¿ìè¶ÌÊÓƵ

Light Bulbs are a symbol of all that stand between us and the greenhouse
effect. If everyone in the developed world made energy efficiency a priority
in all parts of their lives, the carbon dioxide we add to the atmosphere
could drop quickly enough to make a real difference to global warming. There
is no need to wait for technologists to develop new efficient equipment
– you can already buy devices that will save energy and money. But no one
seems particularly interested. The question is not what can we do about
the greenhouse effect, but why don’t we do anything?

Over the past few months, governments have been considering action to
cut back on emissions of greenhouse gases. They have taken as read the scientific
conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that global
warming is a real threat. But plans, such as Australia’s aim of 20 per cent
cuts in carbon dioxide emissions by the year 2005, mean that everyone should
make that 20 per cent cut in the emissions they generate, directly and indirectly.
Nations have to do this at the same time as they keep up economic growth,
or accept a drop in standards of living.

Developing countries have a harder problem; they need a huge increase
in prosperity, which could produce a corresponding growth in greenhouse
gas emissions. Industry is the main way countries bring in the money the
need for food, education and health. If efficiency forms a part of development,
then a country will be able to spend less on fuel and power, as well as
releasing fewer greenhouse gases.

Rich countries can afford to spend money on the environment, but few
have made it a priority in the past. Poor countries need wealth, without
necessarily following that path taken by the industrial world. Energy efficiency
has a role to play in both cases, but we cannot depend on technology alone.
Society and culture have an equally important place. In order to make the
changes that the climatologists say we need, scientists and technologists
will need to talk and listen to economists, social and political scientists.
On effort to foster communication between such groups of specialists took
place over a week in Berlin at the end of last year. The occasion was a
Dahlem workshop organised by the Free University of Berlin. Its goal was
to identify what stands in the way of effective action on the build-up of
carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The workshop was convened by Graeme Pearman,
an atmospheric chemist at the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research
Organisation’s Division of Atmospheric Research at Mordialloc, in Victoria,
who summed up the issues. ‘¿ìè¶ÌÊÓƵs and engineers are divising ways of
living that drop carbon dioxide emissions, but do we want to live that way?’

The workshop identified key areas where lack of knowledge and research
are hindering effective and speedy action to combat global warming. Principally,
they concern the spread of energy efficiency in both industralised and developing
countries. Scientific and technological advances will help the world deal
with greenhouse gases, but not for a hundred years or so. Simply using energy
and fuel efficiently could stop us releasing much of the carbon dioxide
we currently emit. We do not need to wait for new efficient technology:
as Stewart Boyle described in ‘More work for less energy’ (¿ìè¶ÌÊÓƵ,
5 August 1989), the technology exists to take the first step towards the
targets we have set to save energy and fossil fuel, and to cut back on carbon
dioxide emissions.

But little of the latest technology makes its way into ordinary homes
and businesses. One reason is that people are not the ‘cost-rational economic
consumers’ beloved of energy planners. When choosing say, a new fridge,
do we worry about the power it used compared with our existing model, or
do we go for the one with the clever arrangement of shelves that gives plenty
of room for the mineral water? Even if people do worry about energy use,
how can they find out how a particular model performs? Some manufacturers
provide figures on the enrgy that new appliances use, but there is usually
nothing to compare them with. It is impossible to work out what your existing
machine consumes from a quarterly electricity bill. Clearly labelled appliances,
frequent, itemised bills, and ‘smart’ meters that keep track of where the
power goes might give the concerned consumer a chance.

In business, the problem is magnified. One of the biggest obstacles
to an efficient industrial society is the instinctive feeling that equates
emitting less carbon dioxide with privatisation – using less energy, producing
less and losing profits. This is not necessarily so: the US used roughly
the same amount of energy each year from 1973 to 1985, while its gross domestic
product grew by more than a third. In the accompanying article. ‘How to
save energy and stay rich’, Debora MacKenzie describes plans for Sweden
and the Indian state of Karnataka that increase economic growth while diminishing
carbon dioxide ouput, or increasing it only slightly.

So what will make us move from plans to action? Amory Lovins, from the
Rocky Mountain Institute in Snowbird, Colorado, put his faith in the simple
argument that efficiency saves money. ‘Electricity is the costliest form
of energy, so it is the most lucrative kind to save’, he said. His institute
claims the record for growing bananas at the highest altitude using passive
solar heating alone, among other widely applicable examples of energy efficiency.
Lovins reckons that by improving the efficiency of lighting, especially
commercial lighting, the US could save a quarter of the electricity it uses.
According to Lovins, ‘the equipment more than pays for itself by costing
less to maintain’.

Lee Schipper, an energy demand analyst from the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory
in California, agreed. He is resigned to public indifference to the benefits
of efficiency, as well as to the effects of greenhouse gases. To achieve
changes, he suggests selling it not as an end in itself, but as a way to
make money. ‘If you approach energy conservation as an energy problem, you
will fail. Accelerating efficiency comes from pushing profitability.’ Schipper
favours a back-door approach, appealing to those who use energy and benefit
directly from using less, rather than those who produce it. ‘Go to housing
or cars, not energy, for efficiency.’

Something as simple as setting building standards that improve insulation
could cut heating bills, but Lovins suggested that more far-reaching effects
could come from thinking about the energy used in the whole process of building.
If you start from scratch and design processes that do not need high temperatures,
you can use solar energy to the full. ‘You can build a house from limestone
in three ways: using blocks of stone, cement or chickens,’ says Lovins.
Cutting stone needs power tools and cement needs heat; chickens manage to
make eggshells – a strong, light material – without either. ‘If we were
as smart as chickens, we could utilise ambient temperature technology.’

Environmental know the value of efficiency in itself, and of its role
in diminishing carbon dioxide emissions. But to most people, the greenhouse
effect is at best remote – certainly nothing that we can alter. Igor Bashmekov,
an economist from Moscow’s Institute for Energy Research, put it most succinctly:
‘Citizens do not care about carbon.’

Cunning plans for cars

Take the example of highly efficient light bulbs: they cost several
times as much as equivalent incandescent bulbs, but can last 13 times as
long, so the household budget benefits quickly. But if you don’t have the
figures, don’t see the bulbs in your local shop, and can’t fit your best
lampshade onto them even when you have managed to find them, you are unlikely
to choose them and save energy. Lovins suggested that policymakers should
be more devious, and make ‘good equipment easy to use, and bad equipment
hard’. He cited a scheme in Ohio that boosted the sales of high efficiency
light bulbs, with consequent savings of electricity and money. Shops took
incandescent light bulbs off the shelves and kept them under the counter;
the only light bulbs in sight were the high-efficiency versions. If you
wanted to buy an ordinary bulb, you had to ask for it specially. Other stratagems
he suggested were offering prizes and lots of publicity to firms who produced
the most economical designs, and bonuses for retailers who sold efficient
appliances.

It may yet be possible to convince manufacturers, governments and the
public that energy saving is worthwhile for its own sake. But to achieve
this, researchers need to know far more about how people live. They have
to address questions such as why people buy an inefficient fridge, when
more efficient models are available, and how consumers balance a greater
initial cost with savings made over the life of an appliance. Without information
on what motivates consumers now, they cannot make reliable models of how
things might change – for example, if labels did stress efficiency and savings.
The few useful studies that exist usually include factors that might be
peculiar to one country, or society. Bashmekov emphasised how much these
factors affected the action that even concerned people could take. Most
Moscow flats do not have individual meters, for example. ‘I can’t do what
I want in my room alone. My block of flats has 14 floors, each with eight
flats. We have to work together.’

Transport is another area in which the discussion ranged from immediate
action to changes only possible in the distant future. Cars, trucks, planes
and boats currently contribute more than a quarter of the annual greenhouse
gases worldwide, a percentage that is likely to increase. Eventually, we
will have to look for different fuels, according to Larry Jenney, of the
US Transportation Research Board, in Washington DC, but fuel efficiency
is an essential first step. Vehicles that can provide 100 kilometres of
driving from 6 litres of fuel are on the market, as well as in manufacturers’
laboratories, but few people buy a car solely because of its fuel economy.
Advertising speaks, in the main, of accelerations that are laughable on
crowded city streets, top speeds that are illegal and handling that is beneficial
only to rally drivers. It is difficult to imagine a world in which the status
of your car – and yourself, by implication – centres around miles per gallon,
but making economy desirable and fashionable seems to be the way to change
the habits of private car owners.

But cutting greenhouse gas emissions from transport will take more than
just improving the efficiency of cars and trucks. It will mean far fewer
cars, and far less driving all round. In the West, a car is more than a
way of travelling; it represents freedom and flexibility and is a potent
status symbol. Public transport, in contrast, is something that most people
use only if they have to, with notable exceptions in the cases of some European
cities. Schipper pointed out that researchers are again handicapped by not
having enough data. ‘The literature on transport and behaviour is not good
enough. We can’t measure transport use in cities.’

Changes in these fields raise interesting problems. Jenney wondered
whether it is better to try and reduce congestion, or to let it increase,
if we want fewer people to drive? Speeding up urban traffic could save 10
per cent of fuel, and so cut back on carbon dioxide. But there is a snag:
more roads lead to more cars, in general. And advances in technology have
made congestion no longer a total waste of time. If you have a radio, a
cassette player, a car phone or fax, then those stationary hours in the
car are not totally wasted. One way to cut down on cars in cities might
be to make this form of travel much less convenient, by cutting the number
of parking places available in cities, for the public and companies alike
– hardly popular measures. Alternatively, and in the long term, plan building
in cities to cut down on travel overall.

Transport is an acute problem for the people of Eastern Europe, affecting
food supplies and industry directly. ‘The USSR has only a small number of
private cars,’ says Bashmekov. ‘But there are not enough light trucks. We
need a better truck system, and better fuel economy for them.’ The urgent
need for transport as industry develops can produce some strange solutions.
Converted tractors are increasingly popular as buses in China and India,
according to Lovins, who said they use ’75 per cent more fuel per mile than
a fully loaded 4-tonne truck’. But similar improvisation in Taiwan is producing
efficient transport from motorcycles and scooters.

The pressure on establishing industry in Eastern Europe and the developing
world makes efficient technology a priority. But simply supplying the latest
efficient machines, or sending experts to a country for a few months are
not long-term answers, and do not address the most intractable barriers
to action. Ogunlade Davidson, of the University of Sierra Leone’s Research
and Development Services Bureau, in Freetown, emphasises that national culture,
and the organisation of different societies matter. ‘Access to information
is a problem in developing countries which do not have good infrastructure,’
he says. The problem is finding out who to talk to, and what sort of information
is available.’ One way to provide this information is through a network
of ‘energy efficiency centres’, to provide information, act as contact points
for outside aid, and perhaps demonstrate innovative technologies.

Energy efficiency centres already esxist in Czechoslovakia and Poland.
Bill Chandler, of the Batelle Memorial Institute’s Pacific Northwest Laboratory
in Washington DC, has been instrumental in this initiative. The centres
aim to bring the best energy-saving technology into everyday use, by equipping
planners, engineers and consumers with the information they need to choose
the technology that will suit them best. The practical bias is deliberate.
‘We can’t choose priorities for developing countries’, says Chandler. ‘It’s
better to organise resources rather than sending experts.’

Plugging the gaps

The Czech centre opened in September last year, and the Polish centre
is organising its offices and recruiting staff in Warsaw, Krakow and Katowice.
Much of the funding so far has come from the US, through the Environmental
Protection Agency, the Agency for International Development, and the US
World Wide Fund for Nature’s conservation fund. Dennis Tirpak, of the EPA,
spelt out his organisation’s involvement: ‘We see our role as having provided
seed money, but we hope that the centres would be able to pull on substantial
sums from foundations and industries.’ Chandler stressed that the centres
will not depend on US staff, ideas or money in the long run. ‘We want to
make the centres independent, so that they will search for clients. We are
just the first ones.’

Each centre aims to build up in a few years the basis for energy conservation
throughout industry, transport and construction – an ambitious target, which
Chandler feels is achievable. ‘I’m so impressed with the speed with which
the Czech centre has moved that I’m confident about the future,’ he said.
‘The staff are beginning to take over, which is what we hoped would happen.’

According to Chandler, delays in saving energy arise mainly from a lack
of information and lack of resources. He sees the efficiency centres plugging
those gaps: they will act as information banks and, more importantly, set
standards and policy for buildings, electrical appliances, labelling, testing,
training and education. This framework is the necessary first step in changing
the way countries in Eastern Europe use energy.

If a government wants to impose standards for the efficiency of new
buildings, then it must also ensure that the materials are available, and
that people are trained to use them. The centres will be able to look at
all aspects of energy use in a society, and perhaps help convince people
with very different interests. ‘If Czechoslovakia could persuade its utilities
to buy efficient light bulbs,’ Chandler says, ‘then it would be worth building
a factory to manufacture them.’ One task for the centres will be to seek
out and assess projects suitable for joint ventures with companies or investors
elsewhere. Factories need insulation, he says, but no one manufactures a
suitable product locally. ‘At present, these materials have to be imported.
We would love to see companies producing insulation, perhaps with money
invested by other countries. We have to create an industry to support energy
³¦´Ç²Ô²õ±ð°ù±¹²¹³Ù¾±´Ç²Ô.’

The role of each centre will depend on local needs – that is one of
their strengths. Priority areas for the Polish programme include training
the people who control small boilers, the mainstay of local industries,
setting up ‘car-care centres’ to tune cars and save fuel, and working out
a system of efficiency labelling. At each centre, staff will coordinate
and select the best methods. Much of their work will consist of assessing
how much impact the measures are having. Requiring temperature controls
in factories would mean that both thermostats and insulation would have
to be imported into Poland, until factories could be established there.

One of the first projects for the Krakow centre will be the modification
of an existing hospital to make it an energy efficient building. Such ‘retrofitting’
will be an important part of the changes needed to save energy fast. ‘Hospitals
are not high priority places in themselves, but it is a good way of training
and demonstrating what can be done,’ says Chandler. ‘It’s a very visible
±è±ô²¹³¦±ð.’

One advantage of setting up these centres is that they may help a two-way
flow of ideas for efficient technology, possibly serving as a model for
changes to Western society. Ideas and techniques from developing countries
could have special value in the energy-conscious future. But most important
of all, such centres coud help spread the message that the western way of
life need not be a model for all development. Countries can become prosperous
without repeating the mistakes that the industrial world has made. As Bashmekov
concluded, ‘perhaps Americans could say that their way of life is not the
best in the world, rather than the opposite’.

Lack of communication underlies the very different problems facing developed
and developing countries alike. To achieve international agreement, different
countries will have to understand each other’s societies. Different groups
in society see the environment and the way we live in it in diverse ways.
Nature is a precarious system, likely to accelerate to catastrophe if tampered
with, is one extreme view. A stable, or resilient world, at another extreme,
takes little notice of our presence. It is no surprise that ‘deep green’
environmental groups, closer to the first view, find it difficult to communicate
their concerns to businesses and governments who feel more at home with
the second.

Although many of the gaps in understanding lie in nebulous areas such
as society and economics, the responsibility for plugging them falls on
professionals in a range of fields. Engineers need to know how economists
think, and vice versa. ¿ìè¶ÌÊÓƵs will have to make their priorities clear,
in terms that their audience – whether professionals in another discipline
or the general public – can appreciate. And if governments wish to achieve
their targets for cutting carbon dioxide emissions, they will have to address
the priorities of industry and electorates. As Lovings said: ‘You have to
talk to people where they’re at, not where you’re at.’