Tuesday, December 18, 2007
Tuesday, September 04, 2007
Hiring In Pollution
Guest blogger Dave Savage gives his opinion on Carbon offsetting
The much-publicised 'Stern Review', released on 30 October 2006, warned of irreversible climate change, due to carbon emmissions leading to global warming. If you hire projectors, PA systems or Plasma Screens on an adhoc basis you are probably hiring from a company, who delivers and collects from you. Every time you hire in this way, the carbon footprint gets bigger.
There are a number of carbon off-setting schemes around but do they really work?
"A lot of companies across all industry types have jumped on the 'environmentally friendly band wagon', usually with nothing more than some shallow carbon off-setting scheme to give them a tinge of green"
Believe it or not most of these carbon off-setting schemes you see advertised do not actually compensate for the emission of Greenhouse gases. For example:
Tree planting
The much-publicised 'Stern Review', released on 30 October 2006, warned of irreversible climate change, due to carbon emmissions leading to global warming. If you hire projectors, PA systems or Plasma Screens on an adhoc basis you are probably hiring from a company, who delivers and collects from you. Every time you hire in this way, the carbon footprint gets bigger.
There are a number of carbon off-setting schemes around but do they really work?
"A lot of companies across all industry types have jumped on the 'environmentally friendly band wagon', usually with nothing more than some shallow carbon off-setting scheme to give them a tinge of green"
Believe it or not most of these carbon off-setting schemes you see advertised do not actually compensate for the emission of Greenhouse gases. For example:
Tree planting
Did you know a typical tree can only absorb 1 tonne of CO2 over 100 years?
Fact - most new tree plantations cause more CO2 to be released than they absorb through the soil. Old trees/ancient trees/forests are much more adept at absorbing CO2 yet we are chopping down great swathes of rainforests. Tree planting in Europe is of little benefit in the first 10 years and river beds can dry up as a consequence. Tree planting in cold climates, e.g. Scandinavia and Russia is worse for the environment because sunlight is absorbed, heating up the atmosphere instead of being reflected back into space by snow and ice. In fact there is only a narrow band in the tropics where the planting of trees would have a beneficial effect. According to Our Ecological Footprint, (Wackemagel & Rees, 1996), a whole forest only absorbs approximately 3 tons of CO2 per acre of trees per year.
One projector hired 4 x per month creates 1 tonne of CO2 mainly through logistics (97%). A third of an acre of trees to compensate for one customer hiring a projector!
Wind Turbines
A single 500-kilowatt (kW) wind turbine, typical of those now being installed in power plants around the world, produces roughly 1 million kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity annually. Equates to a carbon offset of approx 688 tonnes per annum or 0.078 tonnes per hour.
Fact - A lorry travelling at 50 mph produce approx..0.08 tonnes of CO2 per hour. That’s a lot of wind turbines required!
Hydro Power Stations
Fact - most new tree plantations cause more CO2 to be released than they absorb through the soil. Old trees/ancient trees/forests are much more adept at absorbing CO2 yet we are chopping down great swathes of rainforests. Tree planting in Europe is of little benefit in the first 10 years and river beds can dry up as a consequence. Tree planting in cold climates, e.g. Scandinavia and Russia is worse for the environment because sunlight is absorbed, heating up the atmosphere instead of being reflected back into space by snow and ice. In fact there is only a narrow band in the tropics where the planting of trees would have a beneficial effect. According to Our Ecological Footprint, (Wackemagel & Rees, 1996), a whole forest only absorbs approximately 3 tons of CO2 per acre of trees per year.
One projector hired 4 x per month creates 1 tonne of CO2 mainly through logistics (97%). A third of an acre of trees to compensate for one customer hiring a projector!
Wind Turbines
A single 500-kilowatt (kW) wind turbine, typical of those now being installed in power plants around the world, produces roughly 1 million kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity annually. Equates to a carbon offset of approx 688 tonnes per annum or 0.078 tonnes per hour.
Fact - A lorry travelling at 50 mph produce approx..0.08 tonnes of CO2 per hour. That’s a lot of wind turbines required!
Hydro Power Stations
Upto 75 percent of organic matter is blocked from flowing downstream and this builds up at the bottom of the enormous artificial lake in front of the dam. The net result of this is the release of vast amounts of harmful methane and nitrous oxide, Methane is 20 times more harmful and nitrous oxide 200 times more harmful than CO2. There is also this issue the CO2 impact in the construction of the dam and that of destroying vast natural habitats and flooding valleys, Land, trees etc.
My point...Sorry to have gone on a bit but you can now see my point that most carbon credit/offsetting schemes are merely a smoke screen to satisfy the conscious of people and businesses to reassure them that they are 'doing their bit for the planet' and compensating for the pollution that they are producing. It's like drinking Coke to quench your thirst, when the only thing that can rehydrate you is water. In other words, a reduction in pollutants producing CO2 and other harmful Greenhouse gases is the only answer, not publicity seeking carbon off-setting schemes.
We have a solution that actually takes vehicles off the road and if the whole AV industry and related customer market place adopted this, we could save over 5,000 tonnes of CO2 emissions per annum. Timer-chip technology in rented AV equipment (projectors, PA systems and plasma screens) means items can stay on site, which cuts out around 50,000 miles of vehicle deliveries and collections per month. This solution also saves the venue money, as it is only charged for the actual usage time of the equipment which, in turn, makes it convenient for on-site staff and encourages them to switch off equipment between sessions prior to the equipment’s five minute automatic time-out.
We estimate that we have reduced our own overall CO2 emissions by 77% from 215 to 49 tonnes per annum through our unique ‘pay-as-you-go’ projectors.
This small change in the way you hire audio visual equipment will help reduce your carbon impact. I am sure there are other solutions and initiatives that could be shared with the industry in order to help us all reduce emissions throughout our industry, so lets hear them.
My point...Sorry to have gone on a bit but you can now see my point that most carbon credit/offsetting schemes are merely a smoke screen to satisfy the conscious of people and businesses to reassure them that they are 'doing their bit for the planet' and compensating for the pollution that they are producing. It's like drinking Coke to quench your thirst, when the only thing that can rehydrate you is water. In other words, a reduction in pollutants producing CO2 and other harmful Greenhouse gases is the only answer, not publicity seeking carbon off-setting schemes.
We have a solution that actually takes vehicles off the road and if the whole AV industry and related customer market place adopted this, we could save over 5,000 tonnes of CO2 emissions per annum. Timer-chip technology in rented AV equipment (projectors, PA systems and plasma screens) means items can stay on site, which cuts out around 50,000 miles of vehicle deliveries and collections per month. This solution also saves the venue money, as it is only charged for the actual usage time of the equipment which, in turn, makes it convenient for on-site staff and encourages them to switch off equipment between sessions prior to the equipment’s five minute automatic time-out.
We estimate that we have reduced our own overall CO2 emissions by 77% from 215 to 49 tonnes per annum through our unique ‘pay-as-you-go’ projectors.
This small change in the way you hire audio visual equipment will help reduce your carbon impact. I am sure there are other solutions and initiatives that could be shared with the industry in order to help us all reduce emissions throughout our industry, so lets hear them.
Dave Savage
Managing Director
HotAV Ltd
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
The Summer, and Discontent
So that was summer, a brief flash of sunshine, a few evenings just about warm enough for the family to barbeque and a flush of flying ants breaking out from the patio to cause havoc at the aforementioned family barbeque.
No I am not going to whinge about our lack of summer, we are all totally aware that global warming or not we do, on occasions, get pretty poor summers and this has been one of them so let’s all just look forward to Autumn!
What I am however going to whinge about is the state of this industry; the state that the relationship between agents and venues still appears to be in after all of the efforts made by so many committed individuals and trade associations to smooth the ground between them. I am astonished to see that the total mistrust between the two parties still exists and that accusations are made so generally and so blatantly, a situation which can only damage this excellent industry.
This morning I read yet another rant bemoaning venues; in this instance it was suggested that ‘many venues are increasing their prices at whim’. And just the other month we learnt that venues felt that agents are holding options on too many venues thereby forcing up prices as many venues respond to ‘supply and demand’ and then prices crash as options are released late in the day.
So what is the answer to this damaging industry conundrum?
Perhaps we simply need to accept that there are the good guys and then there are the bad guys and they are not always easy to identify, in other words there are good venues and there are bad venues just as there are good agents and bad agents.
Surely the way to avoid these difficult and often time consuming relationships is to follow a simple but very effective code of practice such as The Meetings CODE and always make sure you are doing business with the good guys.
The Meetings CODE includes a ‘model’ of an agreement between venue and agency something that we at the MIA believe should always be in place in order to avoid misunderstanding and mistrust. And we know that the use of this type of agreement encourages excellent relations between the two parties because we see it every day amongst the membership of the MIA.
We are actively encouraging corporate and association buyers to seek out agents and venues who have gained AIM the MIA’s accreditation scheme which includes adherence to the Meetings CODE so perhaps both venues and agents should be doing the same and demanding AIM from the venues they use or the agents they choose to do business with.
What do you think?
Jane Evans
Chief Executive, MIA
No I am not going to whinge about our lack of summer, we are all totally aware that global warming or not we do, on occasions, get pretty poor summers and this has been one of them so let’s all just look forward to Autumn!
What I am however going to whinge about is the state of this industry; the state that the relationship between agents and venues still appears to be in after all of the efforts made by so many committed individuals and trade associations to smooth the ground between them. I am astonished to see that the total mistrust between the two parties still exists and that accusations are made so generally and so blatantly, a situation which can only damage this excellent industry.
This morning I read yet another rant bemoaning venues; in this instance it was suggested that ‘many venues are increasing their prices at whim’. And just the other month we learnt that venues felt that agents are holding options on too many venues thereby forcing up prices as many venues respond to ‘supply and demand’ and then prices crash as options are released late in the day.
So what is the answer to this damaging industry conundrum?
Perhaps we simply need to accept that there are the good guys and then there are the bad guys and they are not always easy to identify, in other words there are good venues and there are bad venues just as there are good agents and bad agents.
Surely the way to avoid these difficult and often time consuming relationships is to follow a simple but very effective code of practice such as The Meetings CODE and always make sure you are doing business with the good guys.
The Meetings CODE includes a ‘model’ of an agreement between venue and agency something that we at the MIA believe should always be in place in order to avoid misunderstanding and mistrust. And we know that the use of this type of agreement encourages excellent relations between the two parties because we see it every day amongst the membership of the MIA.
We are actively encouraging corporate and association buyers to seek out agents and venues who have gained AIM the MIA’s accreditation scheme which includes adherence to the Meetings CODE so perhaps both venues and agents should be doing the same and demanding AIM from the venues they use or the agents they choose to do business with.
What do you think?
Jane Evans
Chief Executive, MIA
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
A Meldrew Moment
I’m on a diet, which is going well, I can see a difference around my middle and when I now ask ‘does my bum look big in this’ I know it doesn’t. But why am I sharing this with you? Generally I would spare you these details, but the diet has caused me a couple of problems that highlight issues within our industry and I wish to share them with you.
As you can probably guess, I spend a huge amount of my time travelling throughout the UK speaking at events and visiting members. I have to stay in many of our cities, sometimes in MIA member hotels and occasionally in non-member hotels.
At a non-member hotel recently, which will remain nameless and placeless, I popped down for an early breakfast where the waiter stopped me at the door and asked whether I would be eating a full breakfast at £29.00 or continental breakfast at £13.50. I was informed that the full breakfast would be served in this room (indicating a small breakfast room) and the continental would be served in this room (indicating yet another, but considerably larger, breakfast room). It seemed a little strange to me to be requiring guests to make breakfast choices even before they have reached a table and then segregating them accordingly, but I was prepared to go along with it because it was simply far too early to get into a debate.
So back to the diet, which means I have very specific breakfast requirements. I asked where I would be able to get Weetabix and fruit and was shown to the continental breakfast dining room. So far so good!
I approached the self-service breakfast buffet found the Weetabix and looked for the fruit, no fruit bowl in sight just a few pieces of dried fruit which according to my diet plan is loaded with sugars; not for me then!
I stopped a passing waiter and enquired as to the whereabouts of the fresh fruit; “on the full breakfast buffet in the other dining room” I was informed, and not available to continental breakfast diners. I queried this but was told that if I required fresh fruit the breakfast bill would be £29.00.
So, my choices on that morning; pay £13.50 for 2 Weetabix or pay £29.00 for a few berries to go on top of them. To the hotel’s credit, when I made my feelings known as I checked out, my breakfast was refunded in full.
However, I was left wondering; does the GM of that particular hotel, a 4 star hotel that prides itself on service, know what’s going on in his breakfast rooms? And, where will I stay next time I find myself in that particular city?
I know that examples of bad service like this are not common amongst UK hotels, but it doesn’t take very many operating in this way to reinforce the title of ‘rip off Britain’! Hotel’s like this one are handing our heads on a plate to those who continuously look for the next reason to rubbish tourism in Britain. Let’s not make it easy for them, I haven’t revealed the identity of this venue, but should we in future have a name and shame policy for bad service?
What’s your view?
Jane Evans
Chief Executive, MIA
As you can probably guess, I spend a huge amount of my time travelling throughout the UK speaking at events and visiting members. I have to stay in many of our cities, sometimes in MIA member hotels and occasionally in non-member hotels.
At a non-member hotel recently, which will remain nameless and placeless, I popped down for an early breakfast where the waiter stopped me at the door and asked whether I would be eating a full breakfast at £29.00 or continental breakfast at £13.50. I was informed that the full breakfast would be served in this room (indicating a small breakfast room) and the continental would be served in this room (indicating yet another, but considerably larger, breakfast room). It seemed a little strange to me to be requiring guests to make breakfast choices even before they have reached a table and then segregating them accordingly, but I was prepared to go along with it because it was simply far too early to get into a debate.
So back to the diet, which means I have very specific breakfast requirements. I asked where I would be able to get Weetabix and fruit and was shown to the continental breakfast dining room. So far so good!
I approached the self-service breakfast buffet found the Weetabix and looked for the fruit, no fruit bowl in sight just a few pieces of dried fruit which according to my diet plan is loaded with sugars; not for me then!
I stopped a passing waiter and enquired as to the whereabouts of the fresh fruit; “on the full breakfast buffet in the other dining room” I was informed, and not available to continental breakfast diners. I queried this but was told that if I required fresh fruit the breakfast bill would be £29.00.
So, my choices on that morning; pay £13.50 for 2 Weetabix or pay £29.00 for a few berries to go on top of them. To the hotel’s credit, when I made my feelings known as I checked out, my breakfast was refunded in full.
However, I was left wondering; does the GM of that particular hotel, a 4 star hotel that prides itself on service, know what’s going on in his breakfast rooms? And, where will I stay next time I find myself in that particular city?
I know that examples of bad service like this are not common amongst UK hotels, but it doesn’t take very many operating in this way to reinforce the title of ‘rip off Britain’! Hotel’s like this one are handing our heads on a plate to those who continuously look for the next reason to rubbish tourism in Britain. Let’s not make it easy for them, I haven’t revealed the identity of this venue, but should we in future have a name and shame policy for bad service?
What’s your view?
Jane Evans
Chief Executive, MIA
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
Fair Cancellation Terms
This month we hear from 'Guest Blogger' Nick Milne, Robinsons College CambridgeThey say that what goes round, comes round. On that basis, it’s hardly surprising that terms and conditions and principally cancellation charges that are their cornerstone, seem to be up for discussion again. In spite of all the good things that have happened in our maturing business, the latest target for some who want to gain marketing advantage, is “negotiated” preferential cancellation terms. I use the word negotiated advisedly because actually there’s an element of strong-arm tactics going on which leaves venues with a take it or leave it choice.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m all in favour of negotiation to get a mutually satisfactory deal for the client and the venue. However, we really do need to move beyond the notion that venues can run sustainable, profitable businesses on the basis of a wing and a prayer. The idea that there are no significant costs to be covered or that a cancelled booking can be replaced easily, are the stuff of fantasy land. So here are some ideas around negotiation that is reasonable.
First, lets have cancellation terms that come into effect as soon as the contract is signed – as the MIA model t&c lays-out. I do recognise the rationale behind sliding scales but really their effect is that the venue has to make a commitment immediately, whilst the client has a long “cooling-off” period. Not exactly equitable.
Second, of course it is understood that clients cannot be sure of their numbers too far out from the event. There are lots of factors which determine this and it is understandable that the client is reluctant to make a full commitment too early. So what about agreeing a number that the client is comfortable with which is maybe a reasonable proportion of the final anticipated numbers, say 75%. Maybe this is based upon last year’s numbers or the minimum the venue can accept in the meeting room or any other yardstick that the parties can agree upon. Then hold the rest of the volume on a provisional basis with mutually agreed chase dates. Both parties have made a commitment they are comfortable with and neither is unfairly treated.
Third, to give everyone a clear idea of the commitment they are making, how about venues calculating maximum cancellation charges applicable and stating the figure up-front in the contract. That would concentrate everyone’s mind.
There’s no doubt that it is good business sense to negotiate on any aspect of the deal and cancellation charges shouldn’t be excluded from that. But negotiation should be about win:win and right now the trend of squeezing venues on this matter is definitely about heads I win, tails you loose.
I wonder what anyone else thinks?
Nick Milne
Robinson College Cambridge
To respond to Nick simply click on 'comments' below.
Thursday, March 22, 2007
Let's Unify To Win
So, it’s a resounding victory for the meetings and hospitality industry as the Government announces that they do not intend to introduce a bed tax.
Just hours after the Lyons Inquiry recommended ‘a consultation on the proposal’ local Government Minister Phil Woolas made his welcome announcement ‘The Government does not intend to introduce a tourism tax’.
Quite apart from being great news this has been an excellent demonstration of what those of us within the meetings and hospitality industry can achieve by working together. We’ve all made our voices heard, the MIA have lobbied with the Business Tourism Partnership, four thousand hoteliers signed the Caterer’s bed tax petition and you just have to search the internet to find organisations from Butlins to the Bed & Breakfast Association ‘saying no to bed tax’. It’s a demonstration of unity that has attracted support from outside the industry and this quite obviously has had a great deal of bearing on the Government’s decision.
What’s next, how about stopping the Government’s UK road charging plan in its tracks? Without doubt this could affect the meetings industry as organisations choose to save money on less effective meetings in their own offices, rather than taking to the road. Or perhaps you have a better idea, what other benefits can we achieve by uniting as an industry?
Over to you…………….. click on comments link below
Jane Evans
Chief Executive
Just hours after the Lyons Inquiry recommended ‘a consultation on the proposal’ local Government Minister Phil Woolas made his welcome announcement ‘The Government does not intend to introduce a tourism tax’.
Quite apart from being great news this has been an excellent demonstration of what those of us within the meetings and hospitality industry can achieve by working together. We’ve all made our voices heard, the MIA have lobbied with the Business Tourism Partnership, four thousand hoteliers signed the Caterer’s bed tax petition and you just have to search the internet to find organisations from Butlins to the Bed & Breakfast Association ‘saying no to bed tax’. It’s a demonstration of unity that has attracted support from outside the industry and this quite obviously has had a great deal of bearing on the Government’s decision.
What’s next, how about stopping the Government’s UK road charging plan in its tracks? Without doubt this could affect the meetings industry as organisations choose to save money on less effective meetings in their own offices, rather than taking to the road. Or perhaps you have a better idea, what other benefits can we achieve by uniting as an industry?
Over to you…………….. click on comments link below
Jane Evans
Chief Executive
Wednesday, January 10, 2007
Does More Sunlight Equal More Meetings?
Former Minister of State for the Environment and current chairman of the Environmental Audit Committee, Tim Yeo, has had a bright idea. He wants to move clocks forward by one hour throughout the year, and has introduced a Parliamentary Bill to achieve this.
If his Bill is successful, summer time would be British Summer Time + 1 hour and winter would be Greenwich Mean Time + 1 hour. UK time would be in line with Central European Time.
A Policy Studies Institute estimates that SDST would increase tourist related earnings by £1billion, while other estimates claim it could be as high as £3bn. Clearly it could be great for the meetings industry, increasing the tourism season well into October; lighter evenings encouraging more companies to bring there employees to this country.
They also estimate savings on electricity consumption, with there being less of a surge in energy demand from people turning on the lights early in the afternoon and making more of the light in the summer.
Yeo claims, "Recent research from Cambridge University suggests it would also save energy by reducing demand for electricity and thereby address the threat of climate change by cutting carbon emissions.”
But of course in the deepest days of winter you’ll be traveling to work in the dark. We wouldn’t see daylight until around 9.00am, later in the more northern parts of the UK.
However, the Bill will allow separate votes in the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly to decide if the change should apply in those parts of the United Kingdom. So, they may of course choose not to adopt the new times and we’d have different time zones across the UK.
The vote takes place on 26th January, some opinions are gloomy calling it ludicrous, others think it’s brilliant. What do you think? Do you want the initiative to shine brightly or should it be left in the dark. Is it a good or a bad thing for the meetings industry?
Jane Evans
Chief Executive, MIA
If his Bill is successful, summer time would be British Summer Time + 1 hour and winter would be Greenwich Mean Time + 1 hour. UK time would be in line with Central European Time.
A Policy Studies Institute estimates that SDST would increase tourist related earnings by £1billion, while other estimates claim it could be as high as £3bn. Clearly it could be great for the meetings industry, increasing the tourism season well into October; lighter evenings encouraging more companies to bring there employees to this country.
They also estimate savings on electricity consumption, with there being less of a surge in energy demand from people turning on the lights early in the afternoon and making more of the light in the summer.
Yeo claims, "Recent research from Cambridge University suggests it would also save energy by reducing demand for electricity and thereby address the threat of climate change by cutting carbon emissions.”
But of course in the deepest days of winter you’ll be traveling to work in the dark. We wouldn’t see daylight until around 9.00am, later in the more northern parts of the UK.
However, the Bill will allow separate votes in the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly to decide if the change should apply in those parts of the United Kingdom. So, they may of course choose not to adopt the new times and we’d have different time zones across the UK.
The vote takes place on 26th January, some opinions are gloomy calling it ludicrous, others think it’s brilliant. What do you think? Do you want the initiative to shine brightly or should it be left in the dark. Is it a good or a bad thing for the meetings industry?
Jane Evans
Chief Executive, MIA
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)