Geoff Chambers, my guess is that if there were a problem and the government asked for people and companies to do their best to reduce unnecessary power usage in order to avoid cuts, then although some people like the alarmists here would turn on all of their lights to spite us all, most people would comply. It would not surprise me if this resulted in a considerable drop in demand and no need for begging to Putin or EDF.

Ouch!

Chandra, apart from the appalling mischaracterisation of the contributors here which is sheer ad hom and does nothing but weaken your case, I can only assume you have little or no experience of the general public at large.

I recognise the idea, which is a sacred cow of the left, that people are fundamentally altruistic. It is equally a fundamental problem with any policy that relies on it that it is demonstrably untrue.

NW, ad-hom? Yes but since I am on the receiving end much of the time I see no reason not to reciprocate. On altruism, I think you are projecting your own character onto the population at large. When there is an emergency of some sort communities come together, look after each other and collaborate to make the situation better. Sure there are some who are selfish and think only of themselves, but I don't believe the country at large looks like you or what you imagine for it.

On reducing demand, it takes only one or two fewer light bulbs per household to account for each GW or so of generating capacity. There are of course some households who can cut no further than now, but there are many more households and companies that could reduce much more demand with just a little effort. And cutting this wastage would have zero effect on anything but the generators' profits.

“When there is an emergency of some sort communities come together, look after each other and collaborate to make the situation better.”

Some of the public would try to cut energy use during a crisis, though it would take considerably more than turning off a few lights. Unfortunately those who are most likely to act are those who are efficiently using energy already so the savings will be minimal. Businesses already try to be efficient so it’s more likely businesses will offer to close temporarily for a fee. Many can’t just turn stuff off at whim and still operate. Also, how long is this period of crisis set to last? People will act thoughtfully for a while but soon they either forget or see someone else ‘wasting’ energy and don’t see why they should be the only mug doing without.

More importantly, what is the political and financial fallout from an energy shortage? International markets will start talking about third world Britain. The money people will speculate we can’t pay our bills. Business will look elsewhere for cheaper more reliable energy. The public won’t be feeling generous when they realise that they’re worse off for their fortitude. A great many voices will chime up that governments were warned about the shortfall in energy supply. The ministers will mutter ‘but we agreed we had to reduce fossil fuels to reduce global warming’. To which the public will say ‘sod global warming, get the lights back on’. A bit like everyone agreeing that we wouldn’t dredge rivers because that might hurt the fish and we wouldn't disturb nesting birds on beeches by strengthening sea walls. Yep, the public are right behind those green initiatives… NOT

TinyCO2, I find what you post (unlike many others) is often quite reasonable. But you often spoil it for example in this case. I'm not suggesting that people cut into flesh and bone, just trim some fat - turn off things that have no effect on them. Look at Mackay's experience in reducing his electricity usage in Without Hot Air.

I think you, like NW underestimate the willingness of people to act for the common good. Turning off a few lights can actually save quite a lot - 20 million houses each turning off a 50W bulb on a winter evening equates to 1GW or 2-3% of demand. Your suggestion that companies can't reduce consumption doesn't ring true to me. Take just one look at the BBC news room with it rows of computers running screensavers (or whatever) to get an idea. Ok maybe that is just particular to public bodies spending other peoples' money, or maybe it is just a media thing. But I have worked in many private offices where computers, lights, equipment are left on day and night for no reason but that nobody bothered to turn them off, or to save a few seconds when they are actually needed.

Chandra, why do you assume the worst in people when there isn’t a crisis?

My internet name is TinyCO2 because I have a small CO2 footprint. I know what it takes to cut it. What works and what doesn’t. The changes that made the most difference to my energy bills weren’t the ones most discussed by the media. I’ve worked in a business that was paranoid about cutting waste but it still went bust in this country because there was a fundamental amount of energy it had to use and it couldn’t afford the higher prices here, compared to China and the US. The little things help shave small amounts off the final bill but it isn’t a radical reduction.

I don’t know anyone who is wasting much energy. Sure, the odd thing on standby and a few chargers get forgotten but they’re not obviously extravagant. They shut doors, turn heat off in spare rooms, get insulated, etc. One elderly couple even has the thermostat down to 16C during the day and they’re terrified of the gas bill. Most of them have low energy bulbs already but as I found, you usually have to go up a grade to get the same light out of a fluorescent that you got from a traditional bulb. One friend turns all lights off bar a small one in their sitting room and with their thick curtains it’s impossible to see that someone’s in.

The big energy drains at home are the ones that are hard to do without. The fridge, freezer, washing machine, heating, cooking, bathing, vacuuming. How many people would consider their TV a luxury now, even if it’s a huge one? The sort of people who genuinely waste energy are the least likely to co-operate in a crisis. They wouldn’t do it deliberately, they’d convince themselves that they need whatever they’re using.

The business situation is also varied. Yes, there are some who leave lights on and computers on standby but without looking at each company it’s hard to say why they do it. Leaving lights on may be a safety or security issue if there are people continuously working there. They may be on for the cleaners. The biggest sinners are those for which electricity or gas is the smallest cost of their business. However, a closed steel business equals a lot of forgotten lights and computers and governments would rather shut off the big users than make smaller users use less. Invariably, the thoughtless office workers are actually bringing in more money than the efficient engineering companies.

Like I wrote, we could probably limp through a power shortage but at the end of it, people would be very cross and it would paradoxically make it harder for those trying to encourage people to reduce CO2.

I think you, like NW underestimate the willingness of people to act for the common good.

But I have worked in many private offices where computers, lights, equipment are left on day and night for no reason but that nobody bothered to turn them off, or to save a few seconds when they are actually needed.

So what you think and what you actually observe are vastly different. Exactly. Incidentally, apropos of nothing at all, does your house have central heating?

TinyCO2, I find what you write a little contradictory. You list your friends' low energy habits but find it noteworthy that one (one) "turns all lights off bar a small one in their sitting room". Do the others have lights burning in unused rooms or hallways? Or is it the single light in the sitting room that surprises you (how many do you need to watch telly)?

From MacKay's book, here's a quote: "According to the International Energy Agency, standby power consumption accounts for roughly 8% of residential electricity demand", and that doesn't include unused lights. He reduced his averge demand by 45W by turning off standby devices - do that in every house and there's a GW.

I also find it strange that your experience of work is so different from mine. It is of course possible that only in the places where I work do people turn all the lights on when they arrive in the dark at 7am and leave them on throughout the day despite their making no positive difference to the ambient level, just because nobody bothered to turn them off. And it is possible that it is only in the places I work where people leave computers on screensaver much of the day and all night. And I suppose it is even possible that it is only in companies who employ me that the heating is on and the windows are open because it is too hot. Are such things really out of your experience?

NW, I don't remember there having been a public campaign to reduce waste of the sort we are discussing, so your observation is not relevant. And neither are my personal heating arrangements, but rest assured they are very low CO2.

You don't remember such a campaign. Again we hit limitations to your experience.
It's entirely relevant. You believe that a bit of propaganda will change the way people think and behave. How very totalitarian.

I surmise from your last comment that you have a shiny new central heating boiler with a nice green sticker on it which assures you that it is as green as can be, while it is maintaining your entire house at a temperature which allows you to sit around in your underwear. Central heating and low emissions is completely incompatible. It would be honest of the extreme greens to actually tell the UK population this, but it should be fairly obvious why they don't.

By the way, as with TinyCO2, your assumptions about my lifestyle, consumption and emissions levels are completely wrong.

NW

> I surmise from your last comment that you have a shiny new
> central heating boiler with a nice green sticker on it...
blah blah

You couldn't be more wrong. Oh wait, you are a climate science "skeptic", of course you could...

> Central heating and low emissions is completely incompatible.

Oh really? Know something about it do you? Or just spouting froth? If your house leaks heat like a sieve, as is customary in the UK, it is indeed difficult to reduce emissions. But unequivocally incompatible? No.

Jackson, with the effortless ease to which only a seasoned journalist can aspire, you completely misreported what we are talking about. Your editor would have been proud of you.

We were talking of the public response to a request to reduce demand in the event of supply insufficiency. You are on your favourite hobby horse chasing after the imaginary fox that wants to impose behaviour on the public. I'm not interested in running down that fox but you go ahead - tally-ho!

IF you believe that there is a need to reduce emissions AND you heat your entire house you are a screaming hypocrite and nothing more need be said. This does not preclude having a good standard of insulation, but the law of diminishing returns comes into it well below the current standard, particularly as the Building Regulations or the English equivalent insist on an ever greater level of fixed ventilation which takes no account of how exposed any given building is.

Also , what Mike Jackson said above.

Another left wing skeptic is Jim| Sillars a former Labour and SNP MP.

Jim gave an analysis of the problem from a left perspective at a recent meeting in Glasgow.