Energy group meeting notes (21.11.24)

The next regular meetings will be (no December meeting):

Thus. 16.01.25 at 19:30 and every 8 weeks
Thus. 13.02.25 at 16:30 and every 8 weeks. This will be a face-face, probably in a public place that serves food/drinks (details to follow)

Here is what we covered:

We had a wide-ranging discussion on who’s emitting most carbon and does it matter. This came up from a very recent report sent in by a group member which asserted that:

  • The richest 10% in the world were responsible for 50% of ghg emissions
  • The richest 1% in the world were responsible for 16% of ghg emissions

There are many such reports that indicate a direct correlation between income and level of emissions. These numbers have been widely quoted from an original report based on 2015 data, see also this portal. Our World in Data has similar statistics based on wealth of countries rather than individuals.  The personal experience of energy group members, in some cases based on real assessments carried out in Teignbridge, bears this out.

Whether these numbers are accurate or even relevant is not what we should be focusing on. Doing this can lead to finger pointing and alienating the very group we need to bring on board. Nevertheless, focusing our efforts on those in Teignbridge with a higher socio-economic level would be more effective in mitigating climate change.

With this knowledge we should also be able to tailor our message and initiatives to be more effective. For example, highlighting that a small reduction of a large number represents a significant amount of emissions and cost. Finding ways to do this through simple changes in our behaviour is an excellent self-motivator.

This is the approach of the My Electricity initiative and associated tool. Although not specifically aimed at the top income bracket, it is likely to be most effective for households/businesses on incomes/turnover greater than £30,000. The higher the income/turnover, the greater the potential saving.

Also worth supporting (i.e. lobbying our representatives) are large-scale mitigation actions that change behaviour and lead to positive tipping points in climate mitigation. Initiatives such as frequent flyer, TEQs, Carbon-Currency and a progressive energy pricing model driven by Carbon Intensity and levels of consumption, would be powerful tools to ‘nudge’ behaviour change. These do need to be backed by regional/national/international policies, so require explanation to keep the public onboard.

We also covered geo-engineering measures and carbon sequestration. The recent Panorama program “can science save the world” gives the impression that we can carry on as before if we embraced more technology. While it’s true that we will need large-scale technological changes to be more efficient in our energy use and to capture CO2 already in the atmosphere (sequestration), these alone cannot avoid the imminent 1.5oC tipping point. We need to quickly reduce (by half) or emissions. Even natural sequestration, with all its ecological benefits when done well, cannot deliver the necessary reductions CO2 levels in the time available. Here is just one of many reports which explain why this is not feasible, even by one of the more efficient natural sequestration solutions. The bottom line being; we have to get away from wishful thinking that offsetting, natural or technological, is a silver bullet. The essential first step will have to be a wholesale behaviour change of halving our consumption and doing it quickly. Not doing so will result in the technology silver bullet taking us out!

We didn’t manage all agenda items, but we did briefly cover a couple of new guides in relation to energy/emissions building assessment tools. Different modelling tools for building energy/emissions assessments we’ve previously covered include (see our webpage and previous meeting notes or just ask):

While we wait for secure cycle parking for the bus connection at Drum Bridges near Heathfield, we can temporarily use a new covered cycle lockup outside the newly refurbished Stover Park (with CCTV but at your own risk). Visit Stover Park anyway as it has some great indoor/outdoor spaces on offer.

Have a good festive season and hope to see you in the new year.

Written by Fuad

Energy group coordinator

fuad@actionclimateteignbridge.org


Posted

in

,

by

Tags:

Comments

4 responses to “Energy group meeting notes (21.11.24)”

  1. Dominic Morby avatar
    Dominic Morby

    Silver bullet – good read that.
    Worth making thus point about future technology wider known as its often referred too.

  2. Paul French avatar
    Paul French

    Sorry, I keep missing these meetings lately due to other commitments. I would have enjoyed this recent discussion I think.
    Targeting higher income people, who can afford to retrofit: insulation, PV, heat pumps and switch to electric cars is a good idea.
    There is a lot of doom and gloom about Climate, especially after the storms in US, Spain etc. I enjoyed reading…Not the end of the world by Hannah Ritchie, a senior researcher on Global Development at Oxford Uni. Also Material World by Ed Conway. The latter is not specifically about Climate but the 6 elements that our world depends on. Book of the Year…FT, Times, Economist, New Statesman etc

  3. Paul Martin avatar
    Paul Martin

    Fuad, Thank you for the meeting notes. Sorry I have been for quite a while but am staying in touch. Kind regards, Paul

  4. Fuad Al-Tawil avatar
    Fuad Al-Tawil

    Thank you all for the feedback here and by e-mail. It’s always good to hear what you think about the various topics discussed.

    Hopefully the point about why we should be targeting those with a higher income is clear. This group tends to have proportionally higher ghg emissions, so should find it easier to reduce these.

    This is less to do with being able to afford technology (EV, PV, HP, etc), quite the opposite since technology doesn’t necessarily reduce emissions. At least not in the remaining time.

    Following the energy hierarchy and tackling the big, low-hanging ‘fruit’ is likely to be more effective for those with higher incomes. That’s because the ‘fruit’ is larger and within reach.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.