A week of contradictions

It has been a week of contradictions. For example, there is great confusion over whether record oil prices are good or bad for the environment. On the one hand there appears to be evidence emerging that the era of cheap air fares may be over and that people are switching to more efficient cars and public transport. On the other hand it seems that high oil prices could be an ecological disaster as more carbon intensive resources, such as the Canadian tar sands, become economically viable.

To emphasise the contradictions, it worth having a look at what has been a very long week for the Labour Party. The increases in Fuel Duty and Vehicle Excise Duty announced in the budget have come under severe pressure, most notably through the HGV fuel protest in London. There is the possibility of a Government U-turn on both these measures. In addition the UK Government has been attempting to persuade OPEC to increase oil supply and challenging industry to squeeze more oil out of the North Sea. Naturally, it has been questioned how these potential policy decisions fit with the Government's commitment to reducing carbon dioxide emissions.

On the flip side there has been a call, led, perhaps unsurprisingly, by George Monbiot, for OPEC to ignore the call for increased supply. In other quarters it has been questioned whether the proposed 2 pence Fuel Duty increase goes far enough. In fact there have been several calls for the reinstatement of the Fuel Duty Escalator, brought in by Chancellor Norman Lamont in 1993, which committed the Treasury to increasing petrol duties by inflation plus 3 per cent every year.

It is no surprise that these contradictions are confusing consumers. For example, in a letter to the Guardian newspaper, one person, having bought an hybrid car on the basis of Fuel Duty and Vehicle Excise Duty messages, questioned whether they would be due compensation by the Government for this unnecessary purchase. They'll probably be even unhappier when they learn that hybrid may have higher lifetime costs than conventional vehicles.

Energy wonks and the acronym factory

by Jeff Hardy

Can you speak sustainable energy? Are you an energy wonk? Is a new global language being born? Can you speak in megawatts? Can you speak in negawatts?!? Confused? I am…

I’m not talking about the technical terms associated with these fabulous new energy widgets and gubbins; I’m talking about the language used in the popular press, the blogsphere and in social circles. I’m worried that I might have accidentally become an energy wonk! How did this happen? I’ve only just found out what a wonk is and now I might be one. Apparently policy used to be the predominant domain of wonks, but now wonkism (is that even a word?) has branched out into energy.

What is a wonk? Wikipedia tells us that a wonk is…

…an expert who studies a subject or issue thoroughly and excessively. This word is most often encountered in the term "policy wonk".

The origins of the word wonk appear to be a bone of contention between two camps. One believes that wonk is “know” spelt backwards (which of course is true). The other contest that it is an acronym derived from “WithOut Normal Knowledge”. Personally, I’m steering well clear of this debate…

Who is the daddy of the energy wonks? The earliest reference I can find (after an extensive minute of Googling) is Amory Lovins. For those of you who haven’t heard of Amory, he’s the chap who thinks it’s possible to wean the United States off oil (see Winning the Oil Endgame). I’ve had the pleasure of hearing Amory speak before and I have to say he makes a compelling argument. My personal favourite quote from Amory is "Energy efficiency isn't just a free lunch, it's a lunch you are paid to eat". You can read more about his research at the Rocky Mountain Institute website.

Wonk, if indeed it is an acronym, isn’t the only acronym that is commonly associated with energy. Those involved in sustainable energy planning are all too aware of NIMBY’s (Not In My Back Yard) but are becoming increasingly aware of the NOTEs (Not Over There Either), the BANANAs (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything) and the LULUs (Locally Unwanted Land Use). Perhaps we need some SENSE (Supportive Environment Needing Sustainable Energy) here (I’ve just made that up).

Are NIMBYs, NOTEs, BANANAs and LULUs cynical because of the Greenwash? Does anyone believe anything that they hear, or do we assume that all environmental claims are seen through green tinted spectacles? Who can we trust to tell us the truth about all this energy stuff? My money is on those who are conducting the energy research as when this community makes claims they get peer reviewed…and let’s face it, researchers like nothing better than to shoot down spurious claims.