Recently by Phil Beardmore

Over two hundred people attended the Low Carbon Communities Network conference in Oxford on 14 January. The mood of the conference was upbeat despite the cuts in the feed in tariff, showing that the will of ordinary people to move towards a low carbon society is unstoppable.

Opening presentations included Rebecca Willis from Co-operatives UK talking about research she had done into community energy co-operatives - a subject close to our hearts in Birmingham as CORE50 has recently come into being and as Birmingham Churches Green Group look to set up a co-operative to bulk buy energy.

Rebecca said that many energy co-operatives suffer from 'heroic amateurism'. This struck a chord with me because I have long argued that community energy groups can learn from social enterprises in having leadership and management skills on a par with the private sector without compromising on our values. I often think we need to spend at least as much time on honing our learning and management skills as we do discussing the location of bike parking stands. Abraham Lincoln once said that if he had eight hours to cut down a tree, he would spend the first six sharpening his axe. The low carbon movement attracts a lot of people who are younger than I, which is excellent. I learned most of my leadership skills from being an activist, not from a textbook. The low carbon movement needs to become an academy of leadership skills for green leaders. It will make our edge a lot sharper if we can become more professional without losing sight of our values.

It was a busy conference for those of us from SusMo and other organisations in Birmingham such as Localise West Midlands, Balsall Heath is our Planet, Energywise and CORE50, with Kathy Hopkin and myself delivering sessions on Communities and Green Deal, and how Social Enterprises can work with the private sector.
One of the attendees at our workshop on Green Deal suggested that LCCN should play a role nationally in helping low carbon and transition groups to 'meet the buyer' - i.e. to negotiate with Green Deal providers over how we work with them, and at what price. This is an excellent idea. Birmingham Social Enterprise Energy Network has played this role very well in Birmingham and has helped low carbon groups and social enterprises to bid together instead of in competition with each other. This has led to a situation where third sector organisations are the providers of choice in Birmingham City Council's 'Stay Warm, Stay Well in Birmingham' fuel poverty programme, delivering energy and income maximisation advice to vulnerable people whose health is at risk due to cold, damp homes.

The conference ended with Jonathan Porritt, who as always, was provocative and challenged the thinking of everyone present, to remind us that we continually need to question ourselves about whether we are doing the right thing. He also mocked Greg Barker MP, much to the amusement of the audience, and also criticised him politically, which I thought was far preferable. There was a lively debate over working with the private sector, with some delegates thinking that we can have nothing to do with them whatsoever. There is a 'small elite group' mentality among some people in the Transition movement, who given a choice between compromise and irrelevance, would seemingly choose irrelevance.

The conference took place as the results of the DECC LEAF fund were announced. We were delighted to learn that two bids from Birmingham - a south Birmingham consortium bid led by Balsall Heath Is Our Planet, and a Northfield Ecocentre bid - had been successful.

"Never doubt that a small number of committed citizens can change the world", wrote Margaret Mead. But what are the characteristics and attributes that those committed individuals need to have in order to do so?

A recent report for Defra by Brooke Lyndhurst investigated the role of influential individuals in spreading pro-environmental behaviour, and their relationships to issues of identity, trust and social norms. These individuals are known by a variety of overlapping terms - catalysts, early adopters, opinion formers, influencers, persuaders, protagonists, connectors, change agents, boundary spanners and even 'mavens' - all of whom have certain characteristics or attributes in common. These terms are interchangeable, and I use them as such.

Being catalysts is a part of their personality. It isn't something they learned at school or on a training course, it's just something they like to do. The crucial thing about them is that they are able to play a special role in spreading new ideas and behaviours. Gregarious, sociable, opinionated, positive, altruistic are the terms used to describe them. How many of those describe you? (I am definitely the last three and sometimes the first two). Their influence derives largely from 'internal consistency' - they mean what they say; do as they say; persuade people directly and also indirectly because people want to be like them. They 'get things done' and if a suitable network doesn't exist, then create one.

Defra's research interviewed twenty-two catalytic individuals - not specifically environmental influencers, but 'general' influencers from all walks of life. They told the interviewers that pro-environmental behaviour could be appended to other behaviours, such as health and money saving.

There is no tick-box approach to finding influential individuals. They cannot be identified through market research questionnaires in the way one might identify people from a random sample of shoppers who are most likely to use a new variety of soap powder, sign a petition to save Birmingham's markets or vote for a particular political party. Our experience confirms that catalysts don't put themselves forward in this way. Finding them is time-consuming but ultimately cost-effective. A sociometric approach needs to be used to find them. 'Snowballing' is the sociometric technique that Brooke Lyndhurst used, which involves researchers hanging around school gates and shopping centres (in the nicest possible way) - without a questionnaire - and asking people a series of questions about who does what in the local community. Eventually they will find the right person.
Influential individuals are creative, thoughtful and idiosyncratic (who, me?) and don't like being told what to do. They don't just pass on information or innovations, they use their own judgement, they think laterally to adapt and modify it to suit them and the people they wish to help.

There are ten critical dynamics in spreading innovation, and influential individuals will use as many as are necessary. The ten dynamics, as listed in the Brooke Lyndhurst report, are:

1. Relative advantage: the more potential value or benefit is anticipated from an innovation, the faster it will diffuse;

2. Trialability: the ability to try an innovation improves the prospects for adoption and diffusion;

3. Observability: the extent to which potential adopters can "see‟ the benefits of the innovation (and, indeed, physically see the innovation) improves the prospects for adoption and diffusion;

4. Communication channels: the paths chosen by opinion leaders to communicate an innovation affect the pace and pattern of diffusion;

5. Homophilous groups: innovations spread faster amongst homophilous [roughly, "like-minded‟] groups;

6. Pace of innovation/reinvention: some innovations tend to evolve and are altered along the way of diffusion whilst others remain stable; the former tend to diffuse more quickly than the latter;

7. Norms, roles and social networks: innovations are shaped by the rules, hierarchies and informal mechanisms of communication operating in the social networks in which they diffuse;

8. Opinion leaders: "opinion leaders‟ or catalytic individuals affect the pace of diffusion;

9. Compatibility: the ability of an innovation to coexist with existing technologies and social patterns improves the prospects for adoption/diffusion;

10. Infrastructure: the adoption of many innovations depends on the presence of some form of infrastructure or of other technologies that cluster with the innovation.

We often focus on one of the dynamics, e.g. observability of solar panels or other energy saving measures such as display energy monitors. Observability is closely linked to the 'build it and they will come' mentality that has characterised energy efficient demonstration projects in the past, where it was thought that just setting a good example that others could see, would be sufficient to encourage them to copy it. In practice, successful demonstration projects use as many of the ten dynamics as possible. A good example is Harriet and Chris Martin's Old Home Superhome energy efficient retrofit of their home in Bournville. This scores well on trialability and comparability because it coexists with a 1930s home; and infrastructure, because they have chosen measures for which there is a developing supply chain rather than going for something flashy but which it is difficult for potential copiers to get hold of. This is in addition to the observability which all demonstration projects have. The approach taken by Chris and Harriet is in contrast to some high-profile low-carbon new build and retrofit housing projects, the type that sometimes feature in Sunday newspapers, which score highly on observability but low on trialability, comparability and infrastructure. Harriet and Chris' approach is the more likely to be emulated by others.

Brooke Lyndhurst concluded that:

1. Pro-environmental behaviours should be seen as social innovations. This is a significant shift for most environmental people who only think of pro-environmental behaviours in purely environmental terms. We need to think laterally about how pro-environmental behaviours can have social and economic outcomes. Examples might include:
• Cycling and walking are good for your health
• Shopping local is good for the economy and supports more jobs than supermarkets
• Hanging the washing on the line means you can have a chat with your neighbour.

All persuasive arguments, and not a single mention of carbon footprint is needed.

2. An understanding of diffusion theory, such as the ten dynamics listed above, is key to understanding how pro-environmental behaviours will permeate the population.
Altruism is the greatest motivation of influential individuals. This means that there is a good chance they will not only be good neighbours who want to help their fellow residents, but also good citizens who want to save the planet. Finding them is an important part of making schemes like Birmingham Energy Savers a success.

"Never doubt that a small number of committed citizens can change the world", wrote Margaret Mead. But what are the characteristics and attributes that those committed individuals need to have in order to do so?

A recent report for Defra by Brooke Lyndhurst investigated the role of influential individuals in spreading pro-environmental behaviour, and their relationships to issues of identity, trust and social norms. These individuals are known by a variety of overlapping terms - catalysts, early adopters, opinion formers, influencers, persuaders, protagonists, connectors, change agents, boundary spanners and even 'mavens' - all of whom have certain characteristics or attributes in common. These terms are interchangeable, and I use them as such.

Being catalysts is a part of their personality. It isn't something they learned at school or on a training course, it's just something they like to do. The crucial thing about them is that they are able to play a special role in spreading new ideas and behaviours. Gregarious, sociable, opinionated, positive, altruistic are the terms used to describe them. How many of those describe you? (I am definitely the last three and sometimes the first two). Their influence derives largely from 'internal consistency' - they mean what they say; do as they say; persuade people directly and also indirectly because people want to be like them. They 'get things done' and if a suitable network doesn't exist, then create one.

Defra's research interviewed twenty-two catalytic individuals - not specifically environmental influencers, but 'general' influencers from all walks of life. They told the interviewers that pro-environmental behaviour could be appended to other behaviours, such as health and money saving.

There is no tick-box approach to finding influential individuals. They cannot be identified through market research questionnaires in the way one might identify people from a random sample of shoppers who are most likely to use a new variety of soap powder, sign a petition to save Birmingham's markets or vote for a particular political party. Our experience confirms that catalysts don't put themselves forward in this way. Finding them is time-consuming but ultimately cost-effective. A sociometric approach needs to be used to find them. 'Snowballing' is the sociometric technique that Brooke Lyndhurst used, which involves researchers hanging around school gates and shopping centres (in the nicest possible way) - without a questionnaire - and asking people a series of questions about who does what in the local community. Eventually they will find the right person.
Influential individuals are creative, thoughtful and idiosyncratic (who, me?) and don't like being told what to do. They don't just pass on information or innovations, they use their own judgement, they think laterally to adapt and modify it to suit them and the people they wish to help.

There are ten critical dynamics in spreading innovation, and influential individuals will use as many as are necessary. The ten dynamics, as listed in the Brooke Lyndhurst report, are:

1. Relative advantage: the more potential value or benefit is anticipated from an innovation, the faster it will diffuse;

2. Trialability: the ability to try an innovation improves the prospects for adoption and diffusion;

3. Observability: the extent to which potential adopters can "see‟ the benefits of the innovation (and, indeed, physically see the innovation) improves the prospects for adoption and diffusion;

4. Communication channels: the paths chosen by opinion leaders to communicate an innovation affect the pace and pattern of diffusion;

5. Homophilous groups: innovations spread faster amongst homophilous [roughly, "like-minded‟] groups;

6. Pace of innovation/reinvention: some innovations tend to evolve and are altered along the way of diffusion whilst others remain stable; the former tend to diffuse more quickly than the latter;

7. Norms, roles and social networks: innovations are shaped by the rules, hierarchies and informal mechanisms of communication operating in the social networks in which they diffuse;

8. Opinion leaders: "opinion leaders‟ or catalytic individuals affect the pace of diffusion;

9. Compatibility: the ability of an innovation to coexist with existing technologies and social patterns improves the prospects for adoption/diffusion;

10. Infrastructure: the adoption of many innovations depends on the presence of some form of infrastructure or of other technologies that cluster with the innovation.

We often focus on one of the dynamics, e.g. observability of solar panels or other energy saving measures such as display energy monitors. Observability is closely linked to the 'build it and they will come' mentality that has characterised energy efficient demonstration projects in the past, where it was thought that just setting a good example that others could see, would be sufficient to encourage them to copy it. In practice, successful demonstration projects use as many of the ten dynamics as possible. A good example is Harriet and Chris Martin's Old Home Superhome energy efficient retrofit of their home in Bournville. This scores well on trialability and comparability because it coexists with a 1930s home; and infrastructure, because they have chosen measures for which there is a developing supply chain rather than going for something flashy but which it is difficult for potential copiers to get hold of. This is in addition to the observability which all demonstration projects have. The approach taken by Chris and Harriet is in contrast to some high-profile low-carbon new build and retrofit housing projects, the type that sometimes feature in Sunday newspapers, which score highly on observability but low on trialability, comparability and infrastructure. Harriet and Chris' approach is the more likely to be emulated by others.

Brooke Lyndhurst concluded that:

1. Pro-environmental behaviours should be seen as social innovations. This is a significant shift for most environmental people who only think of pro-environmental behaviours in purely environmental terms. We need to think laterally about how pro-environmental behaviours can have social and economic outcomes. Examples might include:
• Cycling and walking are good for your health
• Shopping local is good for the economy and supports more jobs than supermarkets
• Hanging the washing on the line means you can have a chat with your neighbour.

All persuasive arguments, and not a single mention of carbon footprint is needed.

2. An understanding of diffusion theory, such as the ten dynamics listed above, is key to understanding how pro-environmental behaviours will permeate the population.
Altruism is the greatest motivation of influential individuals. This means that there is a good chance they will not only be good neighbours who want to help their fellow residents, but also good citizens who want to save the planet. Finding them is an important part of making schemes like Birmingham Energy Savers a success.

I have previously written about the contribution that behaviour change can make to reducing household carbon dioxide emissions. Yet we still tend to think of behaviour change in largely individual terms, partly because we are used to working with small groups of 'pioneers' or 'early adopters', often on a one-to-one basis.

Those of us who are trying to adopt new, pro-environmental behaviours and encourage others to do the same, often feel that we are cutting against the grain. This isn't because the people around us are too stupid or ignorant to follow us, nor is it because we aren't getting the message across properly. It's because pro-environmental behaviour isn't yet a social norm. The prevailing social norm on energy and resource use is one that we have inherited from the era of cheap and abundant fossil fuels, where people became used to jumping in the car, turning up the heating and leaving the lights on, because the environmental, social and economic consequences of doing so seemed very remote.

Connected, a recent book by the US academics Nicholas A. Christakis and James H. Fowler, gives us some insights into the way in which new behaviours and attitudes spread through the population to become social norms. Essentially Christakis and Fowler argue that we are more likely to adopt a new behaviour or attitude when 'someone like me' does it.

As is so often the case, we have a lot to learn from the public health field. Christakis and Fowler use the example of the Framingham Heart Study which shows that people who adopt behaviour patterns that are bad for their heart (you know the kind of thing), are likely to have friends, family, neighbours or co-workers who do the same. Conversely, people who exhibit behaviours that are good for their heart, are likely to have friends who do the same. Clearly there must be economic influences on personal health behaviour, as there are on pro-environmental behaviour. People on low incomes don't have the same choices in terms of access to healthy food and the means to exercise. Economics doesn't determine everything, but Christakis and Fowler aren't arguing that we have completely free will either.

Can we apply Christakis and Fowler's theory to pro-environmental behaviour? I think that the 'someone like me' theory is valid for some of the easier to adopt environmental behaviours like recycling. When Birmingham City Council introduced widespread doorstep collection a few years back, it quickly became a social norm across the City to recycle, because people could see their neighbours doing so. Simple nudges are enough for entry-level pro-environmental behaviours but not for the more difficult changes to deeply ingrained habits. Here we need a more multi-faceted understanding of the interplay of economics and psychology and how they influence environmental behaviour. There are many psychological influences on environmental behaviour, and the more complex the behaviour change we are trying to achieve, the more complex the psychological factors become and the wider the pool of theories of behavioural psychology that we need to draw upon becomes.

The Four E's Theory (1) is a good model for understanding how we can influence environmental behaviour. We need to engage, encourage and enable people to adopt environmental behaviour, and to exemplify such behaviour.

Most approaches to pro-environmental behaviour focus on one or perhaps two of the Four 4 E's. It may be difficult for one single intervention to achieve all Fou E's. It is desirable to deliver carbon reduction interventions that bring all Four E's into play. The key, therefore, is to join up different interventions to achieve all Four E's. This way, we avoid 'insulation only' or 'solar panels only' or 'energy advice only' interventions that miss out on two or three of the Four E's. This is a key priority for forthcoming Green Deal interventions such as Birmingham Energy Savers.

A further valuable insight from Connected that is highly relevant to us is the section on how Barack Obama's campaign to win the Democratic nomination in 2008 depended not only on getting the most out of his supporters, but on linking his supporters to each other. He did this through the website www.my.barackobama.com which went beyond traditional forms of political organisation because by using social media, it connected people who were two or three steps removed from each other's immediate social networks. It introduced people to a 'friend of a friend' and to a 'friend of a friend of a friend.' Can we emulate this in influencing environmental behaviour? We need to connect early adopters with people who are open to new environmental behaviours but who are currently two or three steps removed from the immediate social network of the early adopter. Social media, which are now used by the majority of the adult population, are key to connecting early adopters and pioneers to 'a friend of a friend of a friend' who is willing and able to change. This connects early adopters with other segments, and spreads the contagion of pro environmental behaviour, helping it to become a social norm more quickly.

In the context of a Green Deal programme such as Birmingham Energy Savers, a social media approach to connecting people could be a vital part of a Four E's strategy for shifting environmental behaviour. That way, more and more people in Birmingham will be able to say that they know 'someone like me' who lives a lower-carbon lifestyle.

Footnote: (1) See http://www.defra.gov.uk/publications/files/pb10589-securing-the-future-050307.pdf p27, and http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Document.aspx?Document=EV0503_8291_FRP.pdf p69

This week The Institute of Public Policy and Research (IPPR) published the final evaluation of the British Gas-funded Green Streets project, in which SusMo was a finalist.  IPPR's report makes a number of good policy recommendations to government about how to support community action on climate change, and also some points about the unsustainable burden that falls on volunteers in such projects that will echo with some of SusMo's hard-working volunteers.  In this article I want to focus on three insights, two of them quite original, that IPPR have made in their report into the advantages of a community led approach to tackling climate change, and their relevance to us in Birmingham.

Pat Dade and Chris Rose have suggested that values rather than economics are the key factor in determining people's environmental behaviour and attitudes.  Using theories developed by the psychologist Abraham Maslow and used by marketing and team-building people in many contexts, Dade and Rose divide the population into three segments - Pioneers, Prospectors and Settlers.  Briefly, Pioneers are the type of people who worry a lot about climate change as a global emergency and think everyone has a responsibility to do as much as they can about it, and quickly.  The problem is that the other two groups, Prospectors and Settlers, have a different set of values.  Pioneers tend to be poor at convincing the other two groups about Pioneer values, because they use a language that does not resonate at all with the other two groups.  Pioneers, for example, will talk about 'getting the message across', but Prospectors and Settlers do not respond to abstract reasoning.  So the problem we face is that Pioneers are good at convincing other Pioneers to take action, but not at convincing the other two groups.

The IPPR evaluation suggests that some of the community organisations participating in Green Streets have found strategies to overcome this, SusMo among them.  The evaluation found that the thirteen Green Streets projects have had pronounced impacts on attitudes towards energy efficiency and renewable energy in their wider communities.  Forty-one per cent of people questioned in those neighbourhoods had heard of the Green Streets project.  Thirty per cent had changed their attitudes, and sixty-one per cent said they would be more likely to take action in the future.  This means that Prospectors and Settlers, who are more numerous than Pioneers, are being influenced by the Pioneers through Green Streets. 

I think there are three factors involved in this.

1.       The visibility of energy efficiency and renewable energy measures in community buildings creates a 'seeing is believing' effect.  This is particularly important for Prospectors, who are the biggest group, and who are not convinced by abstract reasoning.

2.       In the case of SusMo, we went out of our way to recruit householders to the project who were representative of Moseley as a whole, and not from a hand-picked group of activists.  This meant that the 18 households included Prospectors and Settlers, and more importantly, that they had friends, neighbours, family and workmates who were also from those two groups.

3.       In some cases, such as the Beccles Lido Green Streets project, it was possible to link the energy efficiency issue to a cause that is currently more popular, namely the battle to rescue that community's swimming pool, through using renewable energy and energy efficiency as part of the solution to making the lido viable.

The second insight that IPPR have made concerns drop-out rates.  What they found was that where community volunteers made appointments for British Gas staff to come and carry out surveys or install measures, the householders were more likely to keep the appointments than where the appointments were made by British Gas themselves.  I have written elsewhere about the importance of Messenger in environmental behaviour, that is, the tendency for people to be influenced by the status of the messenger at least as much as by the content of the message itself.  Here in the IPPR report, we have more evidence that people are more likely to trust and believe someone with whom they share a demographic characteristic than someone from a multinational corporation - and this in a report that was commissioned by such a corporation.  This has important implications for the delivery of Green Deal projects such as Birmingham Energy Savers and is particularly significant for social enterprises and co-operatives planning to bid for work on such projects. 

The final insight that I want to talk about from the IPPR report is about decision-making and accountability in low carbon community groups. Groups who had chosen committee structures for making decisions about Green Streets believed that the openness and transparency that came with this structure was important.   In interviews with project leaders later on in the projects, it was observed that large committee structures were ineffective for making decisions.  As one project leader observed;

"You can't have everybody making all the decisions all of the time, it just doesn't work."

As SusMo moves towards a more formalised structure, we need to find a governance model in which responsibility for decision-making is delegated in order to ensure future projects are delivered in a timely way. 

Although SusMo was not the overall winner of Green Streets, the achievements so far compare very favourably with those of other finalists, with more carbon savings to come from work in progress.  SusMo achieved an average carbon dioxide saving per household of 963 kg a year, the highest in the whole Green Streets project.  This is a tribute to the detailed work that SusMo volunteers and intern, and staff from M&D did in analysing the most cost effective measures to install with a limited budget and diligently liaising with the householders, supported by Lee Barlow from British Gas.  This excellent result puts SusMo in a good position to embark on a new exciting venture, setting up a community renewable energy co-operative, supported by our friends from CORE, and in partnership with Balsall Heath Is Our Planet and Kings Heath Transition Initiative.  Watch this blog for more news on that!

In the environmental third sector we've become used to working closely with government in all its forms: local, regional and national. They've been a source of moral and sometimes financial support to us, and we've helped them to meet a variety of statutory targets. It hasn't always been a happy marriage, and often we've thought that we had different agendas and different cultures of working, but we've stuck with it and usually made it work.

Now the private sector is taking on many of the functions formerly delivered by the public sector. Nowhere is this more the case than in carbon reduction. Unlike the Big Society approach to running libraries and leisure centres through an over-burdened group of mythical volunteers with no money, there is arguably more money in carbon mitigation than ever before, through Green Deal, Feed-in Tariffs, Renewable Heat Incentive, the Water Efficiency Obligation, and the forthcoming Energy Company Obligation, often in the form of 'funny money'. There is also an increasing understanding, partly thanks to the pioneering role of Birmingham Energy Savers, of the role of the environmental third sector in helping the private sector to spend this money.

Previously, the public sector mediated our role with the private sector. Now, we must work directly with the private sector - not only energy and water utilities, but other new entrants to the carbon reduction world: high street retailers, DIY chains, and construction companies. Once again, low carbon community groups, Transition groups and faith groups are faced with the challenge of working with organisations who may have a different agenda to us, and a different working culture. Third sector organisations such as Groundwork and Jericho Foundation, who work on employment programmes funded ultimately by Government but delivered by private sector prime contractors, have already had to adapt to this new way of working.

Should we spurn the opportunity to work with the private sector because they don't always share our values? If we do, quite simply, we will be marginalised and the delivery of schemes such as Birmingham Energy Savers will suffer as a result, making more difficult for them to meet their wider outcomes such as boosting local economies through local spend. We should continue to implement initiatives such as CORE, which are community controlled, but also look at what we do have in common with the private sector that enables us to work with them, rather than starting off with our differences. We might find that they aren't that different to the public sector, the major difference being that because they don't have the same procurement procedures as the public sector, they have more freedom to get things going and completed quickly. This will affect the way in which we have to make decisions, and we will need structures and volunteer roles that are based on service delivery as much as on campaigning and advocacy.

Are the private sector serious about working with communities on climate change? I think they are. They have already dipped their toes into the water in the shape of projects such as E-ON's Challenge 100, and British Gas Green Streets, in which SusMo was a regional winner. In future, we can expect these initiatives to become more mainstream and to access mainstream budgets. Like the public sector before them, they know that they have a lot to learn about us, as we do about them. That will involve cultural change on both sides.

Phil Beardmore is a guest blogger while Esther Boyd and her husband Howard are taking a well-earned holiday

Recently SusMo volunteers at the Moseley Farmers' Market were asked about the efficiency of wind turbines and in particular about the issue of electricity transmission losses from remotely sited wind farms.

Wind turbines are highly efficient, turning about 60% of their fuel (the wind) into useful energy. Most of our existing fossil fuel and nuclear power stations waste about 60% of their energy through cooling towers even before it is transmitted through the national grid. So wind farms are ahead of fossil fuel power stations before any transmission losses are taken into account.

Electricity is lost as heat or noise and through theft on the networks as it is transmitted. As a rule of thumb, 2.5% of electricity is lost over 70 miles of grid. According to the Sustainable Development Commission (SDC, who have had their funding cut by the Government), losses from the GB transmission system are 7% of electricity generated (in 2008), equivalent to the 4GW generated by Drax, the UK's largest power station, but a reduction from the 2000 figure of 8%. Ofgem have estimated that reducing this figure to 6% might contribute 4% of the Government's emissions reduction targets. The SDC argue that transmission losses could viably be reduced to 4%, which would compare favourably to Germany (currently 5.1%) and even Finland (3.7%), although geographical factors account for some of the different rates of transmission losses between different countries.

In 2005 Ofgem introduced a financial incentive to reduce transmission losses. The main measures available to network operators are investing in low loss transmission equipment; more effective network configuration; and management of demand during peak periods. This is important whatever the fuel source.

In 2009 the previous Government published the UK Low Carbon Transition Plan which said that we would need a bigger, smarter electricity grid as part reducing the emissions from power generation to almost zero. In the era of abundant fossil fuels, we got used to switching things on an off at our convenience. A smart grid will incentivise, and sometimes oblige, all users of the grid to make smarter choices about how and when they use electricity, from every household to the biggest power generator. Charging electric cars and putting the washing machine on during periods of low electricity demand (e.g. at night) are examples of smart use of the grid that reduce carbon emissions. In the not-too-distant future, smart metering will financially incentivise us to make these smarter decisions. At the power generation level, a smart grid will enable and incentivise the reduction of transmission losses too.

All sources of power generation are intermittent. Fossil fuel and nuclear power stations all have down-time; the availability of wind and sun fluctuates with the seasons (but unlike fossil and nuclear fuels, will never run out). A smart grid will help to balance these fluctuations and put an end to the myth that wind power isn't worthwhile due to 'intermittency'.

Any wind-generated electricity lost in transmission does not increase CO2 emissions. Every unit of fossil fuel electricity lost in transmission does increase CO2 emissions.
Every unit of electricity that comes from a wind generator is one less unit that would otherwise have come from fossil fuels and that means a lot less CO2 going into the atmosphere.

So medium and large sized wind turbines will be an important part of a low carbon future in this most windy of European countries. This doesn't mean that we're going to see many wind farms in Birmingham, and the Birmingham Climate Change Action Plan says that other low carbon energy generation methods such as solar, energy from waste and combined heat and power are more significant opportunities for Birmingham, which is historically dependent on imported energy sources. Birmingham's geography limits its capacity to generate wind power, although there are opportunities to site medium sized wind generators in fringe areas, an approach advocated by East Birmingham Community Energy Company, as is the case in cities such as Amsterdam and Copenhagen. There are already several schools in Birmingham that have wind turbines. We may well see larger wind farms in windier parts of the West Midlands. Other major cities such as Bristol, Liverpool, Manchester, Newcastle, and Glasgow are closer to likely sources of large-scale wind power. Other forms of low carbon energy, such as combined heat and power and solar, lend themselves to a decentralised grid with power being generated closer to where it is used, an extremely effective way of eliminating transmission losses. Research for Greenpeace shows that a move towards renewable and decentralised energy will be cheaper and cleaner than nuclear.

I haven't mentioned rooftop-mounted wind turbines so far. The excitement that surrounded these a couple of years ago has dissipated, as they have proved too inefficient to be worthwhile in most situations. The Leamington Spa based consultancy Encraft has produced a useful investigation into these turbines on the website www.warwickwindtrials.org.uk

During the fossil fuel era, we have become used to a 'one-size-fits-all' approach to meeting our energy needs that has led us to become dependent on fossil fuels. We need to diversity our sources of fuel, both for security of supply and environmental reasons. And finally, we must never forget that 'energy efficiency comes first', and whatever source our energy comes from, we still have a responsibility to use it wisely.

Did you know that 2010 was International Year of Biodiversity? Biodiversity is simply the variety of life on earth. This variety is essential for sustaining the natural living systems or ecosystems that support life on earth. Human activity is destroying biodiversity at alarming rates. Can feeding the birds really make a difference?

The respected environmentalist Professor Chris Baines argues that it does. In his seminal book How To Make a Wildlife Garden, Chris says that our gardens have taken on an increasingly important role in the ecosystem in Britain. Our countryside has become increasingly hostile to wildlife due to habitat loss and modern farming practices, based as they are on monoculture and the use of substances that are harmful to wildlife as well as to people. Our urban landscape is increasingly important as a haven for wildlife, with its myriad of habitats including canals, railways and gardens. This is particularly the case for birds in winter. The country hedgerows, with their winter store of berries, nuts and seeds, have disappeared by up to a half since the end of the second world war. Our towns and cities are often more biodiverse than the surrounding countryside and that's why sparrows, blue tits and robins, along with more exotic visitors, boost Birmingham's bird population at this time of year.

Yet this urban pantry still isn't enough and birds have come to depend on supplementary feeding of peanuts, fat cakes and seed mixes by kind-hearted city dwellers. Here are some essential do's and don'ts for feeding the birds:

Do:
- Feed the birds with seed mixes and nuts endorsed by the BTO or the RSPB. These are optimised to contain the right nutritional mix.
- Put fresh, unfrozen water out for the birds daily - they need it for washing as well as drinking.
- Be as hygienic as you would in your own kitchen - dirty tables and stale food can spread disease.
- Feed regularly - once birds expect to see food in your garden they will return daily. If you stop feeding them they will waste valuable energy commuting to your garden in vain.
- Involve all the family in feeding the birds - it's a great way to give children an appreciation of nature.
- Look out for locally produced seed mixes too. Don't forget the food miles!

Don't:
- Allow your birds to fall victim to predators such as cats - place your bird food out of their reach. Birds feel comfortable feeding near to trees and bushes if possible.
- Let the larger species like pigeons and magpies bully the smaller ones. Provide food in several places so the smaller birds have a chance. You can buy bird feeders that are inaccessible to larger birds.
- Put out too much food on ground feeders - any left over at the end of the day could attract rats.

You don't even need a garden to feed the birds - you can get bird feeders that can be attached to walls or even windows.

There are scientific studies that suggests that feeding the birds isn't always the best thing to do. It's important that scientists continue to improve our understanding of how life works. For the moment at least, while the Wildlife Trust advocates feeding the birds, I shall continue to do so. Besides, five minutes in the garden is precious at this time of year.

If you're one of those people who aren't convinced that the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) is working, or you're just confused by it, then add a Carbon Destruction Certificate from www.sandbag.org.uk to your letter to Santa right away! I'll explain.

The problem with the ETS is that it allows big polluters like power companies and heavy industry to keep on polluting ... as long as they, or their customers, are prepared to pay for it.

Like all market-based solutions, emissions trading works well on paper. The EU sets a cap on emissions and creates a market in reducing emissions. Big polluters then buy and sell permits that give them the right to emit greenhouse gas emissions. Privatising the earth's atmosphere? Of course it will work.

But up to now, the scheme hasn't worked. The market was so feebly regulated that the price of permits to pollute crashed, because caps were too generous and too many permits were handed out. Has nobody learned from the boom-bust cycle that has plagued capitalism since its birth?

Sandbag.org.uk is a community interest company that's come up with a solution. You can buy a 'permit to pollute' worth 1 tonne of CO2, but instead of using it or trading it in, you sacrifice it, and Sandbag retires it for you. This means that somewhere, a tonne of carbon dioxide isn't emitted and the overall cap on permits is brought down. Simple really ...

The cost of a 1 tonne permit through Sandbag is £25 - which is a lot cheaper than the amount you would have to invest in insulation or solar panels to save 1 tonne (although you should of course do these things if you possibly can). And it's better value for money than glow in the dark toilet paper, which I'm told is the novelty gift of choice this festive season.

So all I want for Christmas is ... something that I can't see, can't hear, can't smell, can't touch, and doesn't really exist. That sounds like a lot less work for Rudolph & co, and much better for their icy Arctic abode.

It's about this time of year that some people start to get confused between 'weather' and 'climate'. As if you can refute decades of hard scientific evidence about climate change by looking out of your window and saying "so much for global warming then!"

But talking of weather and climate, recent figures published by the World Meteorological Organisation show that the year 2010 is almost certain to rank as one of the three warmest years since records began, and that the decade that's about to finish is the warmest 10-year period. The summer heatwave in the northern hemisphere caused thousands of deaths in Russia and devastated harvests in the Middle East and northern India.

Some scientists state that the cold winters the UK has suffered in the last two years are caused by higher temperatures in western Greenland, northern Canada and Siberia. Our winter weather is linked to differences in air pressure over the Atlantic. Higher than normal air pressure in the Arctic winter is disrupting the usual weather pattern that gives the UK comparatively mild weather compared to other places at similar latitudes. This allows cold air from the Arctic to penetrate into Europe, causing the cold snap.

Climate and weather are complex things and we should back the efforts of scientists to further our understanding of the impacts of climate change. What isn't in doubt is that you can't expect to pump billions of tonnes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere every year and not expect bad things to happen.

So, let it snow, but don't forget the bigger picture - climate change is real and the capacity of the earth to sustain life is under threat. 2011 needs to be the year of decisive action to stop it.

Phil Beardmore works for the Confederation of Co-operative Housing on the Greener Together project. This project encourages members of co-operatives to adopt pro-environmental behaviours, and is delivered by the CCH in partnership with Co-operatives UK and the Plunkett Foundation. Phil is also a volunteer for SusMo.