Next Monday, we won't be having a meeting here at the Warehouse as usual, but will be at the Council House for the Sustainability Forum meeting looking at the Place for the Future planning document.
You can respond to it online by following this link, but if you want to help give feedback in a room full of other people who are interested in sustainability, you need to register by emailingsustainabilityteam@birmingham.gov.uk
See you there.
Joe Peacock
Showing posts with label consultation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label consultation. Show all posts
Tuesday, 6 March 2012
Monday, 13 February 2012
Birmingham Energy Savers consultation
As part of my work as a BFOE volunteer working on the Final
Demand campaign, this week I attended a consultation event on delivering the
Green Deal in Birmingham, organised by the pioneering Birmingham Energy Savers
project.
In a nutshell, the Green Deal is a new government initiative
aimed at reducing people’s energy use, thereby reducing their carbon emissions and
alleviating fuel poverty, as well as creating jobs, in one fell swoop.
Through the scheme, people are able to improve the energy
efficiency of their homes without having to pay for the costs upfront. Loft-
and cavity-wall-insulation and efficient boilers are among the measures that
can be taken to reduce energy wastage in the home, which of course reduces
energy use. The work is paid for through people’s fuel bills, but with the ‘Golden
Rule’ of the Green Deal – that the cost of the retrofit will not be more than
the savings made on the bills – a net saving is still made.
Birmingham
is the first local authority to be offering the Green Deal. Birmingham Energy
Savers (BES) is a city council initiative which offers solar pv installations and
energy advice to the people of Birmingham,
aiming to reduce the city’s carbon emissions and create local jobs. Amazingly,
it is the second largest refurbishment programme in the world!
BES is currently gearing up to start delivering the Green
Deal later in the year when it goes live. Already they have conducted pilot
tests and been finding partners to work with. Right now they are hammering out
the finer details of how the real deal will work – and that is why they
organised the consultation event that I went to.
The event was attended by a varied bunch, including housing
associations, energy companies, consultants, contractors, renewable energy
companies, councillors, business people – and BFOE!
We started with a presentation explaining the project and
some of the potential problems it may face – such as the numerous very old
properties that don’t meet the required standards. For example, some Victorian
houses only have one wall layer, so can’t have cavity wall insulation (as they have
no cavity!). I was pleased to hear that extra subsidies may be available for
these houses.
We then broke out into three focus groups. BES asked us all for
our input on three areas, to feed it into their continuing development of the
project. Firstly my group focused on behaviour change – why it’s important,
what can be changed and what resources are needed. With a representative of a
housing association in our group, we spent some time discussed potential problems
of offering the deal to social housing tenants, in particular people
questioning why they have to pay for the work themselves – should the housing
association not provide them with energy efficient homes in the first place?
We all acknowledged the need to maintain a dialogue with ‘customers’,
providing ongoing support rather than simply going in, doing the work, and then
disappearing. This could be done with six-month follow-up consultations. With
the installation of solar pv panels that provide free electricity, there is a
danger that some people may actually become more frivolous with how they use that
electricity. Smart meters – which allow people to clearly see how much energy
they are using – may be a good way to engage people with how much energy they
are actually using and encourage them to be more careful with it.
Our group then moved on to discuss customer satisfaction. Having
work done on your house can be extremely disruptive, and if a house is having a
full retrofit the tenant may have to move out of it while the work is being
done, so ensuring minimal disruption is a high priority for ensuring customer
satisfaction. We suggested that complimentary services such as free storage
space may help to make the process smoother.
We agreed that the energy advisor making the initial contact
will need to be multiskilled to put the customer at ease, explain the technical
details but not present the work as a ‘sale’, as this may be off-putting for
some people and even arouse suspicion of the scheme. A national website and
hotline will be provided for people to follow up on the initial visit and confirm
the project as bona fide and not a scam.
Finally we discussed awareness-raising and engagement. We
built upon the previous discussion of potential suspicion, and agreed that clear
endorsement by Birmingham City Council and/or central government was required
to put people’s minds at ease that the project is for real
I raised the point that in communicating with people about the
scheme, the environmental message needs to be as strong as the financial one. For
many people it will be the financial incentive that attracts them, but the reason
the deal exists is to reduce carbon emissions and that message should not be
lost. If it is then a precious opportunity to raise awareness of the direct
links between day-to-day behaviour and climate change would be lost. Some people
will also be attracted by the environmental incentive too, so there is a need
to understand people’s drivers.
I found the consultation interesting and informative, and it
was great to be representing BFOE ‘out there’. It felt like a responsibility
and a privilege to be championing the green perspective and engaging with
people with very different perspectives, such as business, housing and even
energy (I was sat next to a man from one of the big six energy companies, who
we are currently campaigning against with our Final Demand campaign!). This was
both challenging and enjoyable, and felt very necessary.
Kara MosesFriday, 21 October 2011
Consultations and campaigning
Sometimes I think that my job consists of taking part in one massive great big never-ending consultation. This week we've submitted over 30 pages of work on the National Planning Policy Framework and the Framework for Sustainable Aviation.
I am very lucky to have some great volunteers to call on within our group who have put together some really excellent in-depth work to help in this, but sometimes you wonder whether it's all worth it and whether anybody actually reads what you've spent all those hours working on.
Wouldn't it be better to join the direct action of occupying some public space to make your points, being part of some exciting revolution?
We recently got a quote in the Daily Mail about the biofuels flight at Birmingham airport, but that was probably because of the Plane Stupid protestors who stripped off to make their point.
It brings me to ask "is our campaigning most effective when we're providing detailed evidence in consultations,
or when we're out making a visual point on the streets?"
I guess that you can't do one without the other. If we didn't have the evidence to back up what we're calling for, we couldn't be confident in dressing up to make the point.
I really enjoyed Just Do It but came out of it thinking, "I still don't feel that is the best way of achieving change and I don't want to spend all that time being arrested". Friends of the Earth don't do direct action that breaks the law in this country, but do recognise the value of fun visual street campaigning.
To keep our volunteers engaged, we have to make sure we do some of the fun stuff as well as the in-depth research and engaging with consultations. We just need to find the gaps to fit it in between them all.
Joe Peacock
I am very lucky to have some great volunteers to call on within our group who have put together some really excellent in-depth work to help in this, but sometimes you wonder whether it's all worth it and whether anybody actually reads what you've spent all those hours working on.
Wouldn't it be better to join the direct action of occupying some public space to make your points, being part of some exciting revolution?
We recently got a quote in the Daily Mail about the biofuels flight at Birmingham airport, but that was probably because of the Plane Stupid protestors who stripped off to make their point.
It brings me to ask "is our campaigning most effective when we're providing detailed evidence in consultations,
or when we're out making a visual point on the streets?"
I guess that you can't do one without the other. If we didn't have the evidence to back up what we're calling for, we couldn't be confident in dressing up to make the point.
I really enjoyed Just Do It but came out of it thinking, "I still don't feel that is the best way of achieving change and I don't want to spend all that time being arrested". Friends of the Earth don't do direct action that breaks the law in this country, but do recognise the value of fun visual street campaigning.
To keep our volunteers engaged, we have to make sure we do some of the fun stuff as well as the in-depth research and engaging with consultations. We just need to find the gaps to fit it in between them all.
Joe Peacock
Monday, 20 June 2011
High Speed slowing down?
Saturday 18 June - Today, I caught up with the HS2 display at New Street station. It was just a young woman and some leaflets. She seemed quite personally sympathetic to my alternative of diverting any investment into the existing rail system, instead. I met a couple from Pelsall in the street, who just wanted their station re-opened. How much of the railway system the Victorians built is still derelict or under-used?
On to the Water Hall, behind the Council House, where a posse of officials, offered their exhibition to a trickle of the public. Someone from Lichfield told me they had 2,000 there - protestors he implied. Again, the junior (female) staff I spoke to seemed quite happy that I was questioning HS2. I got really annoyed with the men from the ministry, as they had no alternative use of £34,000 million for people to compare this with. Isn't the country desperate to pay off our huge national debt and suffering cuts to vital services? What will happen to the costs of HS2, once the system is half-built and the contractors have the government over a barrel?
The officials
- couldn't explain who would pay for HS2, as this 'has yet to be decided',
- were clearly using 'predict and provide' - stretching demand for future inter city travel ever upward,
- admitted that a lot of the 'quickie' trips to London will be new leisure ones, generated by a superfast journey time, so they were left with some 'businessmen' (who work on trains anyway) as the beneficiaries. I suggested the cost should be divided among them and they should be asked if they are willing to pay the billions required.
My conclusions were that HS2 is the wrong kind of capacity in the wrong place and the wrong answer to the wrong question. Investment is needed to make public transport a viable alternative to the car for journeys to work in every part of the country, as we have a huge backlog of local schemes awaiting funding. The officials told me I could tell the government so, in the consultation, which is online and open to all (for 40 days) at http://highspeedrail.dft.gov.uk/
John Newson
Thursday, 16 June 2011
Is 1% a majority?
Yesterday Birmingham city council released the results of their consultation on HS2.
On their website they proudly announced that the "Majority of residents on HS2 route back plan". To me that would mean more than half of the people living there have replied and are in favour, but in fact they say that of the respondents "53 per cent fully supported the proposals" and on checking how many respondents there were (600) that means about 300 people. When you consider that nearly 30 000 consultation documents went out and it was available to many more people on the internet, it turns out that this is actually 1% of the number of leaflets that went out and if a number of those responses were from people responding on the website, not from those who received the leaflets, the percentage could be even lower.
How can they justify a claim that the majority of residents on the route back it in this case?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)