Government Procurement
Labour has announced that they intend to actually do something about making Government procurement more environmentally friendly in the May budget. If they are serious it could make a real difference. I released a report on this back in December that showed that departments were not matching the nice words of the Government with actual dollars. Half of them either did not know whether they were buying Environmental Choice products or had bought none. Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet were amongst these. Ministry for the Environment did pretty well. Environmental Choice is the eco-label established by the government itself.
This matters because, while the fuel efficiency of the Crown limos might be of more symbolic value than anything else, government procurement could make a real difference. If government departments started to buy eco friendly products it would really help those businesses trying to do the right thing and it would create a serious market segment for more environmentally friendly products.
So we’ll see what’s in the Budget and then we’ll see what procurement decisions departments actually make.
Below is the notice that appeared in Select Committee News:
New Government Procurement Rules
Businesses that provide sustainable goods and services are set for a major boost following the announcement of new government procurement policies. It plans to use its purchasing power to grow the market for environmentally friendly products including paper, cleaners, plastics and fuel efficient vehicles. In addition, public service departments will be required to create more sustainable workplaces, including greater use or renewable energy and recycling. The Government also intends to increase the number of products that carry the Environmental Choice NZ ecolabel to assist departments in implementing the new policy and encourage more suppliers to adopt sustainable practices. The policies will be designed to enhance the existing Govt3 Programme, promote government leadership in sustainable business practice and address the main barriers previously identified, including the need for leadership, information and resources. Elements of the new initiative will include clear and measurable minimum sustainability standards for core agencies when spending public money and eventual expansion of the Govt3 Programme to the wider state sector. Full details of the government’s new procurement policies will be in Budget 2007 on May 17.
February 20th, 2007 at 6:12 pm
‘Sustainability’ used like this is a meaningless buzzword. Unfortunately most things we do at work in the first world involve electricity, petrol and plastic products, which are inherently unsustainable (coal and oil being finite, albeit large, resources.) Recycling is not often financially viable- AFAIK no glass, plastic or e-waste is now recycled anywhere in NZ.
Therefore the word sustainability should be dropped IMHO- focus on the things we can change like energy efficiency. How many government offices still use CRT computer screens? These use 4 times the power of LCDs, once you count the air conditioning requirements. How many departmental car purchases take into account the energy lifecycle of a car- a hybrid might have a much shorter and more energy intensive life due to the battery technology, a small hatchback might be better.
The requirement to use more renewable energy is not realistic locally- it costs a lot to put solar panels on rooftops (if the building owner will let you), and given that it’s taxpayers money that had better be justifiable! A much better option is to require this from power companies, which could really spur more non-fossil power- I think Meridian offers this option? It’s certainly available in the UK.
Another idea: most household waste could be incinerated in a large facility to generate electricity, just like landfill gas but without requiring a pristine rural valley to destroy first. There have been huge strides in incineration technology, they are about to build a second massive one in London which will have ultra low emissions- perhaps this could be considered here?.
February 20th, 2007 at 7:07 pm
uk you’re simply regurgitating what you’ve read in msm. in this context sustainability is far from being just a buzz work. read it agian - it “will include clear and measurable minimum sustainability standards”. both national and the greens are paying attention to “buzz wording” (as you’ve read) so a clear statement like that above can be pinned down.
if you’d like select committee reporting to ditch “sustainability” and use “waste and energy and water and efficiency and community and business and diversity and culture and air quality and taxation and…” i suggest you complain to those who have a penchant for newspeak.
incinerators? you’re serious? they’d have to be the stupidest investment for anyone who thinks the concept of cleaner production has any merit…
crikey, your rant is soliciting a rant from me so i’ll pipe down.
Mike
February 20th, 2007 at 7:43 pm
>
So the word “sustainable” is now an accepted substitute for “environmentally friendly”. I see.
It doesn’t actually mean sustainable in any way, shape or form, but has a nice warm fuzzy factor that the tainted “environmentalism” term now lacks. I should have picked up on this earlier- How is it that you can be “more sustainable or less sustainable?”
You are either sustainable or you aren’t. My apologies for not realising the new nuances in the game!
As for incineration, it is a more rational response to our throw-away society than the usual “bury it somewhere else” landfills. Why not liberate the gigajoules of currently wasted energy contained within the thousands of pizza boxes, plastic bags and banana skins? If it can be done cleanly in a way that minimizes waste then what objection could a green have?
February 20th, 2007 at 8:14 pm
uk, this is a blog. people raise concerns and offer opinion. they often react to formal statement. as you and i have.
the select committee report uses the term “sustainable”. russel’s use of “environmentally friendly” refers to one of his concerns - which just happens to be an aspect of “sustainability”. you may have heard that the greens (and all the other parties) also have social and economic policies.
i’m sure that a whole system approach to “sustainability” is not new to you. it’s a broad term. aided in this posts procurement context by reference to “measurable minimum sustainability standards”.
i cant find the link to a report last year (from your adopted homeland i think) that incinerater operators objected to local body recycling targets. intuition says that a system based on incineration will indeed remove key incentives for consumers (and govt’s) to purchase and dispose of products responsibly.
end of pipe solutions do very little to fix the problem. it’s acceptance that the “system” is ok. you’re just as good arguing that nz has so much underutilised land that continued landfilling wont be a problem.
cleaner production my friend, cleaner production. and it just happens to make business sense (and more so when carbnon is priced).
Mike
February 20th, 2007 at 8:25 pm
Unfortunately most things we do at work in the first world involve electricity, petrol and plastic products, which are inherently unsustainable (coal and oil being finite, albeit large, resources.)
Coal and oil aren’t the only sources of either plastics (which can come from a variety of hydrocarbon sources) or electricity. And reducing petrol consumption is a good step on the way to its eventual removal from transport.
How many government offices still use CRT computer screens?
I’ve seen very few CRTs at government sites in the last few years, but IT is still a very good candidate for power savings with energy-efficient servers and desktops and the knock-on savings on air conditioning. It also wouldn’t hurt to stretch out the lifecycle of hardware (thin client technology can help here).
February 20th, 2007 at 9:08 pm
uk_kiwi >>>> “AFAIK no glass, plastic or e-waste is now recycled anywhere in NZ.”
well, every week I put glass, metal and plastic in a blue box at my kerbside and the council take it away. Are you claiming that the council then secretly just put all the things that people think they are recycling into landfill? Are you a conspiracy theorist or something, or just spectacularly uninformed?
Yes, you’re right that e-waste is rarely recycled, but not never, occasionally there are special e-waste drop off events.
Yes I agree that “sustainable” has become a buzzword that is used for any remotely greener practice whether that practice is sustainable or not. I mean strictly speaking cars are not sustainable, but lets welcome small steps, eh, I can’t see the government phasing in ministerial horses and carts anytime soon.
February 20th, 2007 at 10:17 pm
You are either sustainable or you aren’t. My apologies for not realising the new nuances in the game!
What colour is the sky where you live, Kiwi? Is it black or is it white? No wishy-washy responses please!
(hint : you’re in the UK… so 95% of the time it’s…)
February 21st, 2007 at 9:04 am
“well, every week I put glass, metal and plastic in a blue box at my kerbside and the council take it away. Are you claiming that the council then secretly just put all the things that people think they are recycling into landfill? ”
Yup, if the prices are uneconomic that’s exactly where it goes.
From the Recycling Operators of NZ ( http://www.ronz.org.nz )
45% of glass is recycled, but “There is currently a limited capacity for recycling glass in New Zealand, and a substantial increase in recovery rates would require new markets to be found. Due to the low value of cullet, exporting is likely not to be a viable option”
“Transport costs, particularly from South Island locations, can make it uneconomic, in some instances, to ship cullet to Auckland for recycling.”
Translation: most glass is landfilled or in stored ‘glass mountains’ as it is uneconomic to do anything with it.
The same is true for most plastics, there is simply no market for them, and they quietly get dumped in landfill or ‘recycled’ offshore where they are burnt in open air.
Aluminium and steel are generally recycled as the end product is worth something. Paper I don’t know, but I assume it’s likely that low-filler paper like newsprint can easily be recycled.
Consumer recycling is a ‘feel-good’ measure; the emphasis should be on reducing consumption in the first place- lightweight refill packs, more steel and aluminium containers, and better plastic technology would be a good start.
February 21st, 2007 at 9:04 am
I have to agree with uk_kiwi here - an activity is either sustainable or it’s not.
Sustainability is defined as the ability to keep doing an activity indefinitely - anything that is a half-measure towards this (however well intentioned) just doesn’t fit this definition.
Call me a pedant, but I think the term is already being overused, and will soon lose all meaning in the public discussion. Sustainable activities should be the goal for everything we do, but only truly sustainable activities deserve the title IMHO.
February 22nd, 2007 at 9:27 am
hmm, uk_kiwi, there is a bit of a difference between:
no recycling is done anywhere in NZ
and
only 45% of glass is recycled in NZ because it is uneconomic to ship glass from the South Island to Auckland
maybe you should think a bit before you make such strong, definitive and patently untrue statments eh?
But I completely agree that recyling is a feel-good activity and reduce and reuse come first.
February 22nd, 2007 at 10:12 am
stuey,
Talking about glass containers:
Although I’m very seriously into “reduce”, my house is groaning under a whole army of washed, sorted and stacked “could be reused” with nowhere (yet) for them to go!
This situation is very different from the various standard and sturdy “reuseables” of my youth, and from the system that made them so.
We as a country will need to rethink this whole issue at some time … sooner rather than later would be good!
February 22nd, 2007 at 11:00 am
Hello folks
A little off topic, but since you mention it I’ve posted quite extensively about the glass recycling issue:
This one advocates using the good’ol kiwi crate and discusses some economics behind glass recycling in NZ.
This one talks about bottle deposits.
And This recent one talks about specific recycling initiatives.
In late Jan the Kapiti Council announced that they were to use glass in roading basecourse. So there is some hope. It comes down to thinking about how we use and consume (to nick the byline of a National Radio show). That’s why I think the “crate” link above in particular (although its a year old) is important.
Mike
March 26th, 2007 at 9:53 pm
hey uk_kiwi, recycling is alive and well in NZ:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10430869