10.30.07
Powerlessness of One
ok so I cheated – I did this column before, but differently…anyway, getting lots of warm comments about it from the locals..Frank tidied this up a little but this is the raw copy. No time to make changes. F*cking F8cking Eircom left me without the internet all weekend. The fact that I logged a fault on Friday afternoon meant it wasn’t checked until this morning, cos you know, people don’t need the phone on a bank holiday weekend. Oh and though they guarantee to fix lines within 4 of their working days, a working day doesn’t count if you log a fault after 2pm.. Grrrrrrr When it was a state company the engineers worked seven days a week. Can someone remind me again why private sector companies are automatically assumed to be better? Not for the customers…
“The clocks have changed and the annual thermostat war has kicked off. To anyone embarking on marriage, here’s some free advice. You know those pre-marriage courses where they talk about commitment and opening joint bank accounts? They are completely pointless. I’m going to start a relationship counselling service in which prospective couples will be required to answer questions about important issues like preferred ambient temperatures in a winter home. Anything greater than a 3 degree disparity would be grounds for a stern talk.
If one party, him, insists on 23 degrees throughout the house and the other party, me, is quite happy curling up in front of Grey’s Anatomy in a cool 17 degrees with that lovely mohair blanket I got as a wedding present, the prospects of domestic harmony are limited.
It’s our backgrounds of course. I grew up in a damp, rural Land Commission house where drafts forced their way under doors and through ill-fitting windows. Babies were put to bed with jumpers on them and we left our school uniforms over the range in the kitchen at night and dressed there in the morning. Cold houses were the norm: an Aunt bitterly complained once that she woke up one morning to find ice in the glass of water she’d left on her dressing table. I hate the cold now, but my metabolism can’t adjust to anything above 18 degrees.
When we were still stumbling around with oil lamps he was growing up in Belfast where apparently they enjoyed efficient central heating. This was followed by years living in the Middle East and Africa where heat of 50 degrees had to be endured. As far he’s concerned anything under 20 is a violation of his Human Rights.
Fortunately we agree on one thing: insulation. Whatever heat is generated has got to be kept in the house. The ideologically sound argument in favour of this policy is of course the environment. What motivates us is the more pressing issue of economy and together we have embarked on sealing up the house. Money is a weird thing : I can justify blowing it on facials and new coats : but I can’t abide wasting it on utilities like electricity and oil.
I approve in principle of the Power Of One campaign which urges individuals to act collectively to save the environment, but the moral arguments tend to irk me. What’s the point in me turning off lights if I can still read in the glow from the M4 motorway across the field? If cars have lights why does the road have to be lit up so it can be seen clearly from the moon? Obviously I haven’t been to the moon to confirm if this is the case, but I can assure you it seems unnecessarily bright on that road.
I resent the role guilt plays in my life so government efforts to lecture me about saving the world while their inefficiencies cost the earth don’t go down too well. Every time I hear a Power of One ad on the radio I end up arguing in my head with Bertie Ahern which is not healthy. He doesn’t know nor care and I’m only upsetting myself. So I’ve started switching off the radio, which is better for my mental health and apparently the environment too.
I mustn’t be the only one who has issues with environmental moralizing because the Power Of One has begun a new campaign called the Power of One Street. You thought “life coaching” was the latest craze? Wrong. Power of One have hired “energy coaches” Kirk Shanks and Aodhan MacPhaidin to help eight families reduce their oil and electricity bills. Just like the plastic bag tax, people get considerably more enthusiastic about the environment when there’s money to be saved.
The Power of One seeks to raise awareness and that’s good but now I’m so aware I think I’m cracking up. I pounce on mobile phone chargers left in the wall and gasp when I see the washing machine is still on though the cycle is finished. Every time I switch something off I’m not pleased. Instead I worry that I’m obsessive and the difference in the electricity bill is negligible. Still if the Power of One is telling the truth the savings are impressive : from €300 to almost €1000 each year just by turning down the thermostat and switching off the radiators. In order to save my marriage, I can’t avail of these options, but there are plenty of insulation tips which might save us some money.
The only problem with them is that typically you have to spend money to save some. Curtains are an excellent example. I know there are people like my mother-in-law who are able to buy readymade curtains for €4.99 which suit perfectly, but I’ve been down that road before and it never works out. I can’t seem to measure accurately, my windows are non-standard sizes anyway and it takes me 6 months to get a tradesman round to fit a curtain pole. My DIY jobs end in disaster and I end up calling in the professionals.
They sweep in, do all the measuring and bring the sample books. My taste invariably veers towards the raw silk or whatever is the most expensive fabric available that day. Thrown in the double lining and the extra charge for delivery and erection and I’ve got beautiful, well made, perfectly fitted curtains which will save me a small fortune and just cost a bigger one. Oh well, it’s an investment and they are incredibly effective.
The experience seems to be a template for greener living. Solutions that use less energy require an investment that yields a return in the distant future. When we built our house we looked into geothermal heating (big pipes under the house), solar panels, small windmills and various other hi-tech solutions. In each case the cost of installation was so high that the savings were made over twenty years, not two or three. The problem was exacerbated because each system still required the standard installation as back-up. Man cannot live on solar panels alone, especially in Ireland- you still need the oil anyway. In the end we rejected the green solutions and stuck to the solo oil-system.
Our experience is magnified on the global scale as governments find themselves in the same predicament : oil might be evil but achieving independence from it costs too much. So we confine ourselves to putting up curtains to keep the oil- generated heat in. Will it make a difference? It puts off the day I have to order more oil so that’s good. If everyone does it will it put off the day the oil runs out? If everyone does it : that’s the key. I wonder are there curtains in government buildings? Send the Power of One in to check.
Tomaltach said,
October 30, 2007 at 3:44 pm
I would consider myself moderately environmentally friendly. We’ve heard about ‘a la carte’ Catholics, well I’m an ‘a la carte’ environmentalist! One of the main reasons I am disheartened about any initiative is my lack of faith in the collective will. I mean, my petty little cycle to work, no plastic bags, energy saving bulbs, is all fine. But then I walk outside my door and my neighbour is climbing up into this massive, mean, hideous, truck. I mean this is no ordinary 4×4, this is a road monster. Like some kind of Tolkienesque beast, it roars out revs in a deep rumble, which becomes a sinister whine as the revs his top. You can just hear it sucking the oil. Appropriately it is black to convey the menace it represents to children – directly as they play on the street, and later on in the kind of world they will inhabit. I once saw this guy nipping down to the local shop in the Black Behemoth and I thought, how many tonnes of carbon did that milk cost! In my own mind, where I see a glass not half empty, but merely damp at the bottom, I saw this vulgarity as a metaphor for why we are never going to do enough to stop global warming.
pth said,
October 30, 2007 at 7:38 pm
Sarah,
The only reason the damn alternative solutions are still too bloody expensive is they don’t ship in enough volume yet, but that will come.
Government insisting on all new houses using geo-thermal/wind/solar (take your pick), would have an impact. But t’would be better if it were an EU directive on new housing. Then you really start to benefit from economy of scale. Grounds for optimism I’d say.
Great article btw!
Joe Drumgoole said,
October 31, 2007 at 2:16 am
>When it was a state company the engineers worked seven days a week. Can >someone remind me again why private sector companies are automatically assumed >to be better? Not for the customers…
Private sector is not “better per se” it promises a better yield to its investors. Sometimes that means better service, but mostly it means lowering operational costs (especially in the case of state sector privatisations). So Valentia is maklng a packet on your delay in fixing your broadband (well saving a packet is a better approximation).
As regards saving energy. Well you are in the part of the world (the first world) that disproportionately consumes at a level that is unsustainable for the world. e.g. if China consumed at the rate that America consumes today they would increase the global consumption levels by 100%. So we have to reduce so we can start the general consensus to reduction amongst our less consumer oriented brethren in the developing world.
Its not who you are, its what you consume that will count in the future.
Johnny K said,
October 31, 2007 at 9:56 am
I think it’s sad that people only react to issues when it can be related to them in monetary terms. I do the things I do in the hope that my child won’t have to suffer too much. I guess I’m dreading the day when she asks why did we ruin the planet?
Tomaltach said,
October 31, 2007 at 11:06 am
Joe, Sarah,
Privatisation in and of itself may not deliver better efficiency. For example, if Telecom Eireann were privatised and remained a monopoly (as you know monopoly positions are not just held by state comanies, Google is an example of a private company which hold a monopolistic position). The idea of course is that competition delivers efficiency because it forces the competitors to drive down their costs and/or drive up level of service. But getting competition to work properly in many sectors is not that easy as the market lends itself (in some sectors) to monopoly. Besides, asymmetry of information between producer and consumer distorts the consumers ability to make well informed choices. For example, how does the ordinary buyer chose between the myriad of broardband suppliers who supply different kinds of technologies with different characteristics are different prices. (I frequently see emails at work like – anyone ever try company X for wireless broadband?).
But the big trouble is that the market, obsessed as it is with short financial objectives, has this annoying habit of ignoring what we might call social goals. And nowadays the other issue is the market’s failure to build in environmental concerns.
Pete said,
October 31, 2007 at 11:48 am
>governments find themselves in the same predicament : oil might be evil but achieving independence from it costs too much.
Naah. Most of the world governments have already decided that the future is nuclear power, but they’re not going to risk mega unpopularity by saying so. Instead, they’ll let the greens try the alternatives, and when people are screaming about unreliable power supplies they’ll ride in and save the day with nuclear, and be heros. I’m sorry to say that, unless some amazing new technology comes along and changes everything, they’re right. The alternative is getting people to use MUCH less energy than they currently do, which would be percived as a huge reduction in living standards, and therefore politically impossible to achieve.
However, I do strongly approve of saving energy. It’s much cheaper to save energy than make more energy, and as pth says, once the technologies involved become complusory and are mass-produced they will get cheaper and cheaper, and the numbers will look better and better. Of course, complusion has to be done carefully, or it can easily have the opposite to intended effect (the awful fashion for driving SUV’s in suburbia started because the US government brought in complusory fuel efficiency rules for cars, but didn’t apply them to SUV’s).
I think everyone should get enough basic science education to be able to understand energy. It’s really not difficult, yet I see so many insane examples of energy wastage. People don’t have a “feel” for how much energy they’re using. They unplug their mobile phone chargers, but heat their houses to to point where they (well me, anyway) are sweating in a T- shirt in winter. They drive a huge SUV 5 miles to put 10 bottles in a glass recycling bin. They switch off their TV at the wallpoint, then light an open fire in the grate. In California, during the electricity shortage a couple of years ago, most people there were drying their clothes using electric tumble dryers, because local by-laws forbade them from using washing lines (this in a very sunny climate!). Most Australians heat their hot water using electricity generated from coal, while the sun is literaly splitting the stones outside (the worlds cheapest, most inefficient solar water heater would keep them in free hot water for ever. Well, the heat would be free, anyway).In Ireland (not a hot country) we build office building that are unusable in the summer without (electricity-guzzling) air conditioning. etc. etc.
OK rant over. For the record, I don’t believe that cars of the future will run on Hydrogen, it’s just too damn dangerous, although if it does become readily available in my local garage I (and every other male with a physical or mental age of ten) will immediatly build a balloon and freeze to death in the stratosphere. Or plummet to a firey death. Whichever. Cars will go electric, as battery technology improves. What I predict is that the hybrid cars that are now available will improve to the point where the petrol engine is never actually used, and they will then start being built without a petrol engine. Evolution, not revolution.
The Crewser said,
October 31, 2007 at 2:22 pm
You can park certain electric vehicles for free in London and re-charge them for free by the roadside. Thats the way we are headed. Motoring will not be such a difficult issue to resolve but there are bigger challenges, such as Air travel and power for industry and domestic use. Nuclear solutions must be looked at for the latter two. There is a lot of hype and sensationalism talked about the climate but it is a real issue. If the US and China get their act together we will be well on the way towards a solution. if not then thinks may be bleak in a few decades time.
Sarah said,
October 31, 2007 at 2:36 pm
You are ALL right.
Sometimes I think I should write a column, post it on the blog, get the feedback and then publish it on the ST
I don’t seem to make myself clear the first time round.
So here’s what I think:
I AGREE that individuals should act collectively. I DO all the stuff. I plug stuff out. It just pisses me off that the government don’t seem to have the same zeal. So they drive around in big cars, Bertie has the government jet fly up from Baldonnel to Dublin Airport and its REALLY annoying because any action they take would have a bigger impact than my little obsessive behaviour around the house. I just got ends of carpet whipped (stitched around the edges) and put them on the lovely tumbled marble tiles in the front hall!
So I’ll keep plugging out mobile phone chargers but will the government switch off all the stupid lights?
THEN, it IS a big problem that getting off oil involves major investment, and Pete is right – nuclear is the solution BUT building a nuclear power plant costs a LOT of money. Personally I think Germany is crazy to wind theirs down.
Compulsion, scale, etc all good, but governmental commitment not there. Though I believe they’ve put long life light bulbs in Leinister House…
Tomaltach said,
October 31, 2007 at 3:49 pm
Though I believe they’ve put long life light bulbs in Leinister House
sadly we the electorate has put a long life government there too….;-)
Justin Mason said,
October 31, 2007 at 4:22 pm
‘Google is an example of a private company which hold a monopolistic position’
???!!?
BTW, the broadband market is distorted due to broken regulation — Eircom gets to maintain a monopoly position due to insufficient regulatory action, and the other suppliers are allowed to offer products with anti-consumer policies like a 6-month lock-in. If the regulator had any balls, this wouldn’t be an issue.
Tomaltach said,
October 31, 2007 at 4:54 pm
Hi Justin,
What prompted my off the cuff comment about Google is that in relation to ‘search engines’ used on the internet Google’s market share is hitting 70% and still climbing. Then next best is around 20% and then a plethora of tiny players. If it’s not exactly monopolistic, it’s certainly a preponderant market share.
You are right about the distorted market for broadband. The regulator could do more there. But this doesn’t help the fact that the diverse range of technologies are poorly understood and that buyers simply just don’t know what they are getting. They cannot there make informed choices which is the oxygen of competition.
The point I wanted to make was that market failure is actually quite ubiquitous and in many important areas require a plethora of regulation from government in order to make competition work. The complexity of framing regulation to do this in some markets makes it close to impossible to get something workable.
The bottom line is that the mantra that if you leave it to the market it’ll all sort itself out at some happy equilibrium is plain wrong.
The Crewser said,
November 1, 2007 at 9:16 am
Correct, tomaltach, a long life Government, and that reflects what the Electorate thought of the alternatives on offer. Have the Opposition learned anything. No. Instead of developing good and workable policies, they have spent the first 6 Months of this term doing precisely what they did last time. Attacking personalities and generally being negative in every possible way. And Enda Kenny (unelectable as Taoiseach) is still there.
Tomaltach said,
November 1, 2007 at 11:48 am
Crewser,
I’m with you there. Fine Gaels penchant for the cheapshot has become nauseating. They pander every time to the soft core of populism, an artform already perfected by FF.
Enda may have rebuilt the party and won back lost territory but he is a pitiful, embarassing, unconvincing candidate for Taoiseach. His retention of his post going into the next election (and I have no reason to doubt that he’ll be there) illustrates the sheer dearth of talent and lack of courage in FG.