Category Archives: carbon

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?

Carbon off setting not permissable on zero carbon projects

1 Reply

Been looking at site that mention Hanham Hall – the first Zero Carbon Challenge project recently let to Barratts.  The local BBC Bristol  site contains these wonderful comments from English Partnerships:

Unlike carbon neutral developments, there can be no conscience-clearing carbon off-setting on a zero-carbon project. 

No carbon footprint must be left at the site whatsoever and other developers will watch the Hanham Hall winner hawkishly as from 2016 all new homes must be zero-carbon.

The South West Director of the agency, David Warbuton, said a new eco-friendly chapter was beginning in the history of housebuilding: 

“I think humankind has always evolved according to local and environmental conditions and, as slate replaced thatch 400 years ago, that’s all we’re talking about here.  We’re at the next stage of building and community evolution.

Now it starts to sound more like a challenge.  Making the construction process itself zero carbon would be challenge enough considering the high carbon emissions of transportation and cement products.  We will learn allot from this project

Zero carbon schools

3 Replies

Ed Balls,  Education Secretary wants all new school buildings to be zero-carbon by 2016, at a cost of about £110m over the next three years.  (Guardian)

How this sits with Building Schools for the Future (which arguable should include carbon zero approaches, which after all will be the schools of the future) and what happens after three years, remains to be seen.

Good to see another target being set.  Lets hope that the Strategy for Sustainable Construction will bring clarity and some sense of joined up thinking to all initaitives, codes, targets etc.

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

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 →

offsetting problems

Leave a reply

Financial problems in the mysterious (and distracting) world of carbon offsetting reported in todays Guardian

The fledgling carbon-offset market was undermined yesterday when AgCert International, a producer and seller of certified emission reductions (CERs), said a key deal had collapsed leaving it with an overhang of uncovered liabilities … more

on BREEAM

2 Replies

Mel over at Elemental posted an interesting and useful round up of BREEAM stuff. BREEAM and LEED (the US version) is certainly in the news at the moment, with both appearing to develop into specific sectors of construction. Rightly or wrongly BREAM and LEED will become central to achieving carbon neutrality and other sustainable targets in the coming years.

I am still not convinced of the benefits of these schemes over the life of a facility and contribution to the users business or organisational costs. (ie a focus on the 1, rather than the 5 or 200 from the 1:5:200 school of thinking)

My comments left in response to Mels article are copied below…would appreciate your thoughts…

…BREEAM and LEED tend to be taking off in all directions – much as the EFQM did 5 or so years ago – can this be a good thing or is it a watering down of a good original concept?

We are seeing more and more targets being set to achieve BREEAM Excellent for this or that sector, yet for the construction and fm sectors this means very little, so is ignored.

Even with the more eco aware construction organisations , their contribution to the whole process is sometimes seen as too limited, (patronising maybe?) ie around waste, transport etc, rather than making real contribution to the environmental life cycle of the facility, so again drops quickly to the bottom of the to do lists.

getting to zero

Leave a reply

One of the excellent articles on the new Building Sustainability site is The Year to Zero.  putting many of the important targets and objectives being set for our industry in a chronoligical count down to carbon zero, neutral or ‘sustainability’. (or wherever its is deemed we need to be)
The article, in conjunction with Fulcron Consultaing will be updated as and when more targets are set, so definelty one to watch.

I use a similar approach, looking into the ‘planned future’ for our sector, helping organisations set their own strategies and targets, on green and other related topics.  How do your business or improvement plans map onto this timeline?  Will you be ahead of the game, prepared, or lagging and playing catchup? Do you even have a route-map to get you there?

the Code …from denial to despair?

Leave a reply

The cost of achieving carbon neutral or zero homes to the Code keeps raising its head, as Phil over at Sustainability Blog points out.

I didnt catch the UCT speakers name on the US Greenbuild365 live webcast testerday, I was listening rather than watching, but a sound bite delivered with typical American style caught my ear…“The building sector is over-estimating the cost and under-estimating the impact of climate change issues”

How true, when we think about the moaning around the cost of the new Code for Sustainable Housing, which will be seen as a smokescreen for reluctance in doing anything at all.

Jonathan Porrit writing in his blog and in BD… makes the point well… why put a price on the importance of carbon free homes?

Government policy is being applied to decarbonising both new and existing housing, with Building Regulations and the Code driving that transformation. An industry that has lived for far too long in a feather-bed world, where nobody gave a tinker’s cuss about energy and resource efficiency, is being incentivised to change, and is marketing to rapidly rising consumer expectations. So why would anybody suppose that the combined genius of architects, designers, engineers, builders, surveyors and planners isn’t going to be able to come up with the zero-carbon goods?

I live in weird world these days. Having spent most of my life described as a prophet of doom, I now find myself having to shake people out of a fatalistic “can’t be done” mind-set! We seem to have moved from denial to despair in one effortless leap. So let’s get our creative act together here. After all, we don’t have a choice about this. Either we rise to this challenge, or the mealy-mouthed, risk-averse mediocrity that dominates this particular industry will take us all down with it.

The costs arising from inefficiencies through waste, poor project management, incorrect procurement, lack of working together, poor design, legal fees to check contract documentation and all the well documented historical ills of our sector etc far far outweighs the cost of achieving the Code… surely?

Acheiving the code needs a different mindset, as Einstein said… we cannot solve todays issues with the same mind set that created them in the first place...

By rearranging the debate towards opportunity we can can move from despair to exciting.

Clinton @ Greenbuild365

1 Reply

I caught the live broadcast (webcast) of Bill Clintons speech at Greenbuild365* yesterday, and a few things stuck in my mind.

One was Clintons reference to this being an opportunity, a challenge but an opportunity, and that the transition from a  carbon economy to a green economy will produce as many new jobs, skills and professions as the carbon industries loose.

he saw that the greenbuild sector was the place to be to really address climate change issues. “The sale has been made,” he said. “Otherwise Al Gore wouldn’t have got the Nobel Prize.  Now what we have to do is to prove that this is not a bottle of castor oil that we’re being asked to drink”.

Secondly,  Clintons call the need for an industry benchmark to keep score, and his pledge, I assume from his foundation, to create a tool for the AEC Industries – (Architecture, Engineering and Construction).

Watch this space…

In fact Clinton could be one to watch.  The worldchanging writer and founder Alex Steffen ran a story on Clinton’s speech  to US Mayors in Seattle recently and described it as …quite simply, the best speech on climate given by an American politician (other than Al Gore) I’ve ever heard — it’s the sort of speech I wish a sitting president would stand up and deliver before Congress and the nation

* As to Greenbuild, I understand7000 saw Clintons speech, 20,000 will attend over three days and most of the key speeches are webcast around the world. (An idea for the UK  Think 2008 maybe Phil?)  I just get a feeling something big is happening there, despite the rhetoric in American politics and leadership.