Category Archives: built environment

sustainability turns red … code red?

Leave a reply

I received alarming emails from Carbonequity and FoE today describing how a good many tipping points have been reached and that we are on the brink of a point of no return. On January 28th ClimateCodeRed will be published in Australia …

“Climate code red: the case for a sustainability emergency”. … will include responses from a wide range of climate activists and organisations as part of a conversation about how we can campaign for a very fast transition to a post-carbon, climate safe future.

(another nice carbon definer here – post-carbon )

Why is this relevant to a blog on built environment issues? Well…it can be argued that the failure global built environment sector (design, construction and buildings in use) to address and improve on energy performance, energy use, and energy loss is a highly significant contributor to the current situation. As building use energy inefficiently we put an increasing demand on energy production, largely a fossil fuel sourced energy that in itself adds to the problem.

A move from seeing sustainability as green to seeing it as red may start to focus our approach in a different way and just may force us to rethink – a colour paradigm switch !

Similar to Dave Hampton’s excellent think purple carbon – if carbon emissions were purple rather than invisible we would be living in a purple smog, with purple skies – and would have tackled sustainability a long time ago, in a much much more effective manner.

Add to Technorati Favorites


AddThis Social Bookmark Button

and if you are still reading … Continue reading →

best practice innovations and design schedule online

Leave a reply

The USGBC has published the LEEDS innovation and design credits schedule on line, giving all opportunity to view a listing of proven green building strategies that have been submitted and utilized by LEED Certified projects. (source) in design in construction technology and management and importantly in facilities management

Making a fascinating read with such innovations as:

Extend the useful life of an existing building and reduce construction waste by Moving an existing building from the site rather than demolish it in the course of this project

and

Conserve resources, and integrate the building and environment through Significantly reduce the use of raw materials and integrate site features with the natural environment. Avoid the fabrication, transportation and construction impacts by using locally recovered boulders; Use native raw materials to satisfy structural security requirements

and

Employee Reduction of Greenhouse Gas Emissions through Analyze the CO2 emissions generated by employee automobile commuting: compare the actual employee/staff mileage traveled to a remodeled building on the existing site vs. several proposed sites for new construction. Convert mileage to CO2 emissions and Use the results to determine the final project location.

As described by the Building Design and Construction online site:

The LEED Rating System is the USGBC’s voluntary building certification program that defines high-performance green buildings, which are more environmentally responsible, healthier, and more profitable structures. LEED addresses a variety of buildings and building project types through individualized systems, including: new construction, existing buildings, commercial interiors, core & shell, homes and neighborhood development.

I need to check if the BREEAM scheme, ECO Homes and or Code assessments do or will publish similar schedules. If nothing else they make great reading and will spark innovative ideas.

Add to Technorati Favorites


AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Free low carbon building event

Leave a reply

The North West Sustainability in Built Environment Education forum is holding a presentation and workshop on Low Carbon Buildings at UCLAN (University of Central Lancs – Preston) on Feb 1st.    Download details from the Events page.

The Sustainability in Built Environment Education forum is a mixture of industry and academics looking at improving the provision of sustainability in all levels of he built environment curriculum.

The forum is open to all interested in this important aspect with much activity taking place within a social network online and with four ‘events’ each year. Although there is a North West (England) focus the work and issues are much much wider. If you would like more information, attend this event or participate in the forum online please contact me or the forum secretary.

no more greenbuild heros?

Leave a reply

The Guardian ran a list of the top  50 heros to save the planet on Saturday.  For an industry or sector that contributes to nearly 50% of the carbon emissions and 75% of energy use – it is really sad to see we have no real heros.

Of note though:

Aubrey Meyer: musician and activist. a 60-year-old South African violinist living in a flat in Willesden, north London,  Aubrey developed the Contraction and Convergence approach that is seriously challenging developing countries.

Oh and the RIBA sustainability strategy endorses C&C and recently made an award to Aubrey.

Meyer still plays the violin every day, but seldom with an orchestra. “I just did not realise that it would take quite so long to change the world,” he says.

Other mentions are Peter Head a director of Arup “master planner of the world’s first true eco city”  This you will recall won the Greenwash of 20067 award for the project that isnt. (very confusing )

and, Ken Yeang as the world’s leading green skyscraper architect and Lenardo Decaprio – for amongst others stuff  – building – Eco-Town,  a “model of green living”.

But to include Lomberg reduces the lists credibility – of the Great Warming Swindle school of thought, Lomberg is seen as a distorter of science and doing more harm than good to environmental causes

But where oh where are the green leaders and activists in our sector.  If you can think of anyone  you can join the debate  at The Guardian 

New coal fired power station gets go ahead

1 Reply

The news that Medway Council have given the green light to a coal fired power station at Kingsnorth in Kent seems at complete odds with the current informed thinking on energy, on coal and on the current ‘mood’ or zeitgeist towards sustainability. It also appears as a developing country decision – not one taken by a nation attempting to be a leader in sustainability and carbon targets.  Building Guardian

The decision can be seen in many ways as a damning comment on the built industry in not moving fast enough to address the energy issue within buildings and facilities.

76 % of the energy from this new power plant will be consumed by buildings. By reducing building energy use of new and renovated buildings by a minimum of 50%, we negate the need for new coal plants. (source)

How can the government and local authorities push forward with zero carbon homes to Code 6, zero carbon schools, zero carbon non-domestic buildings, insist on reductions through Merton Rule approaches, and demand organisations reduce their carbon emissions … when in one action we turn the carbon emissions clock back 30 years ( This will be the first plant to be built in 30 years)

And many of these targets come in to place before the new plant comes on stream.

Perhaps the Kent council and others should read the work from the excellent and influential Architecture 2030, who, in the USA are directly and indirectly influencing cities and states to cancel or shelve coal fire plants in favour of a green build approach .

Emissions from the new plant will blow the UK’s targets and commitments for carbon reductions out of the water.  The notion of cleaned coal is an oxymoron, with environmentalists and scientists diasgreeing over the viability of any capture / claeaning / sequestration technology. It will take years and seems a high gamble to rely on a technology in the future.

In a time when we need positive actions and messages to prevent green fatigue – this will send a dangerous message – that it is ok to invest in traditional planet threatening energy sources whilst playing lip service to renewables and alternatives investment.

A very ominous start to 2008.

Cost of carbon

Leave a reply

A good note to end the year on and a new perspective on the cost of carbon to start 2008 with was reported in the Guardian last Friday. (also picked up by fellow blogger Phil at Some Seasonal Cheer ). Effectively ministers will now have to include a cost for carbon emission on all projects, starting at £25.50 a carbon tonne for 2007, rising every year to reach £59.60 a tonne by 2050. (This seems lower than other figures suggested!)

It will be interesting to see how this plays out through construction and fm – what would the additional cost of PFI’s, and BSF, building schools for the future projects etc now be. Would these costs be predicted over the life of a building. Can they be offset by carbon reducing measures built in?

And the Code – suddenly the cost of zero carbon homes may well be less than business as usual carbon construction.

Will the costs be applied to construction process emissions as well – and if so will this be tracked back up stream to the cement industry for example.

Not sure who actually will pay for these costs – the developers?, the supply side? the clients? More questions than answers at the moment, more detail is still to announced, but as this is a Treasury initiative it will surely be forced into being rapidly and with teeth. A whole new carbon based currency is being created.

Lets hope there is not a cop out by allowing offsets to offset these costs, and that the costs are real contributions to tackling sustainability

Whatever the detail,  we will start 2008 with a new, more meaningful perspective of sustainable construction, and more debates and discussion.

Brilliant.

Is code level 6 enough?

1 Reply

Am I missing something here.

I was encouraged by the inclusion of what I took to be a stretch target – level 6 in the Sustainability Code. Yes a stretch target for 2016, one that would drive innovation and improvement in construction, design, micro generation, energy suppliers and all the other necessary components. And one that would drive the real collaboration of all these sectors. To deliver by 2016.
And yet here, some 8 years away from that date, we are already letting contracts for level 6 (Hanham Hall) saying we can deliver (Barratts). Even failed newspaper baron Eddie Shah is reportedly building low cost homes that meet level 5.

So maybe we need something more stretching that will make us rethink our approach to sustainability.

We also have a fair amount of doomsaying – that it is not feasible, not practical, not necessary or will cost far to much.  Isn’t this to be proven or dis-proven by working towards level 6?

I see a similar reaction to the Code as we did to Egan’s Rethinking Construction – we didn’t need it, we couldn’t do it – it will cost too much and then suddenly with a great coat of whitewash everyone was Egan compliant. (Strangely linked to funding!) And now looking back nearly 10 years after Egan we see what a significant catalyst that was.

So, a thought for the holiday period – Standing in the future of 2016, in a carbon zero built environment, what message would you send back to todays industry leaders, influencer’s and politicians. (A nice seasonal Dr Who link). Would it be strive for level 6, do something beyond level 6 – or give up on it all together?

Sustainability Code for non domestic buildings

Leave a reply

Following the Code for housing which seems to be setting the sustaintainbility agenda the industry, the UKGBC UK Green Building Council today launched a report on behalf of the government that starts to set out an agenda for acheiving zero carbon non-domestic buildings by 2020
From the press release at UKGBC:

Key findings in the report are as follows:

1)   It IS possible to reduce carbon emissions from energy use down to zero in the majority of new non-domestic buildings, as long as on-site, near-site and off-site renewable solutions are employed

2)   There is a cost associated with building to zero carbon. Cost varies widely with both the form and the use of the building. However, preliminary modeling suggest that the premium could range from over 30% down to as low as 5 or 10% of current baseline costs.

3)   A challenging yet achievable time-frame for achieving zero carbon new non-domestic buildings along the lines set for housing is needed. With a trajectory in place similar to that adopted for the Code for Sustainable Homes, then a deadline of 2020 could be adopted.

Will this report, like the code for housing and BREEAM will now shape the direction for construction and the built environment for the next decade.  As fellow blogger Phil over at Zero-Champion points out in his review of this report – a move from rhetoric to reality.

My initial thoughts on the costs associated with moving to carbon zero is that the ‘preliminary modeling’ figures are similar to the figures used to describe the ‘waste’ in the industry, (ie total waste or muda. – time, costs, lack of integration, non value-adding,  unproductive activities, reworking, delays, as well as material waste).

Therefore a renewed drive on business improvement and collaborative working would pay for zero carbon buildings and facilities.  (this is to some degree supported in the Strategy for Sustainable Construction which includes the Strategic Forums target for an integrated industry to support a sustainable one)

I shall be returning to this  with further posts when I have digested the report

environmental podcasts

Leave a reply

Autodesk have (or are) sponsoring a very informative series of podcasts, the (e2 the Economies of being Environmentally Conscious), on environmental issues. there are 6 podcasts:

Chapter 1: Paving the Way
Chapter 2: Energy for a Developing World
Chapter 3: Harvesting the Wind
Chapter 4: Growing Energy
Chapter 5: State of Resolve
Chapter 6: Coal & Nuclear: Problem or Solution?

Interesting to note that the series is also being broadcast across the US on the PBS (Public Broadcasting Service). I am now wondering Continue reading →

poor building performance fuels coal demand – Ffos-y-fran

Leave a reply

Coal is back in the news today … from the Guardian:

Around 30 climate activists and local residents this morning took mass direct action to prevent excavation work on Britain’s biggest ever open-cast coal mine at Ffos-y-fran in South Wales, (… timed to coincide with the Bali conference)

Climate protester, Tim Helweg-Larsen, said: “Coal is the filthiest fuel known to man and projects like this mine could destroy all our chances of tackling global warming. The battle over this hilltop in Wales is a fight for the stability of the global climate and it epitomises this government’s hypocrisy on climate change.”

When burned, this amount of coal will emit more than 30m tonnes of carbon dioxide.

More than 10,000 local people petitioned against the pit, the edge of which will be just 36 metres from people’s homes.

Merthyr resident, Leon Stanfield, said: “We’ve protested this mine in all the conventional ways. Now we’re turning to direct action as a last resort. This project is wrecking both the local and the global environment and is putting the health of our community and its children at risk.”

Miller Argent says it appreciates the concerns expressed by some (sic) local residents. Once works are commenced it said it would be able to ensure that the concerns of the local community are met.

(MillerArgents newsletter to keep people up to date with progress seems to have stalled at Issue 01 back in the Summer – which greenwash sin is this I wonder?)

But on a wider issue: Continue reading →