

I am always staggered at the numbers of people who are reported to be in poverty- something like 14 million people in the UK. There will always be the genuinely poor who need help but some people are just poor at managing their money and making life choices. (I know that comment will offend some and I won’t be getting into arguments to justify it - it may make me sound uncaring but it’s just my opinion and I will accept whatever flak comes my way).

JKenH

zeupater wrote: »

Hi

Agree, poverty is a real problem but there should be a definition based on an absolute model as opposed to a relative one ... what exists now is little more than a construct to grab headlines & column inches ...

Z

I entirely agree. Any improvements in pay for the working man or woman such as a rise in the minimum wage will automatically throw more people on fixed incomes into poverty.

Martyn1981

JKenH wrote: »

I am always staggered at the numbers of people who are reported to be in poverty- something like 14 million people in the UK. There will always be the genuinely poor who need help but some people are just poor at managing their money and making life choices. (I know that comment will offend some and I won’t be getting into arguments to justify it - it may make me sound uncaring but it’s just my opinion and I will accept whatever flak comes my way).

I get where you are coming from. It's tricky to get a descriptive balance right on issues like this.

I often wonder where Wifey and I come, as we live on one income (hers) due to back problems I have, but I get no benefits now (quite right) as 20yrs of physio mean I can do a lot for short bursts (currently building a brick wall for the front, 2 or 3hrs per day).

Now, we've paid off our mortgage, so we are rich, but have one income so fuel poor, but have invested in energy efficiency, generation and insulation etc, so have low energy bills, so are energy rich again? No idea what we are.

Now next door, they are younger, fitter, and work two full time jobs, but paid approx 4x more for the house, and will have a mortgage (no fault of theirs) that is so high that trying to pay off the capital (something Wifey and I attacked on a virtual 'war footing') would stump me completely.

That's one of the reasons why I'd like to see a 20% VAT on energy, as I truly believe the additional 15%, properly ring fenced, could reduce bills with large scale investment in insulation, PV rollouts, etc etc for those on lower incomes ......... damn ...... fell into my own trap, not necessarily low incomes, but some fairly defined policy for those that need the help.

But even without such a rate increase, why not do it anyway, reducing energy bills for people will free up spending money for the economy and of course help the nation meet AGW targets.

Even something like the Green Deal with investment slowly recovered from energy savings BUT absolutely without the interest rate, let alone the punishing rates the government opted for.

I don't think any of these thoughts are new, clever, or difficult.