Nov 24 2009
Stop the government burning so much money?
Today George Osborne proposes cuts in departmental budgets for their energy costs, to make them provide their service whilst wasting less energy. It is a modest and practical proposal, with useful savings. It is something which many private sector companies have been doing for years.
Labour’s response is revealing. They first complain that this is just a budget cut. They still do not get it. They still do not see we need some budget cuts. They would rather waste energy in the public sector than save the public some money. They do not want to see their public sector fiefdoms reduced, even by saving energy.
Secondly, they say he has not told us how to do it. Can it be true that after all these years lecturing the rest of us on how we ust use less energy, burn less fossil fuel, government itself has no clue on what it can do to improve its own position? Dosn’t that speak volumes about the triumph of posturing over doing, the rule of spin and lecturing others over any move towards better administration. I have set out before practical greenery which results in doing the same for less. Let me briefly remind Ministers.
You turn the lights off when no-one is in the room. You put in sensors and automatic systems in public areas. In the office building where I work the corridor lights stay on all night and are still ablaze when I arrive in the morning. You have room or area controls for heating. So many public offices and buildings heat too much of the space to too high a temperature for too long a period in winter, and sometimes cool it too much in summer where air conditioning has been fitted.You review the efficiency of your heating systems and boilers, put in better insulation and concentrate the use of your buildings in areas that can be heated most cheaply and easily.
In private business I have found it possible to save significant sums by greening in this way. Why does this government find it so difficult? Why do they keep on about the priority of tackling global warming, if they have no intention of doing the mundane things they need to do to cut their own enegry use? Could it be that they so hate “cuts” that they refuse to make sensible cuts that both save energy and save the public money? So much of the public sector has not started to take enegry efficiency seriously in the way leading companies have done.
John Redwood has been the Member of Parliament for Wokingham since 1987. First attending Kent College, Canterbury, he graduated from Magdalen College...
As JR points out, there are many contradictions when the Labour spin machine starts running. It’s also a point of honour within their departments to keep racking up bills. Any drop in spending means that they have not done their full quota of social engineering for the year.
There can be problems with installing some of the automatic heating and air conditioning systems into existing (historic) buildings. There may not be the space to fit things like ducting in, or it may interfere with the listing status of a building. It’s much easier if the site is closed to undergo major refurbishment, but is it really cash-efficient to have an extra cycle of upheaval to save the energy?
Lighting systems are more compact (less intrusive) to install, and there’s no installation overhead to turn a light off using a switch!
You can also save 100% of the energy used by department if you just close it down.
Reply
You also just *turn down the heating*. Most public buildings are uncomfortably hot for those not inured to it.
Having them at no more than 65F/18C would have the additional advantage of making tens of thousands of public sector employees more mentally alert and less irritable.
Reply
I agree. I have always found Government waste in this area inexplicable.
I am usually the last person to suggest that we should take a cue from Europe, but could we not now bring in their daylight saving time measures? We were always told that this would upset the Scots. Now that they have devolved government we should do this unilaterally in England Wales and Northern Ireland and leave the Scottish Parliament to decide what to do independently. I am amazed that whenever this issue is raised there is no proper debate on it despite the fact that so many members of the public have now discovered global warming as a kind of quasi religion. Once the public got used to the change no-one would think of going back to the current regime.
Reply
Chris H Reply:
November 24th, 2009 at 4:33 pm
What exactly are their measures? I just looked it up and am confused. We put our clocks back one hour, to GMT, at the end of October, which means it is lighter in the mornings when people go to work and darker when they come home (assuming they work 8 till 5). It’s bound to be darker at one end or the other of the day, in winter, due to our latitude; both have their disadvantages.
Reply
The answer is simple
The Government would far sooner think of ways to tax us more, to pay for their waste, than turn off a light.
Remember, elf and safety, the not my job mate, nuffin to do with me syndrome, which seems to perpetuate these sort of organisations where people are discouraged to think for themselves.
They of course do realise that insulation saves money, as they are spending millions with grants to encourage people who are on Benefits, to insulate their homes.
Many private businesses also waste by heating too much.
How many times have you been in a big shop, and said, I have got to get out of here to get some fresh air, I cannot stand it any more, its too hot.
Waste happens when people do not pay the bills, so its a question of education, bit like sons and daughters at home really.
Reply
DennisA Reply:
November 25th, 2009 at 9:56 am
Absolutely right. Why does it need to be called “greening”? It’s common sense. The trouble it becomes conflated with the supposedly green message that by doing so we will save the planet from an imaginary fever, brought about by our desire to have the comforts of modern life, rather than opting for living in a Yurt.
Reply
With half the staff they’d need a lot less energy anyway. Maybe even half as much ; )
Reply
JR: “So much of the public sector has not started to take energy efficiency seriously in the way leading companies have done.”
This must be because in the public sector wasting money is of no consequence and they consider man-made global warming to be a myth.
Reply
But to do this you need people that care. Labour do not care. So nothing has been done only to tell others.
Makes you sick.
Reply
This is such feeble stuff I want to weep. Even Cameron’s desire to cut spending is so feeble that he is almost certain to end up increasing taxes when all other options available are not sufficiently immediate because of the time wasted fooling around.
We now have an opposition that want to cut spending but cannot enunciate a credible way to do it; an opposition that want to push forward with the now largely discredited green issues; an opposition that are shoe-horning in female candidates as our representatives; an opposition sharing the proceeds of growth, my god is there no end to this confused thinking.
I can understand why right wing MP’s and other activists who believe in small government and sound money might believe they have to stay and fight from within or leave the party and face probable marginalisation. That however does not apply to the rest of us.
To stay and vote the Tory party into power will risk bringing more of the same. To leave and allow the Labour party to again win power will be painful but it will ensure an end to the sham policies of Cameron and Osborne.
Gordon Brown worked hard over a period of almost two years to give the Tories their massive lead in the polls, now Cameron and Osborne, in a few short months, seek to hand the advantage back.
Forget the lights George, redeem yourself by hiring a few good Mises or Smithsonian economists, and then follow their advice.
Reply
In the office I am currently working in every room and corridor has motion sensors so if there is no movement the lights go off after 10 minutes, as soon as someone comes in the lights go on again. One small example but I’m sure everyone can tell a similar tale.
Regardless of whether or not you believe in global warming every office should be introducing measures like this, especially in government. Government departments should be trail blazers setting examples on how to be as energy efficient as possible.
You also make a good point about heating, it’s amazing how many people sit in my office with short sleeve shirts while it is literally freezing outside. It’s probably easier to do at home but wear a wooly jumper and turn down the thermostat.
My personal bugbear is PC’s. I’d imagine a high percentage of PC’s are simply left on overnight, assuming a 9 hour working day that’s 15 hours a day they are sitting idling burning energy.
Flabbergasted that any thinking person could possibly oppose such measures.
Reply
The Church Hall where I go to teach tonight has a lot of lights. And it is paid for by the government quite a lot too.
In most of the rooms, there are automatic light sensors so that, once you leave, the lights go off automatically. When there is nobody around, the place has just got emergency lights burning. (It is a pretty rough area).
By just cutting departmental budgets by 10%, some initiative is left to the people who do the cutting. That means that they stand much more chance of getting it right.
You would not believe the ham fisted way the government supervises my lessons this evening. You cannot micro manage from Westminster.
But you can set an example.
Reply
I understand that all Whitehall departments have energy consumption reduction targets. They have had them for years. Not one of them have met their targets; some use more energy.
Someone needs to get hold of Sir Humphrey by the short and curlies and make him take notice.
Reply
I totally agree that the Government should be doing more to save energy, and walk the walk instead of talking the talk.
However I also think that an inquiry should be held into the scandal of the scientists at the Hadley centre that has been revealed in the last few days.
I see that both George Monbiot and Andy Revkin who are well known for their belief in man made global warming are now saying they should have been more sceptical of some of the claims. Unfortunately all of the main political parties seem to have been sucked into being gullible, as Carl Sagan once said “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” and it would appear that the evidence they do have is not robust otherwise they would not have to do the things they appear to have done.
They are after all wanting us to change our whole way of life and possibly impoverish ourselves for many years to come.
The BBC has tried to sweep it under the carpet as has some of the rest of the main stream media, but the changes we are being asked to make require us to be confidant in the scientists and our elected representatives really are doing what’s right, otherwise if in the future if as I suspect the edifice collapses it will make the present disdain with politicians seem like a walk in the park.
Reply
If you want an example of how not to do it, the subject of government energy consumption is a classic. There are now more government quangos in this trough than you can shake a stick at. The NAO did a report on it in Dec 07, it is a good place to start for beginners. This is about the only report you will find that actually tells you how much energy the governments uses, and the initiatives that have been abandoned.
http://www.nao.org.uk/publications/0708/energy_consumption_and_carbon.aspx
The Sustainable Development Commission publish the SDiG report; this has mutated into a government puff document. (Definitely one for the quango axe.)
http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/pages/sustainable-development-in-government.html
Reply
Would you care to comment on Osborne’s other announcement, that a new Tory government would set up a “green investment bank”.
P.S. I’m disgusted.
Reply
Mark Reply:
November 24th, 2009 at 7:26 pm
It’s not just the investment bank – it’s also the green ethical funds (will they get a tax subsidy so that the poverty of returns is masked to some degree?), and also the policy not to permit ECGD to support “foreign fossil fuel” projects.
So instead, the French, German and American government export banks will support their own industrial champions and secure high value export business that we desperately need as a country – even though we have considerable expertise as a result of the North Sea and our mining heritage. Perhaps the next announcement will be from David Willets closing all university engineering departments because we can make money being smarter at trading green certificates instead.
Reply
Freddy Reply:
November 24th, 2009 at 9:38 pm
Huh.
Reply
I used to work in an office (private sector) where people would turn on the heating to the point where they’d have to open a window!
It’s easy to spend other peoples money, and workers often do so at work without regards to the cost.
These people need to develop a “do as you would do at home” mentality. Instead of putting the heating up, put on a pullover type approach. It isn’t rocket science. In my view, the public sector workers need to be re-educated in remembering who pays their wages and their obligation to do so with a responsibility to do so without incurring costs that can be avoided. They need to be told that from the day the Conservatives take office, the culture will change. They need to be reminded that like any private business, they need to balance the budget, and that this will drive the future decisions that the departments will work to. If they are too expensive, cuts WILL be made.
Reply
This is the old Investment V Cuts argument from the government. They cannot see that we need to make cuts and that some cuts can be made in a way that improve efficency.
They have heard the word “reduction” and now the spin machine is in a spin!!!
Reply
Seems most of the taxpayers money is still heading into the banks. Another 7bn to Lloyds, how much has Scotland cost this nation?
Reply
“So much of the public sector has not started to take enegry efficiency seriously in the way leading companies have done.”
No votes to be had in doing things properly.
Reply
If Labour accept the need for spending cuts to restrain the fiscal deficit and want lower carbon emissions then what is stopping them from being bolder than George Osborne ?The Shadow Chancellor has embraced the governments own logic so it shows you how incapable Labour are of basic rationality that they attack an opposition idea grounded in Labour’s own thinking.
Why not cut Whitehall’s energy usage by 20% and save £600 million to fund helping the Third World reduce carbon emissions while getting their economies moving ? As 54% of global CO2 comes from the developing world the UK could end aid to nations that do not need it (Brazil & China and India) or that do not deserve it (Russia) and divert that money to help stimulate green growth in Africa.You could end the waste of funds on consultants at DFID and reduce civil service numbers at that department of state.
That could fund a major UK effort to green overseas aid so that we help developing nations help get emission levels down.It would be better value for money if DFID had fewer civil servants,had no more costly consultants and if Whitehall’s energy usage went down by say 20%.Money could be tied to progress. The aim being to preserve equity so that developing nations could grow their economies to reduce poverty while cutting carbon emissions.If lower energy usage in Whitehall was part of the mix then that would be good.Plus we could influence world opinion more effectively if we practiced as we preached as a nation on green issues.
Reply
If this is an example of George Osbourne’s ‘vision’ then I’m very worried for both the Conservative party and for the British public.
Osbourne should be lambasted by fellow Tories for worrying about turning the lights out when we’re running annual budget deficits of £200bn.
They need bigger better ideas, anyone in their right mind would be instanly looking for alternatives after announcements like this.
Reply
As M&S have had great success with Plan A why not give Sir Stuart Rose a Peerage and a Ministerial post. He could be put in charge of reducing energy usage across Whitehall by applying the same brilliant approach that he has at M&S. In terms of green energy usage,selling more fair -trade & organic stuff,making plenty of corporate donations to worthy causes and reducing carrier bag usage & selling more healthy choice meals the company has prospered under his wise stewardship.
He has made M&S a great ethical retailer and it is time that his skills where at the disposal of the nation.With Plan A he has given Marks & Spencer the kind of green make-over that David Cameron has given the Conservatives.We face grim times ahead and Sir Stuarts common-sense,determination and wisdom could enhance the government.
He saved M&S – that surely merits a Peerage anyway !?!
Reply
I am in despair at the Tory Party. The only reason to turn off unused lighting and heating is to save money. We do it at home! What is this nonsense about ‘green investment bank’? Hasnt the Tory Party seen the latest news about the CRU emails? I reckon the Tory Party, along with the rest of Westminster, will completely ignore these revelations because you will all have egg on your collective face. Or will you care?
Reply
Well, all the time they are spending other people’s money we can certainly expect this profligacy to continue.
Reply
John,
(Adverse comments on Mr Osborne-ed)
He never warned the country of the economic catastrophe that Vince Cable and even a lot of lay people foresaw.
Why are you not Shadow Chancellor, why is David Davies not in the Shadow Cabinet? Why are 14 of the Shadow Cabinet, out of 24, Old Etonians?
Nepotism, no meritocrarcy here.
Reply
Ooooh, now the tories are promising £6,500 for each of the 25,000,000 households in the country to spend on energy efficiency.
Nice to see they are going to be taking care of taxpayers’ money.
Reply