I recently participated in an online petition to 10 Downing St on the governments response to C and C. The response here is well worth a read, covering C and C and personal; carbon trading, the climate bill and other carbon iniatives.
Cant help thinking there is some political greenwashing here.
Incidentally the petition was organised through Facebook and blogs – demonstrating the emerging recognition and influence these new social networks have.
I have had three occasions this week, in different workshops or events to explain or discuss the 1:5:200 concept. I am surprised that 1:5:200 hasn’t made it on to the pages of this blog, as I do use this concept a lot to explain why facilities management should be approached from an understanding of the business or organisation drivers, and construction approached from a facilities management (facilities in use) direction.
In our traditional approach to construction we are looking the wrong way through the telescope.
1:5:200 may now have a greater role to play now as we consider sustainability, ie the need to focus on the 200, the business costs of ‘going green’ or becoming sustainable – rather than on the ‘1’ where we are focusing on the costs of greening buildings.
In addition to the original paper on 1:5:200, the wikipedia entry for 1:5:200 provides an overview. For a more detailed and considered view take a look at Be Valuable. (available as pdf from constructing excellence). It should be noted that as a cost ratio 1:5:200 also attracts academic critisim
Fairsnape 