The Union express, the paper of the National Distribution Union, is one of the better union newspapers in New Zealand. But there was an appalling article about climate change in their latest issue (not available on-line but it’s February-April 2008 with a Bunnings protest on the front cover). I think it typifies what is ridiculous about much discussion about the environment.
The article is called Be The Change and is based on the website of the same name.
My main objection is to the section called Save Money and the Planet, which gave all sorts of advice about what union members could do. Much of the advice assumed that you own your own home, and have capital to make upgrades, with suggestions to install insulation, and consider solar water heating. Then there’s the advice to turn off your heated towel rail and your second fridge.*
I am angry to read this nonsense in a union magazine, which is going to some of the lowest paid workers in the country. While some of NDU workplaces, such as mills, are well paid enough that workers might own their own home and a heated towel rail, many are not.
I regularly turn off my hot water heater, not for energy efficiency reasons, because it’s the only way I can pay my electricity bill. The idea that workers need to be lectured at how to save electricity is ridiculous. Low paid people know from saving money. What they don’t have is capital, some people can’t afford to buy a $6 light bulb now to save $20 over the course of the year.
There was nothing about landlords and government’s responsibility to provide better quality housing, and what unions are doing about that (which is probably because the answer is ‘nothing’). There wasn’t even any information about the schemes that some councils are running which subsidise landlords to install heat-pumps and installation.
I would expect a union magazine to be the one place you could find discussion of environmental issues that goes beyond individualistic moralising. That it didn’t, that all the Union Express had to say was the banal ‘be the change’ is a really bad sign. Recently discussion about climate change and carbon footprints have gone mainstream. Airlines and power companies want us to believe if we do our little bit then everything will be fine. Some environmentalists seem to see this as a victory, but it’s not, it’s distraction and co-option. Individuals can’t save the planet, anymore than they can end war. The way the world’s resources are used is not decided by consumers, but at by companies at the point of production. Action around climate change which ignores this isn’t so much rearranging deck-chairs on the Titanic, but telling the passengers to lose weight so it’ll sink slower.
* It makes me want to write a whole series of climate change advice in a similar vein: “Turn off the heating system in your spa pool when you are going to be away for a few days. Consider an energy efficient air conditioning system for your second home.” etc.
hi Maia,
just a quick note – i think there are words missing somewhere. the fourth paragraph ends with the unfinished sentence The assumption
but otherwise, great post, particularly because it’s making what should be an obvious point.
First of all: capital != money/wealth.
Second, I feel the same way whenever I see a newspaper recommending that one should line-dry clothes instead of using a dryer. Newsflash: some of us don’t have the choice.
Regarding the hot water cylinder thing: are you sure that turning it off saves you power? That is, have you actually checked your energy consumption levels? I’m fairly certain that, due to the high specific heat of water (zomg chemistry), turning it off when you’re not using it would actually use more energy than leaving it on.
This reminds me of a Mad TV sketch parodying Oprah … it’s supposed to be about how to save money, and Oprah’s advice is something like, “If you own five homes, and you only use three of them, cut your staff in half!”, etc.
There was nothing about landlords and government’s responsibility to provide better quality housing,
What do you think that the government’s responsibility is in providing better quality housing?
Last time I went to a Campaign Against Climate Change event, much the same thing was said; that if the council/government/whoever [my aunt tells me she’s had this sort of thing from her priest] tells you to change your lightbulbs and stop using so many carrier bags, you should ignore them, and spend your time and money on direct action against your government’s transport and energy policies instead.
RonF: there is a lot that can be done with housing policy wrt climate change, especially in areas where a lot of the housing stock is old. Grants can be given to improve insulation and glazing, targeted for people who are in fuel poverty (ie, more than10% of the household income spent on paying their electricity and/or natural gas bills).
Then there’s design – things like the Passivhaus standard, which creates homes efficient enough that they don’t need heating or AC. You don’t even have to go that far, though – simply enforcing existing standards would have a huge benefit. On a larger scale, there’s planning policy; making multi-use areas which reduce the need to make short car journeys, and making public transport more usable.
And yes, I think the government has a responsibility to make sure people aren’t in fuel poverty due to low-cost housing being badly insulated. They sure as hell have a responsibility to enforce their own building standards.
What do you think that the government’s responsibility is in providing better quality housing?
Regulatory standards for new housing, at the very least, I would think.
Action around climate change which ignores this isn’t so much rearranging deck-chairs on the Titanic, but telling the passengers to lose weight so it’ll sink slower.
I love this analogy.
What Dianne said.
Regarding the hot water cylinder thing: are you sure that turning it off saves you power? That is, have you actually checked your energy consumption levels? I’m fairly certain that, due to the high specific heat of water (zomg chemistry), turning it off when you’re not using it would actually use more energy than leaving it on.
This is incorrect. If you turn the water heater off temporarily, letting the water inside cool, the difference in temperature between inside and outside the tank drops, and thus the heat will transfer out of the tank more slowly (Fourier’s Law). It’ll take energy to heat the water back up when you turn the water heater back on, but you’ve been saving heat energy while the temperature was lower. Also see the “Dial Down the Thermostat At Night” section here for an explanation of the same principle with regards to the thermostat.
cdc is right; the rate of heat transfer is in part a function of the difference in temperture. The lower the difference, the lower the rate.
Thene: the proposition was that the government has a role in providing better quality housing. Now, I certainly agree that the State has an interest in ensuring that the housing stock meets certain standards. For one thing, substandard housing (bad wiring or heating systems, etc.) can cause fires that can provide a public hazard. Then there’s zoning laws, etc. But the word provide seems to be to denote that the government has a responsibility to build or buy housing stock and directly rent or sell it to those desiring housing, as opposed to ensuring via building codes, etc., that the housing stock that other people provide meets particular standards. I’m curious about what the rationale is for that.
Maia: in this context, what’s a council?
Ron; Maia is from NZ. My guess is that NZ, like the UK, is a country where the government commonly does commission new housing stock and then rent or sell it. Her way of framing the issue seemed completely natural to me, because it’s what I’m used to. Even if it is not what you’re used to, it ‘translates’ easily; the government needs to investigate what standards are required, set them, enforce them, and do all they can to encourage the owners of old housing stock to make improvements too. Whether the government is ever the owner of the stock is irrelevant; it’s them who make policy.
I agree that the State has an interest in setting standards for construction of various kinds of buildings, and a further interest in maintenance for rental/leased property. But I do see a distinction as to whether the State should build and own and rent/lease such property directly. Here in the U.S. that kind of thing has often turned out disastrous for the people involved.
I was wondering if a “council” was a government body specifically constituted to construct, own and operate such housing, or is a government body that has other functions as well, or whether it’s a not-for-profit corporation, or whatever? Are it’s members elected by the electorate of a specific district, or are they appointed by the elected officials? Do they enforce regulations created by another elected body, or do they have the power to create such regulations themselves?
I suppose the US equivalent would be a… county? As in, the government heirarchy goes federal, state and local. Councils are the local. The people who are responsible for collecting the rubbish and fixing wonky foothpaths and such. Anyway, here you go, councils of New Zealand, and public housing of New Zealand. Can’t find much about housing regulations across the pond, but it’s probably boring as all hell anyway. Have fun!
In the UK, a “Council” is a local government organisation, which in the US would be called “City Hall”, or whatever its rural equivalent is. Elected members are “Councilors” The elected leader is a “Mayor” as in the US, or in Scotland a “Provost”.
I would image that NZ, with it’s close cultural ties to the UK retains the nomenclature.