Onzo

Both the Royal Academy and the All-Party Parliamentary Climate Change Committee have recently called on the government to make a huge investment in improving energy efficiency in the home as part of the fight against global warming. They are right to point to the chronic energy inefficiency of the country’s existing homes; these account for nearly 40 per cent of carbon gas emissions. It is probably not realistic, however, to expect huge sums of public money to be devoted to tackling this problem when our national debt is higher in real terms than at any time since the 1680s. Whatever government is in power, overall cuts rather than investment will inevitably be the order of the day for perhaps the next decade, and neither the scientists nor the parliamentarians indicate on what spending programme they would like to see the axe fall in order to pay for the investment they seek.

If vast sums of public money are not to be thrown at this problem, the most promising way to deal with it in practical terms is surely by promoting behaviour change among householders.

The government claims the general introduction of “smart” gas and electricity meters will do that, by inducing consumers to save money and reduce their carbon emissions. This is not true. Smart meters provide greater accuracy and frequency of billing but on their own do not provide any more information to consumers, or incentive to change their behaviour, than the present generation of meters does

Reducing energy usage and cutting carbon emissions requires effective consumer engagement. Research shows that real-time energy monitoring displays in the home are the most effective tool for bringing about a reduction in energy use. They can cause a fall of some 14 per cent if used fully. There are also other mechanisms, some of which are even more cost effective; these include websites and printed reports, and messages sent to mobile telephones. All these mechanisms may not yet be accessible by all, but as they are complementary it is likely that a combination of them will indeed bear fruit.

Rather than demanding spending that is just not going to materialise in the short to medium term, commentators should accept reality and concentrate on promoting more practical ways of meeting the aim of cutting energy use in the home.

In the UK, Onzo has been explaining that the benefits to the consumer of basic smart meters have been exaggerated and that they should be supplemented by means of providing compelling and actionable information on energy usage. In New Zealand, this argument has been accepted by the government. There the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment and the Energy Minister have described the new generation of power meters as “dumb meters” and insisted that suppliers offer their customers proper tools to help them manage their consumption. This broadcast item from New Zealand’s 3 News television channel discusses the issue, and shows the Environment Commissioner making her point using the Onzo display.

A report published by Ofcom, the communications regulator, has analysed the motivation of the17m people (30 per cent of the population) who still do not have internet access. It finds that 43 per cent of this group would chose to remain offline even if they were given a PC and provided with a broadband connection. When asked what would make them change their minds, only nine per cent said the offer of free equipment would be influential, while free training in computer use would be of interest to a mere 11 per cent. The great majority – 42 per cent – said they had no need for and no interest in, the internet. Most of these are probably elderly, as 61 per cent claim never to have used a computer.

Although one in five of those without internet access said they intended to remedy the situation within the next six months, these findings will come as a disappointment to the government, which is anxious to transact as much business with the public as possible over the internet. Next week the Communications Minister, Lord Carter of Barnes, is to publish the final version of his “Digital Britain” report, which will set out plans for the provision of broadband as a universal service. According to Ofcom, broadband is becoming increasingly critical to people’s ability to participate in the economy and society.

It may be, however, that the way in which both minsters and the regulator have argued the merits of broadband have contributed to this sense of indifference and even hostility among a substantial minority of the population. The stress laid upon the provision of existing official services online: passport and driving licence applications and tax returns to name but a few, has given the impression that the government is attempting to coerce the public into changing its behaviour in order to cut costs. In some cases this feeling is bound up with discontent about services being taken away from valued local post offices. There is also some apprehension that the government will take advantage of the internet to increase its intrusion into people’s lives.

There is a real danger in all this that a great opportunity may be lost. The provision of broadband as a universal service, akin to gas, electricity and water, will make possible the development of a whole range of valuable in-home services, of which home health is one of the most obvious examples, that will benefit the most vulnerable elements in society, many of whom are those most sceptical about the benefits of the internet.

Ofcom has said that “some creativity will be required if we wish to capture the imaginations of those who have yet to engage with the benefits the internet may bring”. Yet the first draft of the “Digital Britain” paper failed to identify the most valuable of these services, preferring to concentrate on uses many might consider frivolous, such as online shopping and home entertainment. A much more serious approach is required.