Carsons Post

Notes from samcarson's Evernote Openbook: Public Folder

This blog has been a neglected thing.

Why does one blog? Usually to express an opinion or point of view, but unless that point of view is interesting and based on some differentiated ideas it becomes a rather pointless exercise. Why should anyone read my thoughts on the carbon economy when they should really be reading Sustainable Energy - without the hot air. Read more

I've been quite keen on Cap and Trade emissions schemes for awhile. At first it was because it was what everyone was talking about, and looked like the only real way that Business buy-in was going to be brought about. But then last year, Rex Tillerson, CEO at Exxon came out publicly backing Carbon Taxes. It made headlines, obviously a Carbon tax is easier to implement. And if you're me, having spent the past couple months figuring out the CRC consultation document, that is certainly true. Nothing is as complicated as dreaming up an artificial market out of thin air.

That said, I'm sold on the Cap and Trade market idea. And here is why.

The place to start is the "why do we need to do anything?". The problem with our modern economy is that we're just starting to come to terms with the fact that externalities appear as costs elsewhere on the balance sheet. Climate Change being case in point. This is a shame, because the world had gotten pretty used to writing externalities off as someone else's problem. So, we need to find a way to start paying for externalities when our current system lets them go for free. This is true of Greenhouse Gases, waste, sewage, supply chain sweatshops, to social unrest due to oil exploration. All are undergoing different levels of navel-gazing trying to figure out how to include those costs because we need to get business to factor all externalities into the price of a product.

For business to do this, we can take the traditional route and ask them to; which has had some pretty limited success. Better to add to their costs with legislation. To add to their cost through legislation there is either a tax or a market.

Why did Rex Tillerson advocate a Carbon tax? It would seem to initially be against Exxons best interests.

Here is my theory: its probable that Exxon will not fare well in a carbon market and if thats the case then a Carbon market and a Carbon tax is much of muchness - it doesn't really make any difference. Unless of course, you look at the redistribution models of a Carbon tax vs market. I would think that Exxon would prefer a carbon tax because they are much better and lobbying government for tax subsidies. The redistribution model is more likely to appeal to them. A carbon market will redistribute toward the best innovators. This is my cynical point of view.

However, tax is not without its benefits. To prove this, we'll look at two different externalities: greenhouse gases and waste.

Waste traditionally gets landfilled, which is the most prominent way it manifests itself as an externality. That landfill site is local, must be managed and is a local example of the problem. It is the inverse of Greenhouse gases which have no central point to look to. Landfill and other taxes are the best way to mitigate waste. The idea is twofold, first try and get manufacturers to recycle or at least deal with their products as waste. In Europe we have the WEEE directive that mandates that all electrical manufacturers take back their goods. So, when I buy a washing machine the old one goes back to the supplier for recycling (ie shipping to China for them to deal with). Then we have ever increasing landfill tax which means that waste solutions have an opportunity to innovate at recycling because landfill is really pricey. The landfill tax is then used to essentially deal with the landfill problem, safe and disposal, financing of recycling schemes, policing of fly-tipping, etc.

Greenhouse gasses don't actually go anywhere. They go everywhere. There isn't any cleanup solution other than of the wreckage of Climate Change. We could tax to build carbon capture and storage, but that doesn't stop cars and other direct fuel combustion. Its too disparate a problem, and government cannot innovate enough to tackle it.

This is why I am in favor of carbon markets. How would government fund full to the brim of Carbon tax dollars or pounds possibly meet this challenge quickly and with innovation. It is not the job of government to innovate, or to understand where innovation is going to happen. I would look at this as a prime case of needing markets to look for good ideas where there are none at all at the moment.

The CRC here in the UK will be an absolute mess because most of the structures it relies upon are not built for it. For example, relationship between energy supplied and supplier is a mess - how the hell anyone actually knows they aren't being overcharged in energy consumption right now is a mystery to me. But until now it really has been so cheap that it has been easy not to care.

The CRC costs won't even be that significant at first. Much more important is the cost of metering and monitoring, changing of service contracts and leases. Figuring out how  you're going to get tenants to reduce energy consumption and how you pass on costs - all that stuff. Right now, I'm sure most businesses wish there was a tax. Then they could pay it and be left alone. The CRC means they have to engage with their consumption, recognise what it is, and if its more than last year; deal the implications if increased consumption.

This is the first in a series on the Carbon Reduction Commitment, as the third consultation is underway until the 4th of June. I have also been working with WriteToReply to host the Draft Implimentation document for the CRC on WriteToReply - which can be used to comment on the document, paragraph by paragraph; or link to specific sections.

In discussing UKs upcoming "cap and trade" emissions trading system, the immediate reaction of most is see it as a tax. It takes a moment for most to think about it differently. The Carbon Reduction Commitment (CRC) is not a tax - it is an emissions trading scheme. The difference is important: a tax would mean increased cost to all businesses. The CRC on the other hand, is designed to be revenue neutral and only penalise the poorest performing - while incentivising good performance with additional payback.

It will, however, take more resources as reporting will increase. This is unavoidable, while the corporate emissions reporting elements in the Climate Change Act were removed, it is hard to to imagine they would have been were it not for the CRC. The Climate Change Act has committed the UK to an 80% emissions reduction target, businesses reporting on emissions is essential to reaching that. It could be argued that the CRC has made life easier for smaller businesses, as they are not required to same level of reporting they might have if the CRC wasn't an acknowledged element of the Climate Change Act.

Beyond the additional resources required for reporting, the CRC will not cost the average company very much in compliance. It is certainly cheaper than the alternative, a carbon tax.

Why do I say this? In the CRC, the statistically average performing company will get the credits they buy recycled back to them. It is only the poorly performing operations that will be paying out extra funds - which will be distributed to the best performing companies. They will also not lose all their credits, just a percentage; and at the £12/t fixed rate (until 2013) this will not exactly be a massive capital outlay. In fact, those poorly performing organisations are already paying a premium in extra energy costs.

What the CRC will do is require them to admit their emissions and record their energy costs, and incentivise them to do better.

In other words: the current cost of ignoring energy consumption is made in extra money spent on electricity or gas. Under the CRC, this surplus cost will accompanied by the additional costs of carbon credits, and reputational risk via a publically available "League Table" of companies included in the CRC.

Most people see the CRC in terms of financial outlay. For the companies involved, this will not be the radical change that is expected. What will be different is recognising energy cost and emissions output, recording it and comparing it against others. The CRC will change business in the UK, but not through Pounds paid in credits, but simply through putting Carbon on the balance sheet, in the boardroom, and on the pages of the annual report.

As a way to get blogging more, here is a (probably semi) weekly roundup of stuff I've seen or come across that has enriched my life.

• Next year I will go to EcoBuild. I didn't really know what it was about this year. However, I really wish I had gone now.
• Times Labs, who I suppose are a new media experimental section (read: one intern with 3 hours a week) at The Times, have put on Romeo and Juliet, in twitter. Most of the cast are there. Its great. Start with @narrator_ and follow the rest.
• On Twitter, @RobCrilly is in Darfur and writing about the Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir/ICC showdown. Interesting is following his News posts in The Times, his blog, and his twitter posting. Between the three there is a display of how stressful the situation is, and how complex. Hopefully, I'll have the time to expand on this in a whole blog post.
• Spent a lot of the week thinking about neighbourhood, prompted by reading Sustainable Communities. Both communities and neighbourhood are slippery words, but rather vital. This too would make some interesting blog-fodder.
• Created my own Google Map overlay. I've started on this before, but the tools are now so darn nifty that I could not resist wasting a few minutes poking virtual pins into virtual maps.
• Have downloaded X-Plane Racing on the iPod, probably the height of what is possible on that platform these days. Such fun.
• Related to iPod; tried to get Android to work on my EeePC a few weeks ago. This is something that I think would be amazing.
• Also in technology: I love Evernote more and more, and used it for building guidance notes this week, as well as website testing. Its so handy. Also, giving Chandler PIM a go - but it all hangs on whether I can get it to play nice with my locked-down work PC. If so, I'll be pleased, if not - Toodledo is still great.

Thats it for this week, but hopefully I'll have more time to follow up on some of the posts outlined.

It is not surprising if you haven't heard  of it. The Energy Performance Building Directive, or EPBD, is a wonderfully Euro title for a programme of legislation that has been enacted in all EU states but one. However, Brits and Europeans are starting to see the effects of it - and will do more and more as this helpful rating system for buildings provides important information for buyers and renters on the energy performance of buildings.

The EPBD is the foundation of the Energy Performance Certificates (EPCs), which are in UK Housing Information Packs, and is also the origins of Display Energy Certificates (DECs) that are beginning to appear in public buildings.

The UK's EPC programme is one of the best and most relevant examples of the EPBD rollout in the EU. EPCs are certificates that certificates that home and building sellers or landlords must produce and show to buyers and renters. They show the energy performance potential of the building, based on what it is made of and how it is laid out. Think of an EPC as the fuel mileage spec on a new car, one can use this statistic as a factor in purchasing.

EPCs have come under fire by talking heads for being essentially useless as no buyers actually pay much attention to them. However, this programme has been underway in the UK for less than a year now, and the whole Energy Performance narrative is still quite a new thing for the general population. More importantly, informing the buying public to raise demand for better performing buildings is only one way that the EPC will have effect. Another, more important aspect is to raise the bar for sellers.

It works like this: if I am selling a house and the EPC rating is "E", but can become a "D" if I insulate the loft, this is a decision that I might take. As an individual, this is a cost-benefit decision that I have to think about. As a developer who doesn't want any impediments in my resale, this is something to pay attention to.

The EPC does three things:

• It increases the information for the buying public
• It forces the sellers and developers to recognise and factor energy performance in their product
• It creates a pool of data about the UK building stock that can be used to target patterns of performance by the government

The last point is interesting because it is one way that the UK system is more advanced than most of its European counterparts. As the EPBD is a "directive" from the EU, it means that national government can impliement it how they see fit, so long as it meets a certain standard. I said before that the UK's system was among the best examples of the EPBD in a country, and the reasons for this are interesting:

• The UK keeps EPC data on a central database
• The UK has a well structured assessor programme

Contrast to the German example, the EPC data is owned by the assessors - so the government has no access to the building data. So, there is a massive programme for establishing a common dataset for the entire building stock, and this data is not structured or contained in any meaningful way. For many countries, the EPBD represents a wasted opportunity for a sort of ongoing "census" of the building stock. In the UK, on the other hand, almost two million properties from small student flats to massive office towers have been collected into one database.

Why has the UK been so much more successful? Well, one reason stands out: the British programme has been almost entirely silent on it's European Union roots. Contrast this to the Spanish programme which is wrapped in European stars, it becomes clear that energy performance programmes are less effective when they're viewed as dictats from Brussels.

Another important reason is that the UK system is better planned. It is pretty obvious that in 2004 when the EPBD was first established, there was little understanding of how important an issue it would be five years later. Now the discussion has changed, and what might have originally been dismissed as irrelevant EU tinkering has now become important.

It is probably for this reason that the EPBD is being opened up again and "recast". The revision of the directive is under discussion right now, and a tightening of definitions is expected - as well as the feedback of having the programme underway. For some countries in the EU, the revisions will require serious thought about their impliamentation - but the UK is not one of those.

Update: the "Tweetminster" widget on the left panel is a livestream of "tweets" from UK MPs. Watch the stream at Prime Ministers Questions for live commentary on the scenes.

As President Obama's first week rolls in with continued exciting but obvious changes to American policy demenor, one of the more interesting discussions has been surrounding his use of technology. It was this use of communications and social networking that is claimed to have won him the election (though Prospect Magazine's "Washington Watch" column disputes the importance of this). The new administration isn't the only government experimenting with digital outreach, but it is hard to determine what is techno-fad and the future of digital democracy.

YouTube was obvious, Obama's use of YouTube is more interesting in contrasting Bush's lack of using this platform. Even the Queen of England has a YouTube site, so this to me was a no-brainer. Who did listen to the Bush weekly address? Where was it? For a government to talk to the demos it has to go within proximity of it, and YouTube is able to jam itself in the middle of everything.

Blogs are not actually that important, as they perform the same role as press releases, but are a bit more readable. I don't think "blogging" from highly official sources, be it the White House, any government or corporate headquarters are interesting. They are essentially a press release rewritten for mass consumption before the journalists re-write them. The term blog is such a loose one that they include all manner of sins, from teenagers lamenting the state of Brittney Spears, to this unqualified thought exercise on technology and government, through to company notifications of product releases, to reporters adding context to journalism. The more interesting moments of the development of the blog are over.

What is interesting is in other forms of transmission. By transmission I mean the delivery of information, good and bad, technical or informal, from the source to anyone who wants it. So, in this context, this Obama administration outreach using RSS feeds for various headline topics is interesting, and also once again so obvious that it is exceptional that it wasn't a part of the Bush administration.

I spend a fair amount of time watching for environmental legislation from the UK Parliament and Brussels. The EU's transmission of its inner workings are the confused, convoluted and generally incomprehensible mess we expect of the EU; even the URLs are frustratingly inconsistent and lacking any meaningful structure. If you find the piece of information you want, what it actually means is clouded with such opaque legalese that the task is near impossible.

The UK government is much better. The Hansad feed shows a responsible attempt at informing the public, though it is not without its confusions as well. Part of the problem is understanding the context of how these documents appear, a sort of voice to describe the goings on under Big Ben. For this the @UKParliament Twitter feed is very helpful. The snippets of information don't have to be as formal as the Legislative feed, and in this they are able to describe what is happening rather than present it.

This post on Mashable provides an excellent current survey of how various governments use the medium. I've been following @DowningStreet for a little while, and it is quite interesting. But so far the Department of Communities and Local Government (DCLG), @communitiesUK, shows the best understanding of how a government department can use Twitter to engage with citizens. The feed is an informative blend of news, the movements and actions of Secretary of State for the DCLG, some community engagement and latest reports.

Its no wonder either, in October the DCLG published a series of reports on "Digital Inclusion" and a consultation on the subject - which ended last Monday. I will be watching the feed to see what comes of it. I think it should be interesting, the DCLG seems encouragingly proactive on the subject.

Is Twitter a model for community engagement? Go to @Tweetminster and see MPs lining up to use it. However, I think its a tool, but it has a serious flaw. First of all, it is a product and not a network. So, Twitter is built on private real estate - and I think this is a real problem.

The Microblogging concept is a good one, but it will never be a core tool so long as it is owned by one actor. In this, we will see Google's Open Social protocol as the saviour of this space. If Open Social can connect different private microblogging networks, the importance of Twitter.com in this space will diminish. Ironically, this could be the best outcome for Twitter. Like Adobe for PDFs. Open the space to the public - then be the best at it.  I don't see why my microblogging space shouldn't contain Facebook and Skype friend updates - for many they are the same discussion.

Also, Twitter has to be better understood by government. But there are signs that this is happening, such as the IDF's use of twitter in the Gaza conflict. We will see more of this experiementation with social media by government. But it must be an informed and concerted effort by the government to do so. I expect we will see this when the Obama administration shows how social media can be used to promote policy to citizenship in a more intimate way; rather than a game of uncoordinated Whack-A-Mole in cyberspace.

Update: playing around with Pidgin and Gnome Do "Toaster Popups" has allowed me to create many of the OSD notifications that I was looking for. But they are still inconsistant and appear in different places - one central protocol would be very helptul. Also incorporating the Specto project into this would allow greater versatility.

My mobile provider here in the UK has released its new phone the INQ-1. It won't go toe to toe with Android phones or iPhones, but will offer some interesting features. Namely, that the phone is entirely built around social networking. It does some interesting things that should be built into Gnome.

The most important to me surround the addressbook. Right now, addressbooks feed outward - you look up who you are trying to contact in the addressbook and then communicate outwards: by writing addresses on envelopes, typing numbers into phones or connecting to email software - and in more advanced forms using Instant Messenger software like Pidgin or Skype.

In the INQ-1 there is apparently a two way link with the addressbook - when you look for a phone number you also get Facebook and Skype status. This allows the opportunity to see what friends are doing, or if they are Skype accessible. This slight change makes the addressbook just a little bit more useful and interesting.

The second way this manner in thinking could manifest itself is by understanding the importance of On-Screen-Display messages. Personally, I love them and think they are the next generation of "Widgets". KDE defined itself with Plasma  and Plasmoids, and I thought this was a really interesting way of bringing the web to the desktop. However, they require going to the desktop looking at them. This is something that I never do.

OSD has been around for awhile, and people are doing this already with Mugshot and other attempts at streaming the social network into the desktop. However, I'm not sure if the way that OSD is managed has been addressed - I would like to see OSD services follow an integrated protocol, and also communicate with the addressbook.

How I see this development working is this: put the addressbook in the centre of the social network system. Allow it to talk to Evolution, Skype, Facebook, Pidgin, Gmail/Google Connect/ Profiles/etc, Twitter. I don't know who's birthday is coming up but Facebook does. Why isn't this appended to my addressbook? The addressbook should be alive and easily accessible through a nifty applet - automagically streaming as much information from online services as possible.

Then, connect it to a beefed up OSD protocol so that the system is managed and not just a traffic jam of music, email and system notifications. Each notification should be smart enough to allow action on the item - reply, open, etc. It becomes a stream of local (system and music) and universe (facebook, twitter, et al) in one managed form - with an addressbook that is better informed than the user is.

You wouldn't have known, but the world changed on Thursday.

Not due to the terrorism in Mumbai, though that may have caused a change in a different way. It wasn't Credit Crunch related either. The world changed because the Queen of England pulled out her best pen (quill even?) and signed into law the world's first binding legislation on Climate Change.

The Climate Change Act 2008, along with the appointment of Rt Hon Ed Milliband to the new position of Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change; head of the new Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) will radically change the way the UK thinks about business, leisure, and community. I can say that with confidence because it has to do so.

Why? It is ambitious. The Act sends signals that the Government is serious about Climate Change, and the minimal resistance to it shows that, aside from the Politi-saurus Rex section of the Tory backbench, there is little opposition to clear and definitive action on this reality. This has allowed the passing into law of:

• An 80% reduction in CO2 emissions over 1990 levels, including aviation and shipping to and from the UK.
• Clear infrastructure on interim targets, with the establishment of a Climate Change committee in Parliament to inform the detail of what the targets are and how the boundaries of reporting.
• The requirement for all public buildings to be improved to be in the top quartile in energy performance, all new purchases must be in the top quartile already.
• A reporting cycle for the Government to inform Parliament of progress toward goals set out in the Climate Change Act, at least every 5 years.
• The enabling of carbon market/trading mechanisms, like the upcoming Carbon Reduction Commitment for large non-energy intensive business.

So with one signature, the Queen changed the reality and shape of the UK of the future. But she wasn't finished. With a dip into her inkpot, she moved on to sign in the Energy Act 2008, which sets the stage for an ambitious expansion in the UK renewable energy market. The Act will also change the foundations of energy metering and management, bringing forward the idea of Smart Metering, where building energy meters feed back information to the Grid for better management and more efficient energy supply.

This is also very important. Electricity in the UK is mostly made from the combustion of coal and natural gas. The higher the energy demand, the greater the CO2 and other Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions. One kWh directly equates to 0.56 of a tonne of CO2 released into the atmosphere (Defra). However, with greater information feedback to the Grid, energy suppliers can be more responsive to demand. They can make a leaner supply, without such surplus to meet demand fluxuations. With less surplus comes less production, which means a greater efficiency and less emissions impact on the environment.

The Queen then calls for a cup of Tea, hopefully Fairtrade, and a cucumber sandwich. She'll now sign in the Planning Act 2008, which is the third prong in the Governments plan to attack Climate Change. This affects how construction companies are allowed to build in the UK. As the building stock are responsible for 40% of emissions, it makes a big difference.

What does this all mean and how did the world change?

First of all, the UK can never turn back - everything it does must now keep this target in mind. Not only will this have a profound effect on domestic affairs, it will mean that UK must be assertive on Climate Change issues in the EU and on the international stage. This will trickle down into all sectors of policy and transportation, and therefore into trade and international relations.

This spur the UK market for all things energy efficient and low/zero carbon energy production. It will require innovation, and the UK might find itself with a new energy market. It will be a technology market, which will inspire design, engineering and manufacturing. Add to this financial services surrounding the emerging Carbon commodities market - potentially, in time, the largest commodities market in the world.

There are going to be winners and there will be losers, as with any radical change. As born again environmentalist Thomas Friedman puts says: "it isn't a revolution until someone gets hurt". Does the Queen understand this as she marks her Royal assent to this legislation? I think she does, because to ignore this new reality is the way best way to gurantee missing the opportunities and successes that will come in the new low carbon world.

The state of the markets is dizzying. If you need help understanding what the hell is going, and why, listen to this audio file or watch this:

Play from YouTube