Thursday, October 26, 2006
Just Switch
2 weeks ago I switched our domestic energy supplier from EDF to Good Energy. Following the Guardian's expose, I was concerned that EDF's green tariff didn't guarantee any "additionality". When you switch from a non-green to green tariff, you do increase the percentage of your energy supplied from sustainable sources, but you may be decreasing the percentage of sustainable supply for customers left on the non-green tariff. The situation is extremely complex, not least because all UK electricity companies are legally committed to supplying 4.9% of their energy from sustainable sources. At present only 1% of their customers opt for 100% renewables tariffs, leaving the big companies with a surfeit of green energy. Furthermore small and large energy companies are engaged in a form of "non-emissions" trading, via the sale of Renewable Obligation Certificates. I decided that as a moderately ill-informed individual, I probably wasn't best placed to judge which company really offered the most actual environmental benefit. Based on the recommendation of a friend who works for environmental consultancy e4tech, and on the basis of Good Energy's ethiscore rating, I plumped for Good Energy.
Today however I received a letter from EDF inviting me to phone them and close my account. Predictably, this was utterly false, and the freephone number actually led to their Customer Retention Department. Having spent 30 minutes on the phone with their retention expert, I was in a complete rage. His arguments for staying with EDF ran through the whole gamut of logical fallacies. A select sample of the ploys used:
1. EDF's 100% renewal tariff is better than Good Energy's tariff because they pay into a fund for renewables projects, including putting solar panels on schools. The educational value of such projects outweigh the lack of transparent additionality.
2. Although Good Energy are not involved in coal, gas, or nuclear power generation, their environmental contribution is negligible because they have so few customers.
3. EDF's environmental credentials are clearly demonstrated by their commitment to decommissioning some of their existing nuclear power stations.
4. EDF will not apparently be building new nuclear power stations, because nuclear power stations have to be situated near the sea, and sea levels are rising.
5. There's no point worrying about additionality anyway, because the UK only has enough land for 20% of its energy needs to be met by renewables.
And finally, and most amusingly, when confronted with my own counter-arguments:
6. You can demonstrate anything with statistics really.
The very fact that EDF employs customer retention experts, points to their complete lack of commitment to efficiency. It is utterly despicable that they would even try to dissuade their customers from switching over. Based on my miserable experience with them, I suggest you check out ethiscore, pick a new energy company, and switch today. If you do go with Good Energy, it takes less than five minutes to shrink your carbon footprint.
Today however I received a letter from EDF inviting me to phone them and close my account. Predictably, this was utterly false, and the freephone number actually led to their Customer Retention Department. Having spent 30 minutes on the phone with their retention expert, I was in a complete rage. His arguments for staying with EDF ran through the whole gamut of logical fallacies. A select sample of the ploys used:
1. EDF's 100% renewal tariff is better than Good Energy's tariff because they pay into a fund for renewables projects, including putting solar panels on schools. The educational value of such projects outweigh the lack of transparent additionality.
2. Although Good Energy are not involved in coal, gas, or nuclear power generation, their environmental contribution is negligible because they have so few customers.
3. EDF's environmental credentials are clearly demonstrated by their commitment to decommissioning some of their existing nuclear power stations.
4. EDF will not apparently be building new nuclear power stations, because nuclear power stations have to be situated near the sea, and sea levels are rising.
5. There's no point worrying about additionality anyway, because the UK only has enough land for 20% of its energy needs to be met by renewables.
And finally, and most amusingly, when confronted with my own counter-arguments:
6. You can demonstrate anything with statistics really.
The very fact that EDF employs customer retention experts, points to their complete lack of commitment to efficiency. It is utterly despicable that they would even try to dissuade their customers from switching over. Based on my miserable experience with them, I suggest you check out ethiscore, pick a new energy company, and switch today. If you do go with Good Energy, it takes less than five minutes to shrink your carbon footprint.
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]