Energy conservation, renewable generation and behaviour change: are they mutually exclusive?
You don’t need me to tell you that there are those who consistently deny that the existence of global warming is the consequence of fossil fuels being used to provide the energy that is required to maintain their current lifestyles. Usually these individuals claim it is the natural cycle of the climate, of the planet heating and cooling, that earth has historically experienced.
We in UK are one of the more affluent nations on this planet. We consume vast amounts of energy, in our homes, at our places of work and in our travel and leisure activities. Also it must be recognised that it’s not just fossil fuels that we have consumed, it is also an extensive range of the finite resources (materials) that are used to create all the commodities we enjoy without necessarily thinking about their true cost.
I think I am safe in saying that ERA members, and others, are aware of the need for the journey towards net zero in terms of global temperature rise. Sadly many vulnerable nations have first-hand experience of the consequences of it in the extreme weather events they have been exposed to. How we get there is subject of argument and debate.
As a student at university we were made very aware that when undertaking any research there is a need to study a range of data sources, for the conclusions to have any validity. 'Triangulate your data sources' was a much-quoted phrase, along with 'interrogate those data sources’.
Unfortunately many media organisations often select information that suits their political allegiances, their advertisers, and the demographic of their readers.
I have previously written an article on the options of energy sources for future road transport, here. There is much debate currently about the phasing out of fossil fuelled vehicles and pressure being put on governments, both in UK and the EU, from vested interest groups to change policy and to push back the 2030 deadline of banning new vehicles that have fossil fuels as their only source of energy. I started writing this article a week before the government announcement on 19 September 2023 that that date would be put back from 2030 to 2035, after which no new solely fossil fuelled vehicles could be sold. I would argue this is evidence of political dogma and certain vested interest that have, sadly again, shaped the political decision-making process.
We are currently in very difficult economic times and there is much debate about how to grow the economy and use less energy. There can be no doubt that people are currently using less energy because they cannot afford it.
The introduction of the Low and Ultra Low Emission Zones and some local councils charging older polluting cars higher fees to park in towns and cities have also had significant media attention recently. The arguments against these policies have their foundation in political and monetary economic ideology and they are perceived more as revenue raiser then improving air quality. I understand very well these policies cause additional monetary pain for the individuals affected financially in these very difficult times, but if we continue to consume fossil fuels at the current rate climate change experts and economists argue the monetary pain will be more severe in the years to come and could become a terminal ideology for the world as we know it.
It must be recognised that fossil fuel companies have financial resources to influence governments to shape their policy decisions, more so, some may argue than the renewable energy companies have. If you saw the film The Oil Machine which ERA showed on 10 June 2023 (see review), you will be aware of the power the oil companies have historically held and have used to shape government policies. If you haven’t seen it, click here for further information.
There is no lack of negative media articles regarding electric vehicles. We can read that they will create more potholes in the roads, or that multistorey car parks could collapse because of the increase vehicle weight. Combined with a genuine concern as to whether there will be sufficient electric vehicle charging points by 2030, together with range anxiety, the cost of purchase, reports on a sharp drop in sales of secondhand electric vehicles, one might expect sales of new electric vehicles to be suffering and yet they continue to go up.
Typical examples in the media of the damage electric vehicles allegedly cause can be seen here, here and here - these are just some examples from a quick online search. If you click on these links, look for the sources of their data: have they triangulated their data?
It is true that electric vehicle are heavier when compared to a fossil fuelled equivalent. It should be noted that when vehicle weights are compared for the same model of a vehicle, the base line often used is for a petrol-powered equivalent, not a diesel-powered vehicle which often weigh more than a petrol engine, therefore it is not a fair comparison. Why is the same argument not made about unnecessarily large SUVs used as everyday runabouts?
The rise in average car weight to 1500kgs was a recent media headline claim, so I asked myself how that conclusion was reached. What is an average car? How did they prove their claim? No evidence was produced to validate it.
Only 20% of drivers purchase new cars, the other 80% buying secondhand; however new car buyers do influence what manufacturers produce. If they do not produce the product buyers want then manufacturers cannot sell them.
I recently attended a talk where the subject of wind turbines came up. One member of the audience could not see how we can survive without fossil fuels. It was pointed out to him from someone in the audience that we can’t survive with them. He claimed renewables could not supply sufficient energy at an affordable cost to heat our homes, to fuel our cars and to generate power for industry and that we would always need fossil fuel power stations.
The evidence he used was that a Norwegian company had recently pulled out of building a wind farm in the North Sea because they could not foresee a profit. It was pointed out to him the reasons the company had pulled out was because of the governments cap on the market price for units of electricity generated plus Nimbyism regarding objections to power transmission infrastructure both over and underground. He then asked, how would I like a wind turbine on the South Downs, to which I replied I would have no objection to that because I wanted the planet to still be habitable when my grandchildren grow up.
See here Objections to Solar Energy for quotes from MPs Matt Hancock and Lucy Frazer and the arguments they use and ask yourself these questions: is it Nimbyism, is it the desire for preservation of the bucolic England at any ultimate cost?
Home Energy
With regard to heating homes when fossil fuels are phased out, there are many media outlets that express the view that heat pumps are less efficient and more expensive when compared to fossil fuel systems. Such arguments may well be true in some situations but it is not always so. It depends how well buildings are insulated, what type of system the heat pump is replacing, and whether all of or part of the existing system needs replacing. Also ask yourself where the authors' evidence is, what are their data sources, how was the data obtained what was the demographic of their data source.
For information on heat pumps, air source and ground source, see here for the National Grid. This is one source of information; there are many others for the consumer to read, compare and contrast. Beware of websites sponsored by Heat Pump manufacturers and or suppliers/installers.
My advice is, in addition to reading a range of information, to talk to a range of people who have heat pumps. Ask questions about installations and running costs and efficiency, and also how much has it reduced the carbon footprint of keeping them warm in winter?
If as a country we invest in renewable energy generation then there are more opportunities for fossil fuel domestic heating systems to be replaced by electric heating systems with electricity sourced from wind power, home solar and solar farm generation.
A consequence of restrictive planning regulations regarding listed buildings has placed restrictions on upgrading insulation and double/triple glazing, both of which will improve efficient use of energy and contribute to negating global warming. However, each planning application now has to be judged individually to see what can be allowed.
The cynic in me can imagine sometime in the future when life on earth as we know it is extinct, the little green beings from outer space will land, look around and say to each other ‘what has happened here? The earthlings were supposedly intelligent beings, yet all that is left is empty houses, lots of those are historic ones, and no one is here to enjoy them’. Also, I can imagine them looking at lots of abandoned tin boxes and asking, ‘was that how they travelled and is that why they became extinct?’.
The future of energy and behaviour change
So far in this article I have discussed just some of the levers that shape government policy and the impact on the views of the UK population when it comes to making decision about accepting or challenge prevailing ideologies.
There is in my opinion no doubt that we as individuals will have to undergo behaviour change to survive as a species and for other species to survive as well. Current ever-increasing consumption, and in particular energy consumption, is unsustainable and therefore decision makers need to understand how to manage behaviour change and bring individuals along on the journey.
I was not intending to indulge in political comment in this article, however during this week of 19 September 2023 re the pushing back on the climate mitigations measures, the narrative used by certain individuals included the phrase 'bringing individuals along the journey'. Was it that, or chasing votes from the climate sceptics?
Industrial Revolutions
Here is a thought . . .
The industrial revolution in modern history is the process of change from an agrarian and handicraft economy to one dominated by industry and machine manufacturing. These technological changes introduced novel ways of working and living and fundamentally transformed society. For the first industrial revolution see here, and for the second see here (note this is just one information source).
In reading about the industrial revolutions it is clear that there was the need for individuals to change their social behaviour to survive. Are we at the point of a third industrial revolution? Why do individuals persist in resisting the change to what the majority perceive to be an existential crisis?
Respected climate commentators are claiming we on a path to a sixth mass extinction. It could be argued that unless we undergo a third industrial revolution then we will just accelerate our planet along that path.
T Eccles, with Succeeding with Change (1994), is just one of many social thinkers and commentators on behaviour change and why individuals resist change. Eccles lists 13 possible sources of resistance to change, see Appendix 1.
At ERA we endeavour through our talks and our articles to inform our members of the issues that face us so you can make better informed decisions. Other organisations such as Just Stop Oil and Extinction Rebellion take a more direct-action approach. Sadly it seems that this just makes our current government pass more legislation to deter such action. As individuals we have two key levers at our disposal: how we vote and what we buy.
Change either comes from either top down or bottom up and the documentary film Tomorrow gives an insight into bottom up, giving examples of when communities get together for a common cause. This film was recently shown by MiCan in Midhurst.
Who we vote for can influence the top-down approach to climate change and what we buy can influence the bottom-up approach.
In closing I suggest you look at appendix 1 and ask yourself which ones of Eccles (1994) reactions to change with their stated explanations apply to climate change deniers and maybe even to some of ourselves.
My mother used to say very frequently there is none so blind as those that do not want to see and none so deaf as those that do not want to hear.
Appendix 1
T Eccles (1994) Succeeding with Change: reaction to change/explanation:
Ignorance = ‘I don’t understand that there is a problem, therefore there is no need to change’
Comparison = ‘I often have an alternative I prefer’
Disbelief = ‘I often feel the proposed solution will not work’
Loss = ‘I often feel change brings an unacceptable cost’
Inadequacy = ‘I often feel the rewards are not sufficient’
Anxiety = ‘I often fear being unable to cope’
Demolition = ‘I feel that change can be a threat to existing working arrangements’
Power cut = ‘I feel that my influence and control will be eroded’
Contamination = ‘I feel that new values and practices are repellent – always - sometimes - never
Inhibition = ‘usually my willingness to change is low’
Mistrust = ‘I feel that management motives are suspicious’ (replace management with decision makers ??)
Alienation = ‘other existing interests are more highly valued’
Frustration = ‘change will reduce my power and opportunities’
Further relevant reading
Media opinion (Telegraph, paywalled)