Water companies are to be given new powers to force meters on millions of families amid claims it is necessary to cope with droughts.
New powers to adopt compulsory metering are to be given to those companies which can show they are in so-called 'water stress' areas.
However, the Government plans to direct every water company in the country to consider imposing meters on customers to solve water shortage problems. The most immediate impact is likely to be felt across southern Britain, where as many as eight m homes, housing 18.9m people, could be required to have meters within ten years.
Compulsory metering is highly controversial for the cost of installation, which is likely to be more than £1.3bn, will be passed on to householders in the form of higher bills.
There are fears that metering is a particular burden for large, low-income families. To date the introduction of meters has been sold to consumers on the promise that they can save money compared with the traditional payment system linked to a property's rateable value.
full article
Friday, 17 August 2007
Govt ready to extend Hips scheme
Homeowners marketing a three bedroom property will need a Hip, including Energy Performance Certificate (EPC), from September 10, the communities department confirmed today.
Through EPCs, each home is given an energy efficiency assessment, modelled on the A-G rating applied to consumer goods such as fridges.
The government hopes this will encourage homeowners to improve their home's energy efficiency, working to reduce bills and cut carbon emissions.
To help homeowners the communities department has made available 'green grants' of up to £300 to fund improvements such as insulation.
full article
Through EPCs, each home is given an energy efficiency assessment, modelled on the A-G rating applied to consumer goods such as fridges.
The government hopes this will encourage homeowners to improve their home's energy efficiency, working to reduce bills and cut carbon emissions.
To help homeowners the communities department has made available 'green grants' of up to £300 to fund improvements such as insulation.
full article
Thursday, 16 August 2007
Persuading Britons to cut back on flying will be an uphill struggle
A FIELD next to Heathrow—the world's busiest international airport—does not seem an appealing place for a spot of camping. The roar of jet engines is ever-present, and the only significant landmark is the airport's new control tower. Yet on August 12th dozens of people gamely began erecting tents. They were not there to admire the scenery: this was the Camp for Climate Action, and they had come to protest against aviation and its contribution to global warming.
The camp illustrates just what a nightmare climate change has become for those who are charged with putting the aviation industry's best public-relations foot forward. Defenders of the business argue that aeroplanes are being unfairly singled out for criticism. Air travel is thought to account for just 6.3% of Britain's greenhouse-gas emissions, compared with around 20% for road transport and 37% for power generation. But high-altitude carbon emissions are reckoned to be more damaging than low-level ones, although nobody is sure by exactly how much. Airlines are exempt from emissions laws now and pay no fuel tax, and whereas demand for cars and electricity is predicted to grow only slowly, demand for flying is forecast to rise hugely over the coming decades.
Britons do seem to regard climate change as a problem, but there is little appetite for big lifestyle changes. One recent poll by Ipsos MORI found that most respondents were doing nothing to reduce their carbon emissions. In another survey, for the Sunday Times, 70% of people reckoned that greenery would drop right down the political agenda if economic growth stalled.
full article
The camp illustrates just what a nightmare climate change has become for those who are charged with putting the aviation industry's best public-relations foot forward. Defenders of the business argue that aeroplanes are being unfairly singled out for criticism. Air travel is thought to account for just 6.3% of Britain's greenhouse-gas emissions, compared with around 20% for road transport and 37% for power generation. But high-altitude carbon emissions are reckoned to be more damaging than low-level ones, although nobody is sure by exactly how much. Airlines are exempt from emissions laws now and pay no fuel tax, and whereas demand for cars and electricity is predicted to grow only slowly, demand for flying is forecast to rise hugely over the coming decades.
Britons do seem to regard climate change as a problem, but there is little appetite for big lifestyle changes. One recent poll by Ipsos MORI found that most respondents were doing nothing to reduce their carbon emissions. In another survey, for the Sunday Times, 70% of people reckoned that greenery would drop right down the political agenda if economic growth stalled.
full article
Wednesday, 15 August 2007
Pulling the plug on wasting water
Some consumers simply don't understand the environmental impact of their water usage.
A report by the Earth Policy Institute last year revealed that we consumed 154bn litres of bottled water a year, 25% of which was imported.
Nor do consumers fully appreciate the costs and technological challenges of providing and maintaining water supply and treatment infrastructures.
Regulatory changes are an important requirement in promoting a more responsible attitude towards water usage, but perhaps the greatest progress will result from greater acceptance of the concept of water reuse, particularly by Western consumers.
Huge advances are being made in water treatment by chemical engineers across the world. But ironically, it is currently cheaper to use treated water for non-drinking purposes, such as washing vehicles or watering our gardens, than to introduce methods that use alternative sources. This has to change.
Charging for water usage will not only help provide the funding we need to take these technologies forward, but will also help to instil a sense of responsibility among consumers.
Although, in the UK, we currently pay our water companies for our supplies, the majority of consumers do not think twice about the actual volumes of water they're using, or indeed, wasting.
Inevitably there will be opposition. Asking people to pay more for their water supplies will not be popular, but it is essential.
The word supplies is a key one. This is not about asking people to pay more for water per se, it is about asking people to pay for the water they use.
Appropriate pricing for water use will encourage consumers to take a more sensible and considered approach to water consumption and help us to reinforce the crucial three Rs: reduce, reuse, recycle.
This maxim underpins sustainable chemical engineering in the 21st Century and features heavily in our Jubilee report, which celebrates 50 years of IChemE's chartered status.
full article
A report by the Earth Policy Institute last year revealed that we consumed 154bn litres of bottled water a year, 25% of which was imported.
Nor do consumers fully appreciate the costs and technological challenges of providing and maintaining water supply and treatment infrastructures.
Regulatory changes are an important requirement in promoting a more responsible attitude towards water usage, but perhaps the greatest progress will result from greater acceptance of the concept of water reuse, particularly by Western consumers.
Huge advances are being made in water treatment by chemical engineers across the world. But ironically, it is currently cheaper to use treated water for non-drinking purposes, such as washing vehicles or watering our gardens, than to introduce methods that use alternative sources. This has to change.
Charging for water usage will not only help provide the funding we need to take these technologies forward, but will also help to instil a sense of responsibility among consumers.
Although, in the UK, we currently pay our water companies for our supplies, the majority of consumers do not think twice about the actual volumes of water they're using, or indeed, wasting.
Inevitably there will be opposition. Asking people to pay more for their water supplies will not be popular, but it is essential.
The word supplies is a key one. This is not about asking people to pay more for water per se, it is about asking people to pay for the water they use.
Appropriate pricing for water use will encourage consumers to take a more sensible and considered approach to water consumption and help us to reinforce the crucial three Rs: reduce, reuse, recycle.
This maxim underpins sustainable chemical engineering in the 21st Century and features heavily in our Jubilee report, which celebrates 50 years of IChemE's chartered status.
full article
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
