Nick Robinson voices his reservations about how effective a budget cut equivalent to the savings of 10% of Government's carbon emissions would be.
I'm in favour of reducing energy consumption (consumption in general, really), particularly in a business sense because it would usually indicate greater efficiency as well as an attempt to minimise the impact we place on the world around us. The problem with the idea (and Nick's analysis) is that a question needs to be asked: who will calculate the savings of a 10% carbon emissions cut?
If the answer is external consultants, be they auditors, quantity surveyors, or whoever, they will cost money and need information from within the organisation. There are also not many organisations big enough to audit government organisations. Those that are exist primarily (and sometimes solely) to service the needs of large organisations - are the findings of these organisations potentially compromised by their proximity to those they serve?
If the answer is that civil servants themselves will provide information on what they can save, it would naive to think that the Sir Humphries (or Ervin Burrells if that's more your thing) in the corridors of power won't be thinking up ways to massage the figures, sorry, "mitigate the survey impact". The only way round that seems to be suggesting the sorts of savings that can be made, in which case why worry to ask in the first place?
I'm in favour of reducing energy consumption (consumption in general, really), particularly in a business sense because it would usually indicate greater efficiency as well as an attempt to minimise the impact we place on the world around us. The problem with the idea (and Nick's analysis) is that a question needs to be asked: who will calculate the savings of a 10% carbon emissions cut?
If the answer is external consultants, be they auditors, quantity surveyors, or whoever, they will cost money and need information from within the organisation. There are also not many organisations big enough to audit government organisations. Those that are exist primarily (and sometimes solely) to service the needs of large organisations - are the findings of these organisations potentially compromised by their proximity to those they serve?
If the answer is that civil servants themselves will provide information on what they can save, it would naive to think that the Sir Humphries (or Ervin Burrells if that's more your thing) in the corridors of power won't be thinking up ways to massage the figures, sorry, "mitigate the survey impact". The only way round that seems to be suggesting the sorts of savings that can be made, in which case why worry to ask in the first place?
No comments:
Post a Comment