Connect with us


Shock, horror! Energy companies have ‘let us down’



Energy companies have admitted they have let us down in a hard-hitting new report for a conference on Thursday in London called Energy, Politics and the Consumer. The admission has only been given in the lead up to to the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) investigation, but we did already know we were being let down.

Across the privatised utilities – energy, water and rail – we have seen a woeful lack of customer service, genuine competition or any innovation. Instead, there has been lots of pretty new logos and marketing campaigns.

National assets have been seized by foreign companies (some state-owned) or secretive private owners. This is what happens if you privatise virtual monopolies, create feeble regulators and have politicians in the pockets of private utilities and the labyrinthine ecosystem of advisers, professional services, financiers and lobbyists that surround them.

Don’t get me wrong; I believe in free markets. But the existence of cartels, oligopolies and monopolies is not a free market. Companies that externalise most of their costs are not operating in a free market. Companies that fix prices, hold governments to ransom, break laws, reward executive failure, covertly lobby politicians, buy off the media and aggressively avoid or evade tax are not operating in a free market.

Just as Gandhi felt that western civilisation would be a ‘good idea’, I feel the same about free markets.

One of the myths of capitalism is that private enterprise, entrepreneurship and the free market are virtually synonymous or at least interchangeable as terms. This is evidently not the case.

Many large enterprises operate in anti-competitive ways and simply profiteer from their market dominance. None more so than utilities. More often than not, big business is the enemy of good business – see banks and supermarkets also. Similarly large private companies are just as inefficient as large public sector organisations; they are just subject to far less scrutiny.

Entrepreneurship is about innovating and taking risks. It’s not really about risking nothing by spending other people’s money, burning through it and then going bust or getting an IPO out of the door.

When told by so many CEOs while working in the venture capital space that they were “an entrepreneur”, the only real response was, “Really? Neither am I.” Entrepreneurs can also use litigation, aggressive  patenting and intellectual property protection and general skulduggery to undermine a market.

It’s also a myth that only the private sector can invent. Medical inventions tend to emerge from the brilliance of our universities. Technological inventions tend to come from the same or – in the case of the internet, GPRS and touch screens – from our military complex.

A free market is something entirely different. It is a framework of law and convention that allows for commercial creative destruction, fierce competition, leapfrog invention, dramatic innovations and vast job and wealth creation. A free market taxes wealth and luxuries, not income.

It also recognises its deficiencies in dealing with negative externalities (pollution, environmental degradation, health and safety, worker and consumer rights – Friedrich Hayek) and the moral sentiments (boundaries of behaviour – Adam Smith) of the population as a whole, not just the elite.

The free market does not protect the incumbent rent-seeking market leader or a group of risk averse, overpaid, pole-climbing, corporate bureaucrats operating a cosy conspiracy against the consumer.

So to all those supposedly free market advocates who as captains of our largest energy suppliers are now squealing at the thought of an actual investigation into their practices, the admission is too little too late. Time to switch from them and the craven politicians who have protected them for decades.

Good Energy and Ecotricity are good places to start for energy. In May, give the smaller parties a chance unless a major party commits to genuine, consumer-focused oversight, root and branch reform and rigorous regulation of our privatised utilities.

Further reading:

Big is the enemy of the good in all industries

Energy switching: out of the frying pan into the fire

We need Conservative, Labour, Liberal Democrats and nationalist parties that get sustainability

Creating a financial enlightenment

Climate change aside, we’re harming our children with dirty energy

Simon Leadbetter is the founder and publisher of Blue & Green Tomorrow. He has held senior roles at Northcliffe, The Daily Telegraph, Santander, Barclaycard, AXA, Prudential and Fidelity. In 2004, he founded a marketing agency that worked amongst others with The Guardian, Vodafone, E.On and Liverpool Victoria. He sold this agency in 2006 and as Chief Marketing Officer for two VC-backed start-ups launched the online platform Cleantech Intelligence (which underpinned the The Guardian’s Cleantech 100) and StrategyEye Cleantech. Most recently, he was Marketing Director of Emap, the UK’s largest B2B publisher, and the founder of Blue & Green Communications Limited.


Will Self-Driving Cars Be Better for the Environment?



self-driving cars for green environment
Shutterstock Licensed Photo - By Zapp2Photo |

Technologists, engineers, lawmakers, and the general public have been excitedly debating about the merits of self-driving cars for the past several years, as companies like Waymo and Uber race to get the first fully autonomous vehicles on the market. Largely, the concerns have been about safety and ethics; is a self-driving car really capable of eliminating the human errors responsible for the majority of vehicular accidents? And if so, who’s responsible for programming life-or-death decisions, and who’s held liable in the event of an accident?

But while these questions continue being debated, protecting people on an individual level, it’s worth posing a different question: how will self-driving cars impact the environment?

The Big Picture

The Department of Energy attempted to answer this question in clear terms, using scientific research and existing data sets to project the short-term and long-term environmental impact that self-driving vehicles could have. Its findings? The emergence of self-driving vehicles could essentially go either way; it could reduce energy consumption in transportation by as much as 90 percent, or increase it by more than 200 percent.

That’s a margin of error so wide it might as well be a total guess, but there are too many unknown variables to form a solid conclusion. There are many ways autonomous vehicles could influence our energy consumption and environmental impact, and they could go well or poorly, depending on how they’re adopted.

Driver Reduction?

One of the big selling points of autonomous vehicles is their capacity to reduce the total number of vehicles—and human drivers—on the road. If you’re able to carpool to work in a self-driving vehicle, or rely on autonomous public transportation, you’ll spend far less time, money, and energy on your own car. The convenience and efficiency of autonomous vehicles would therefore reduce the total miles driven, and significantly reduce carbon emissions.

There’s a flip side to this argument, however. If autonomous vehicles are far more convenient and less expensive than previous means of travel, it could be an incentive for people to travel more frequently, or drive to more destinations they’d otherwise avoid. In this case, the total miles driven could actually increase with the rise of self-driving cars.

As an added consideration, the increase or decrease in drivers on the road could result in more or fewer vehicle collisions, respectively—especially in the early days of autonomous vehicle adoption, when so many human drivers are still on the road. Car accident injury cases, therefore, would become far more complicated, and the roads could be temporarily less safe.


Deadheading is a term used in trucking and ridesharing to refer to miles driven with an empty load. Assume for a moment that there’s a fleet of self-driving vehicles available to pick people up and carry them to their destinations. It’s a convenient service, but by necessity, these vehicles will spend at least some of their time driving without passengers, whether it’s spent waiting to pick someone up or en route to their location. The increase in miles from deadheading could nullify the potential benefits of people driving fewer total miles, or add to the damage done by their increased mileage.

Make and Model of Car

Much will also depend on the types of cars equipped to be self-driving. For example, Waymo recently launched a wave of self-driving hybrid minivans, capable of getting far better mileage than a gas-only vehicle. If the majority of self-driving cars are electric or hybrids, the environmental impact will be much lower than if they’re converted from existing vehicles. Good emissions ratings are also important here.

On the other hand, the increased demand for autonomous vehicles could put more pressure on factory production, and make older cars obsolete. In that case, the gas mileage savings could be counteracted by the increased environmental impact of factory production.

The Bottom Line

Right now, there are too many unanswered questions to make a confident determination whether self-driving vehicles will help or harm the environment. Will we start driving more, or less? How will they handle dead time? What kind of models are going to be on the road?

Engineers and the general public are in complete control of how this develops in the near future. Hopefully, we’ll be able to see all the safety benefits of having autonomous vehicles on the road, but without any of the extra environmental impact to deal with.

Continue Reading


New Zealand to Switch to Fully Renewable Energy by 2035



renewable energy policy
Shutterstock Licensed Photo - By Eviart /

New Zealand’s prime minister-elect Jacinda Ardern is already taking steps towards reducing the country’s carbon footprint. She signed a coalition deal with NZ First in October, aiming to generate 100% of the country’s energy from renewable sources by 2035.

New Zealand is already one of the greenest countries in the world, sourcing over 80% of its energy for its 4.7 million people from renewable resources like hydroelectric, geothermal and wind. The majority of its electricity comes from hydro-power, which generated 60% of the country’s energy in 2016. Last winter, renewable generation peaked at 93%.

Now, Ardern is taking on the challenge of eliminating New Zealand’s remaining use of fossil fuels. One of the biggest obstacles will be filling in the gap left by hydropower sources during dry conditions. When lake levels drop, the country relies on gas and coal to provide energy. Eliminating fossil fuels will require finding an alternative source to avoid spikes in energy costs during droughts.

Business NZ’s executive director John Carnegie told Bloomberg he believes Ardern needs to balance her goals with affordability, stating, “It’s completely appropriate to have a focus on reducing carbon emissions, but there needs to be an open and transparent public conversation about the policies and how they are delivered.”

The coalition deal outlined a few steps towards achieving this, including investing more in solar, which currently only provides 0.1% of the country’s energy. Ardern’s plans also include switching the electricity grid to renewable energy, investing more funds into rail transport, and switching all government vehicles to green fuel within a decade.

Zero net emissions by 2050

Beyond powering the country’s electricity grid with 100% green energy, Ardern also wants to reach zero net emissions by 2050. This ambitious goal is very much in line with her focus on climate change throughout the course of her campaign. Environmental issues were one of her top priorities from the start, which increased her appeal with young voters and helped her become one of the youngest world leaders at only 37.

Reaching zero net emissions would require overcoming challenging issues like eliminating fossil fuels in vehicles. Ardern hasn’t outlined a plan for reaching this goal, but has suggested creating an independent commission to aid in the transition to a lower carbon economy.

She also set a goal of doubling the number of trees the country plants per year to 100 million, a goal she says is “absolutely achievable” using land that is marginal for farming animals.

Greenpeace New Zealand climate and energy campaigner Amanda Larsson believes that phasing out fossil fuels should be a priority for the new prime minister. She says that in order to reach zero net emissions, Ardern “must prioritize closing down coal, putting a moratorium on new fossil fuel plants, building more wind infrastructure, and opening the playing field for household and community solar.”

A worldwide shift to renewable energy

Addressing climate change is becoming more of a priority around the world and many governments are assessing how they can reduce their reliance on fossil fuels and switch to environmentally-friendly energy sources. Sustainable energy is becoming an increasingly profitable industry, giving companies more of an incentive to invest.

Ardern isn’t alone in her climate concerns, as other prominent world leaders like Justin Trudeau and Emmanuel Macron have made renewable energy a focus of their campaigns. She isn’t the first to set ambitious goals, either. Sweden and Norway share New Zealand’s goal of net zero emissions by 2045 and 2030, respectively.

Scotland already sources more than half of its electricity from renewable sources and aims to fully transition by 2020, while France announced plans in September to stop fossil fuel production by 2040. This would make it the first country to do so, and the first to end the sale of gasoline and diesel vehicles.

Many parts of the world still rely heavily on coal, but if these countries are successful in phasing out fossil fuels and transitioning to renewable resources, it could serve as a turning point. As other world leaders see that switching to sustainable energy is possible – and profitable – it could be the start of a worldwide shift towards environmentally-friendly energy.


Continue Reading