Category Archives: comment

Greenwashed again

1 Reply

A recent survey by Chatsworth Communications of the FTSE 100 green ‘claims’ reveals that top organisations are going green to protect brand and image rather than any concern for the environment.  Over 1200 ‘opinion formers’ from across the UK were asked views on the FTSE 100 green claims as part of the Green Winners and Green Washers Survey

Of course this wouldn’t be the case for organisations within the built environment sector … would it?

From the surveys press release

The results reveal increasing cynicism as to whether UK business is leading on environmental  issues out of a genuine desire to protect the environment or if this is just greenwash aimed at creating an eco-friendly corporate image.

• The main motivation for UK companies to adopt green policies is to protect their reputation (27%) followed by consumer pressure (20%) and good business sense (18%)
• Only 1% believe genuine concern for the environment is the key driver for UK companies to adopt green policies
• Marks & Spencer (45%) and HSBC voted the top green winners – the companies making
the most genuine green effort
• BP, Tesco and British Airways considered to be most guilty of ‘greenwash’ by respondents
• BP, Tesco and Marks & Spencer have the highest profile and most effective green publicity campaigns in terms of coverage
• Majority of respondents (75%) believe it is better for big business to own up where they are not green and show willing to make any changes

Nick Murray-Leslie, Director, Chatsworth Communications comments: “The views of the people polled influence millions of consumers across the UK, who will ultimately vote with the purchasing decisions they make.

(original lead from Edie)

Built Environment and GEO 4, the last wake up call?

6 Replies

In 1987 (sustainable development) was about meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs (Brundtland) but now in 2007 – the bill we hand our children may prove impossible to pay (Steiner UNEP)

The GEO4 report, Global Environment Outlook: Environment for Development launched yesterday by the UNEP (United Nations Environmental Programe ) should be read and considered in the context of the contribution that the global built environment has made to our current environmental crisis. (Just under 50% of global carbon emissions, 50% of all UK waste etc, etc- the figures, although varied, have been well documented in many places)

The GEO4 report received much news coverage and hopefully will be the last wake up call we need, and seen as another key milestone in our awareness of what we are doing, along side the Brundtland commision, the Stern Report, Inconvenient Truth etc

From GEO4

“all too often [the response] has been slow and at a pace and scale that fails to respond to or recognise the magnitude of the challenges facing the people and the environment of the planet,” said the environment programme’s executive director Achim Steiner.

“The systematic destruction of the Earth’s natural and nature-based resources has reached a point where the economic viability of economies is being challenged – and where the bill we hand to our children may prove impossible to pay,”

The report said irreversible damage to the world’s climate will be likely unless greenhouse gas emissions drop to below 50% of their 1990 levels before 2050. To reach this level, the richer countries must cut emissions by 60% to 80% by 2050 and developing countries must also make significant reductions, it says.

(see Contraction and Convergence)

The 550-page report took five years to prepare. It was researched and drafted by almost 400 scientists, whose findings were peer-reviewed by 1,000 others.

One of the report’s authors, Joseph Alcamo said that race is on to determine if leaders move fast enough to save the planet. “The question for me, for us perhaps, is whether we’re going to make it to a more slowly changing world or whether we’re going to hit a brick wall in the Earth’s system first,” he said.

“Personally, I think this could be one of the most important races that humanity will ever run.”

Guardian – Environmental failures ‘put humanity at risk’

UNEP GEO4 Site

The Independent – Not an environment scare story

Green Schools

Leave a reply

green school /grEn skül / n. a school building or facility that creates a healthy environment that is conducive to learning while saving energy, resources and money

To help educate and encourage construction firms and others about the benefits of sustainable schools the US Green Building Council have recently launched a site dedicated to Green Schools  According to the site, green schools, on average, save $100,000 a year, use 33% less energy, and reduce solid waste by 74%. They also increase learning potential, reduce teacher absenteeism and turnover, and provide opportunities for hands-on learning.

The site contains a number of resources, but listening to the 9min video of students talking about environmnetal stewardship as a result of their green building is very strong.  “the new building had no new smells – which is good because those smells are only chemicals” 

With criticism of the green aspects of our Building Schools for the Future it would be good to hear of similar ‘awareness‘ resources in the UK.

Carbon neutral or zero – defined?

Leave a reply

Another excellent report from the Centre for Integrated Sustainability Analysis, Carbon Sense and Sensibility offers a definition of carbon neutral by looking at 11 websites that offer carbon neutrality calculators and services (offsets).

The definition is based around the idea of concept of measuring a carbon footprint and then seeking to cancel out that footprints with some kind of equal but opposite behaviour or consequence.

A must read for any organisation considering offsets to achieve neutrality or any carbon offset

.. you need to ask questions about just what carbon you are responsible for, how it is being measured and then exactly where the carbon credits have come from, how reductions have been verified and how you will know that once you have paid for those reductions they are retired so that nobody else can buy them …

gulp…

This then is very different from zero carbon -where activities are not neutralised but reduced to zero through ‘improvement’ activities and just doing things differently, and certainly not through offsetting.   (and the Code for Sustainable Homes calls for Zero Carbon – not carbon neutral ?)

A zero energy building (ZEB) or net zero energy building is a general term applied to a building with a net energy consumption of zero over a typical year.In October 2007, The Uk Green Building Council warned that few zero carbon homes were actually being built as as the criteria for carbon neutral stamp relief was so stringent. However, although “It’s not a legal obligation that zero carbon homes are built now”, “building regulations are being increased in line with the Code for Sustainable Homes over the next nine years”

Post modern apathy in the built environment ?…

Leave a reply

Jonathan Glancey, the Guardian architecture critic, writing in his Guardian column today, Extinction of Engineers, bemoans the lack of skilled workers in the uk, and sees our sector as a nation of call centre operatives and customer service facility managers, threatened by a glut of postmodern apathy.   Yes.  This backs up the findings of the recent Arup report for the ASC – that we dont have the skills in the UK to address the sustainability targets and visions being set down and proposed.

In another article in the same edition  Jonathan Glancey provides a profile of Edward Cullinan, who has been designing thoughtful and sometimes daring buildings for long enough to see a number of them listed

Two comments in this article caught my attention

Cullinan remains equally in thrall to the wayward genius of Frank Lloyd Wright. The great American architect was much influenced by Voysey, even if Wright went on to design such avant garde buildings as the Solomon R Guggenheim Museum on Manhattan’s Fifth Avenue. Voysey’s individuality and craft and Wright’s originality and verve are forces that have inspired Cullinan throughout his 52-year career as a practising architect. “I cherish that word,” he says. “I’m always practising. And one day might even get there.”

and, in an attack on design build…

 “Good architecture does demand money. The buildings we did for the University of East London [alongside London City Airport], for example, look great from 50 metres away, but when you get up close you can see the effects of ‘design and build’ construction, meaning that the architect is not responsible for the building works. The details just aren’t good enough. The level of craftsmanship is far too low.”

Voysey and Wright were lucky that they did not have to practise their craft in a cheapskate world of “design and build”. None the less, Cullinan, more so than most contemporary British architects, has lived to shape some of the best-made, most cherished British buildings of the past 50 years, buildings that, if you could slice into them, would shine with Grade I gold.

Having spent a fair amount of time as both a project manager on architect led and design and build projects, I am not sure I entirely agree with this.  The low level of craftsmanship is a symptom of the industry’s lack of investment in skills and training over the last few decades, rather than architect-contractor forms of contract.   And, in both approaches the relationships just did not foster a spirit of collaborative working to the benefit of the building or facility, but a reinforcement of silos and hidden agendas.

RICS – eco-harmful claims?

Leave a reply

Recent research and claims from the RICS that some energy measures recommended in EPC’s may take up to 208 years to recoup costs has been widely commented on – in Saturdays Telegraph,(solar heating saves energy, wastes money) in Building but with more astute comment from Phil at SustainabilityBlog and at CarbonLimited.

This approach obviously damaging to the homeowners motivation in improving existing housing stock, or indeed other environmental initiatives, and maybe another eco-harmful shot in the foot from the RICS
There is also the underlying debate about the method of calculation of energy savings, and indeed energy costs.  Following the debate through CarbonLimited and the Grist article that argues electricity costs are political and not economic

Coal – safe cigarettes for the built environment?

4 Replies

 

isite Friday comment:

Coal has certainly been in the news, in comment columns and across the blogosphere just lately, upsetting environmentalists, campaigners and activitists. Here is a round up of coal – built environment related news and comments:

The recently commenced open cast site Ffos-y-fran in South Wales has received a scathing comment from George Monbiot in his Guardian column. As Zero Champion pointed out on the SustainabilityBlog, at the coal face, the organisations behind this project, Miller Argent, appear to be acting at odds to their environmental and or CSR visions and claims:

“We are trying to deliver lower energy, greener buildings in the right locations,” says Argent on its carbon dating page. And Miller released a CSR report this Spring which stressed its attempts to reduce the environmental impacts of its projects. “Corporate social responsibility, whether in terms of staff development… sustainable development or environmental management is at the core of our thinking,” says Keith Miller, group chief executive, at the back of the report.

The Myrthyr project is hardly sustainable, and as Monbiot states in his column, damaging to the good work in reducing carbons elsewhere.

This means that the coal in Ffos-y-fran will be responsible for almost 30 million tonnes of CO2: equivalent to the annual sustainable emissions of 25 million people (sustainable emissions are the quantity the planet’s living systems can absorb).

So in other words 25 million people need to reduce their carbon footprint to a sustainable level to balance the effects of the one coal project. How, MillerArgent, is this sustainable development.? How is this in the context of the Brundtland definition going to help future generations?

Greenpeace brought the proposed new coal power station at Kingsnorth into the news by protesting at the site. The Greenpeace film Convenient Solution, receiving warm praise at political fringe events recently, demonstrates the harm of coal power, and the wasted heat from the production:

The single biggest use of fossil fuels in the UK isn’t for electricity or for transport, but for creating heat to warm our buildings and power our industrial processes. So any solution to climate change needs to contribute to heating, as well as to electricity generation.

Only a week or so ago the American Acrtitetcure 2030 group placed a full page advert in the New York Times warning against the impact coal fired power stations will have on environmnetal, sustainability and carbon reducing actions, making the connection between coal and the built environment:

Buildings use 76% of all the electrical energy produced at coal plants. Buildings are the single largest contributor to global warming, accounting for almost half (48%) of total annual US energy consumption and CO2 emissions.

Wal-Mart is investing a half billion dollars to reduce the energy consumption and CO2 emissions of their existing buildings by 20% over the next seven years. The CO2 emissions from only one medium-sized coal-fired power plant, in just one month of operation each year, would negate this entire effort.

Over in Australia, the increasingly influential Australian Institute – ‘Clean coal’ and other greenhouse myths paper, availble from the UK Government policy hub website, busts the myths of coal:

Myth: Coal can be part of the solution.Busted: In reality, coal is the main problem, and curtailing its use is essential. There is no such thing as ‘clean coal’ at present, and there is a chance there will never be. There is no such thing as ‘clean coal’ for climate change. The description is a marketing triumph for the coal industry, like ‘safe cigarettes’ for the tobacco industry.

As many seek to achieve carbon reduction to neutral or zero through carbon offsetting, it appears the coal industry is pining hopes on the concept of carbon capture and storage, or carbon sequestration. This gives enough confidence for npower, as reported in the Guardian “coal continues to be an important source of energy for the UK and whilst this is the case, we believe CO2 capture and storage offers significant potential.”

The balancing, myth busting response from Oz?

Myth:Carbon sequestration can be the centerpiece of policy.Busted: This technology is unproven and expensive. There are several demonstration projects under way, but there is no immediate prospect of commercialisation.

So why is this important to everyday life in the built environment?

Well, coal illustrates just how very complex sustainability and carbon issue is, being personal, local, regional, national and global. The built environment demands the greater proportion of power from coal fired power stations.

The cement industry manufacturing process depends on burning vast amounts of cheap coal and contributes 5% of all global emmissions (It also relies on the decomposition of limestone, a chemical change which frees carbon dioxide as a byproduct.) So as demand for cement grows, for sewers, schools and hospitals as well as for luxury hotels and car parks, so will greenhouse gas emissions. Cement plants and factories across the world are projected to churn out almost 5bn tonnes of carbon dioxide annually by 2050 – 20 times as much as the government has pledged the entire UK will produce by that time. And like aviation the expected rapid growth in cement production is at severe odds with calls to cut carbon emissions to tackle global warming. (source, Guardian today Cement Industry comes clean)

Real reductions (not off-set reductions) in the design, construction and use of buildings will greatly reduce this demand. (This is one of the more important reasons why off-setting is bad for the built environment)

Whilst the everyday efforts on sites, in design, during construction and in existing facilities to reduce carbon and ecological impacts are so very vital, so is the awareness of the inter connections between so many of the wider social political, industrial and technological activities.

And of course there is something about the built environments claims and sustainability policies being watched by the media, pressure groups and bloggers, and all the publicity that may generate. Increasingly there are calls for some kind of watch dog to verify green claims, along the lines of the advertising standards commission, preventing misleading greenwash (a term that is used to describe the actions of a company, government, or other organisation which advertises positive environmental practices while acting in the opposite way (wikipedia)). At least no giraffes have been harmed so far…

isite Friday comment – would you like to write a Friday comment for isite. All contributions very welcome.

Greenhouse myths, folklore and lies

Leave a reply

Phil, zero-champion over at Sustainability blog alerted me to a great paper from the Australian Institute – ‘Clean coal’ and other greenhouse myths – in no nonsense , tell it as it is speak, available as pdf from the UK policy hub site
from the intro:

there is no longer any doubt that rising concentrations of greenhouse gases are leading to dangerous change in the global climate. In Australia, public and political opinion finally shifted in late 2006, with record droughts and an early start to the bushfire season. The Stern Review in October 2006 and the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in February 2007 reinforced fears about global warming.

The debate has now shifted to the best means of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and to the need for adapting to the level of climate change that now appears inevitable. Not surprisingly, the confusion and deliberate misinformation which formerly surrounded the debate on climate change has now shifted to the debate on how to tackle it. If there is to be an effective response (and the odds do not look good at present) very large changes are required in the global economy, and especially the global energy system. There will be both winners and losers among industries and companies. The potential losers are fighting to retain their advantages and privileges. Others are positioning themselves to profit, in some cases from ineffective or even counterproductive ‘solutions’.

Part of the strategy of potential losers and winners is to influence the public debate through myths and half-truths. Governments and oppositions are also attracted to convenient half-truths to mask inaction or lack of effective policy. Even among the many who sincerely support a reduction in emissions, there is much confusion.

My favourite myth?… no 8….

Buying carbon offsets is the same as actually reducing emissions.  In fact, buying offsets is too often just a smokescreen for large emitters who intend to operate on a ‘business as usual’ basis. A reduction in emissions requires a reduction in emissions, plain and simple.

Solar building design

Leave a reply

One of the fascinating things behind the statistics to running a blog is the search items people use to end up here at isite.

Still by a large margin is the search for a good construction carbon calculator.  However coming up fast on the inside, is the search of things solar relating to energy and building design.  This has led to me to brush up on my knowledge – and found this fascinating wikipedia entry. Passive solar building design

 Passive solar building design involves the modeling, selection and use of appropriate passive solar technologies to maintain the building environment at a desired temperature range (usually based around human thermal comfort) throughout the sun’s daily and annual cycles. As a result it generally minimizes the use of active solar, renewable energy and especially fossil fuel technologies.

I would add into this the passive solar lighting concepts of sun-pipes, light tubes and wind pipes which we use to great effect here.  Having daylight and fresh air into the middle of the house is wonderful – and saves on lighting energy and costs, even on overcast days.

Carbon Zero Builders Wanted – 2

Leave a reply

Just announced through Building – Galliford Try and Affinity Sutton Group housing association have been selected by English Partnerships to jointly pioneer one of the first major carbon neutral developments in the UK. named as the preferred bidder on the planned redevelopment of the former Graylingwell hospital site in Chichester, Sussex, creating 800 carbon neutral homes.

See previous post on isite here

An interesting project to watch to see how much of the carbon reduction to neutral is achieved through offsetting and that achieved through real action in design, construction and technology