Last week the Dept for Energy and Climate Change’s new chief Scientific Adviser – David MacKay – warned that the UK could face blackouts by 2016 as green energy is coming on stream too slowly.

 But Mr Miliband said, on the Andrew Marr show, that there is no danger of power cuts in the next decade.

Phew.  Thankfully Mr Miliband is more knowledgeable than David Mackay, or we would have been a little worried there.

So who is this man, David Mackay, and why is the government appointing him as an adviser if he is so seriously wrong in his assessment and scare-monger-y when it comes to energy predictions?

Well, according to Cambridge University’s website, he is Professor of Natural Philosophy in the Department of Physics.

Ah, Physics.  That supreme science.  Using that pesky scientific method – methodical and fact based.  Wrote a book – available free online at http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/c1/page_2.shtml

I am sure Mr Mackay will be very happy to discover the reasons why the lights will not go out in 2016 once he is settled in his new role in October 09. 

Anyone who has read this blog knows I disagree with politicising climate change.  However, I do have rather a soft spot when it comes to believing physicists and their tenacity for fact and method.  So, just for fun, let us entertain the idea that Professor Mackay is correct in his assessment.

What would it be like if the lights went out?  If we had intermittent cuts in electricity supply?  Take a few moments and close your eyes, how would impact your life?

I’m thinking this; maybe I should all take another look at photovoltaics before I start shelling out on an electric car.

Did you know you can catch a train to Barcelona from London?

You can, I’ve tried it.

In fact, it includes an Orient Express-style overnight sleeper and restaurant car.  Minus the chandaliers, but plus pink plastic walls.

Surprisingly fun, especially if you use the earplugs to dull the train’s trundling sounds overnight.  And the bunk beds cleverly turn into comfy chairs. 

So how did the journey go?  The connections from Eurostar to the “Train Hotel” in Paris went smoothly and all the trains there and back were on time. 

As we approached London on the return journey, a sexy French voice echoed out over the PA system “Passengers are warned zat zer ees a Tube Strike in London so you will need to make ozzer arrangements”.

Argh!

So our final step, from St Pancras to North Oxfordshire, was the most fraught in the whole trip from Barcelona. 

• Spain? Si Senora.  No problema. 
• France?  Mais Oui Madame. 
• UK?  Up yours, we’re on strike.

We all want to use public transport as part of our low carbon efforts, but this is totally useless unless we can guarantee service.

A speaker at the climate change roadshow I am organising for Oxfordshire’s FSB recently told us how polluting it is to die.

That’s right, we are terrible for climate change, you know.

Cremations comprise around 70% of UK funerals. Imagine, all those people every year, generating plenty of CO2. We are, after all, carbon based life forms, are we not? Apparently, 160Kg of CO2 is produced by a cremation. The New Scientist estimates 18 million cremations a year, worldwide. So what are the alternatives?

• The Swedish idea freeze-dry bodies to produce a perfect compost sounds fine, except that you need energy to do the freezing.
• Zoroastrians allow their dead to be consumed by vultures, which is carbon neutral, and supports the food web.
• Local burials in grassland with wild flowers and a tree of your choice seems a nice way to go

How about speeded up anaerobic digesters? Local energy production, courtesy of our forebears.

Do you think climate change is attracting too much jargon?

I wonder about this, because years ago I was a senior programmer in a software firm who created online retail systems for supermarkets, and we had a language of our own.  Not just a language other programmers in other companies could understand.  No.  Not just a language other programmers in our own company could understand.  No they couldn’t.  Even people who produced other versions of retail systems in the same company would not understand the acronyms and specialist terms we had conjured up in producing this new system.

ISS400.  OSIF.  TAC.  COREMA.  MS. IA. SP. HSI…listening in during our Christmas party must have been like being a fly on the wall in Bletchley Park during the second world war.  Very excluding.

And now I am wondering whether climate change is distancing some people – in particular, owners of small businesses, purely because there is so much jargon.  And people in the know are starting to forget to explain some terms before they launch into full “TLA” lingo.

(Three Letter Acronym, by the way.  But you already knew that, right?)

PV?  EUETS? Mitigation? Adaptation?  GHG?  UKCIP?  CCC? CCPO? DECC? MtCO2e?  CCA? JI? CDM? 

My goodness, it is the ICL retail systems ISS400 project all over again!

OK, so you and I know what these terms mean (don’t we?) but how about people we are trying to engage with?  Jargon excludes and frightens people off. 

Let’s all commit to explain our climate change acronyms every time we speak to groups who are not likely to know their meaning.  It’s not clever to show you know more than the audience, and can be counter productive.

I’m saving my pennies, as next year, I want to replace my open fire with a wood or multi-fuel stove. 

Why?

My current 1950’s open fire is likely to be only 20% efficient, and although I am burning wood that is locally sourced and managed, it sticks in my throat that 80% goes up the chimney.

Gas prices are only ever going to go up, and if a stove turns the tables to 80% efficiency, I can leave my doors open and heat the house with those local logs, and keep the central heating off.

Pig farmers considering setting up a poo-eating anaerobic digester might want to reconsider their motives.  It could be an attractive proposition to generate your own heat and power at the moment, with energy prices what they are, you’d be investing in something that could save you cash in the future, a bit like an enormous piggy bank.

But the cost of a reasonably small-scale AD plant is pretty steep, and may take a long time to pay back.  There is another option, which is becoming more attractive to a certain farmer of my acquaintance.  That is to look at a larger digester which takes “feedstock” (what you put into the digester) from other sources, and turns the digester into a pig-poo-powered money generator (or “guinea-pig” as I call it).

One of these sources could be food waste, diverting grotty smelly stuff away from landfill sites and turning it into energy.  Our farmers could then not just cover their own heat and energy costs, but make that tantalizing transition from food producer to electricity generator.

So what’s the deal with wind power? On 10th December 2007 – the Guardian declares ” Thousands of new offshore wind turbines could power every home” echoed by the BBC “10 Dec 2007 … All UK homes could be powered by offshore wind farms by 2020″

Roll the clocks forward, and in May 2008, Shell sells it stake and backs out of the London array.

Meanwhile, in April, the Crown Estate steps in and buys the world’s largest wind turbine for deployment in UK waters, its representative saying It is widely recognised that offshore wind energy will provide the majority of the required contribution needed to ensure that the UK meets its demanding renewable energy target to supply 15 per cent of our consumed energy from renewable sources by 2020.

We’re getting some mixed messages here. Are we breaking records in wind power – or on a heading to breaking our promises?

Some consistency in our approach to wind power would be welcome. All this to-ing and fro-ing makes investors nervous – and nervous investors don’t like to take risks on any project.

It’s not just up to the Government to make the renewables targets achievable, we all have to do our bit to make these projects happen. Sometimes that means seeing things through. Sometimes that means taking a risk. Let’s not make this setback put us on the back foot with our renewables targets. Deep breath. Dust off. Start again. I wish the remaining partners of the London Array luck as they push forward with their plans, and hope they will find the extra support they need to deliver this project without too many delays.

The thing about adapting to climate change is that it’s very personal.

If you live in Bangladesh, for example, you may find the projections of sea level rises provoke you to move, if you can, to much higher ground.

Those of us in Oxfordshire, however, won’t necessarily want to move house to escape floods.  Let’s face it, it’s a beautiful county.

There are things we can do to gain some level of control, however.  The first step in this is to produce your Household Flood Plan.  This may or may not include buying products that give you an early warning or protect your property.  The main thing is that you have thought about it before it happens.  Make your choices now, rather than be left with no choices, and only consequences, after a flood has happened.  Would it make sense to move those sentimental photos into the loft?

Last night I took part in a flood planning introduction workshop and was surprised at how few people came along.  The events of last July and – for some – even January of this year seem to have already slipped the minds of some of us.  So I urge anyone who has suffered flooding, or who is concerned about that little stream running close to their house, to check out whether they live in a projected flood risk area.  Go to the environment agency website and enter your postcode to see if you are at risk.  If it turns out that you ARE – and this surprises you, i recommend you contact your house insurers and find out how they categorise your property.  Best to do this now, rather than wait for the flooding to get worse, as the experts predict it will.

Gain control.  Make a flood plan while the sun is shining.

Recently, I met a pig farming couple based near the M40. Pig farmers are struggling to survive with the recent increases in the price of grain and feedstock.

The opportunity they have of using pig slurry as part of the fuel for anaerobic digesters has been made all the more obvious to those who listen to Radio4’s The Archers where two of the main characters are investigating installing a digester on Home Farm.

The opportunity here in Oxford appears obvious. In Banbury, we have a number of food manufacturers; waste from which could be included in the fuel for the digesters.

The government is making enormous efforts to encourage the production of biofuel crops, providing financial supports. Energy Crops Scheme provides grants for establishing short rotation coppice and miscanthus under the new Rural Development Programme England (RDPE), which will run from 2007-2013 and planning (subject to EU approval):

• £1,000 per hectare for short rotation coppice
• £800 per hectare for miscanthus

But why is there no direct support for anaerobic digesters? This type of local energy generation should surely attract its own focused scheme? Asking DEFRA and the digesters companies themselves, and you are pointed to the diversification programme.

Look on DEFRAs website under grants for livestock farmers, and you will see the words “Scheme now closed” in most of them. The setting up of an anaerobic digester facility can cost millions, so how the pig farming community is expected to fund this is a mystery.

So come on, DEFRA, give the pig farmers a break – and help them survive and thrive by providing interest free loans – payable once the renewable energy starts to earn cash.

I met an artist who produces works from Bronze. Her sculptures sell for thousands, but she has a worry.

The artist is concerned about the environment, and bronze has a rather polluting production method. She would love to move to a beautiful, resinous, material which is much more climate-change friendly, but is concerned customers won’t pay the same price and will deem it an inferior material.

Then I went to Potato Day in Ryton in early February. In one of the tents, there was a large group surrounding a stall selling pure copper gardening tools. They were beautiful. But it made me think – copper is getting more and more scarce – should we be buying so much of it to use on our spuds?!

Perhaps beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Perhaps now it is time to value art or artisan products in a new way. Recycled, renewable and non-polluting materials may have had a crusty, left-over image in the past, but I think it is time they became chic and desirable. After all, doesn’t the true artistic beauty reside in the creativity of the artist, rather than the materials themselves?