好色先生TV

Innovation is what鈥檚 going to save us, not EPCs, according to James Woudhuysen, professional myth-buster and forecaster. Progress may have got us into this mess but it is also what is going to get us out of it, if his radical take on stopping climate change is to be believed. In his book Energise! he contends that the answer is a bigger, better energy supply, not individual guilt.

鈥淭he responsibility lies with the energy supply companies. We do need better buildings but the fix lies in precise manufacturing and construction, not felt and insulation,鈥� Woudhuysen tells me. 鈥淎rchitects or designers who think their job is to save the planet are engaged in a displacement activity. 好色先生TVs do not generate greenhouse gases but energy suppliers do.

鈥淲e need more energy efficient homes, new low-carbon energy supplies and a more energised society that looks up to engineers before rock stars such as Bono. We need an aggressive investment programme in biofuels, large-scale renewables, carbon capture and storage and nuclear. Climate change is not a moral issue, so we should all breathe a little easier.鈥�

Advertising campaigns everywhere remind us to switch off lights, not leave the PC or TV on standby, use public transport instead of the car and for goodness sake don鈥檛 fly. The emphasis is on changing public behaviour. But does this new wave of energy responsibility signify a welcome shift in public priorities, or a worrying example of compliance to the state? Firmly of the latter view is Woudhuysen, professor of forecasting and innovation at De Montfort University, Leicester, who believes that climate change anxiety could jeopardise the ambition and aspiration that are key to solving the problem.

鈥淭here鈥檚 a Victorian industry still flourishing in this country and it鈥檚 called guilt,鈥� he says. 鈥淲hat I and my co-writer [Joe Kaplinsky] have tried to say in Energise! is that climate change is a mistake, it鈥檚 not a misdeed. We made a mistake; it鈥檚 not the first and it won鈥檛 be the last. It鈥檚 not a moral issue, which is what the greens try to make it.鈥�

Woudhuysen believes climate change has filtered into the public psyche in the most negative way. A vacuum created by the end of left and right politics has, he says, led to less clashing of ideologies and more emotionalising of public discourse, fuelled by a culture of fear 鈥� the kind of 鈥渦nknown unknowns鈥� enlisted in the so-called war on terror.

With the 鈥渟cience鈥� of climate change becoming enshrined in the public consciousness, does that make green the new god? 鈥淚鈥檓 an atheist,鈥� he says. 鈥淏ut I will say one thing for religion: it is supposed to be about the transcendence of the here and now, the aspiration to a better world or experience. Do we identify that kind of vision with our green friends?鈥� The look on Woudhuysen鈥檚 face suggests otherwise. 鈥淚t鈥檚 more a case of 鈥榮top the world, I want to get off鈥�. This idea that we have to be pushed back because we have made a mistake is stunting our ambition and innovation 鈥� which is what鈥檚 going to save us.鈥�

Woudhuysen鈥檚 CV is an intriguing mix of science and the arts. Inspired by the space race, he studied physics at Sussex University followed by a postgrad in the political economy of nuclear energy. He was editor of Design magazine and head of research at the international design consultancy Fitch. In the 1990s he led IT consulting at the Henley Centre and managed market intelligence for the electronics firm Philips, becoming an independent consultant in 2001.

He comes across as the ideal teacher: knowledgeable without being pompous; enthusiastic but with a focused restraint. He cites Einstein and Copernicus as influences, but also name-checks Steve McQueen and Mel Brooks.

Woudhuysen describes his book as a call to arms to change the way we produce energy. As evidence, he gives figures from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change showing that in 2004 the world鈥檚 road transport created about 4 gigatonnes of CO2 emissions while electricity plants and oil refineries contributed three times as much. Power generation accounted for more than 27% of manmade CO2 emissions and were, Woudhuysen asserts, by far the biggest source of greenhouse gases.

Energise! cites a 2001 report by British ecologists, and endorsed by the National Federation of Women鈥檚 Institutes and the Faculty of Public Health Medicine, which said that: 鈥淓very time we eat, we are essentially eating oil.鈥�

Designers who think their job is to save the planet are engaged in a displacement activity. Responsibility lies with the energy supply companies

He likens the green lobbyists鈥� linking of consumption with gluttony to the way friends and family might talk to an alcoholic relative 鈥� an attempt to prise the 鈥渆nergy fatties鈥� away from their addictions to foreign oil and energy. 鈥淚t comes back to control,鈥� he says. 鈥淐ontrolling your perception of yourself, watching and judging your every move and saying you are the problem. You are the cancer on the planet.

鈥淭he public has deluded itself into this guilt state, where they are personally responsible for the problems with our environment. Every dinner party conversation reduces to 鈥楬ow did you get here?鈥� and 鈥楬ow did you offset that?鈥� The impressionability of the middle-class Daily Mail reader is sometimes staggering.鈥�

Despite the fact that at this point, with arms folded behind his head and legs outstretched, Woudhuysen appears ready to kick off his shoes and relax, there鈥檚 a serious note of frustration. What he perceives as green puritanism comes up again and again. 鈥淚 had a run-in with Jonathon Porritt of the Sustainable Development Commission recently,鈥� he says.

鈥淧orritt was banging on about there being only one Earth and during the Q&A session I asked what the commission was doing to lobby the government for more investment in solar power research. He gave some flouncy response about 鈥榤arket failure鈥� and the lack of government action. He鈥檚 really on a quest to moralise human behaviour, not to build a new energy supply. That requires being serious about investment and research.

鈥淭he greens鈥� core business is outrage, but that is not enough to change society. It has to be more than going off the grid 鈥� that is a petty bourgeois utopia. Wind turbines in London aren鈥檛 going to cut it compared with large-scale offshore operations.鈥�

Tongue firmly in cheek, he adds: 鈥淎s a scientist, of course, I hate birds, bees and the environment. I want everything to be concreted over. If I hear 鈥榳e鈥檝e only got one Earth鈥� one more time, I think I鈥檒l throw up.鈥�

Removing guilt is one thing, but the issue of energy consumption and climate change will remain. What solutions does Woudhuysen propose? He is pro-nuclear and pro-renewables. The issue of power cuts is something he believes we will have to deal with because of the 鈥渄isappointing鈥� timeline that sees the UK鈥檚 new nuclear power stations coming online from 2025.

On wind power and large-scale renewables (or astronomicals, as he calls them), he is alarmed at how lack of investment is hindering research. 鈥淭he fear of making a mistake is enormous in this. Just look at the UK government鈥檚 priorities: 拢20 billion on Trident; 拢6m on carbon capture and storage. A half-trillion bail-out for banks while the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council鈥檚 budget for robotics was 拢800,000. Innovation is what鈥檚 going to save us, but they won鈥檛 spend more than the price of a house in Putney on robotics.鈥�

Woudhuysen, a self-confessed Sixties man and 鈥渓efty鈥�, is nonetheless optimistic that progress will be made towards finding the answers to climate change and being bold enough to demand them of the true culprits. 鈥淧erhaps the next generation will make these demands, and seek out the ambitious solutions needed. The dismissive 鈥榳hatever鈥� approach just won鈥檛 wash.鈥�

Do you agree with Woudhuysen?