Noted on the CE (Constructing Excellence) web news pages (why is there no RSS feed here?) the responses that CE have made to the number of sustainability consultation documents around at the moment. Of interest is the CE response to legislation on waste management plans.
(you may have to register to get access to these pages)
the recently launched civil engineering sustainability strategy can be downloaded from the CIRIA news site. (Can’t locate it on the ICE site which seems the obvious place!)
Well worth a read, I particularly like the aims:
Aim 1 Promote strong leadership for sustainable development within civil engineering There is a need for strong commitment and leadership at all levels, including clients, to tap into the enormous potential of civil engineering to protect the environment and promote sustainable development.
leadership is vital and it will interesting to watch how leaders in this sector become role models
But equally as interesting is Aim 3
Build capacity for sustainable development in civil engineering building capacity for sustainable development is about equipping organisations and individuals with the understanding, skills and access to independent information, knowledge and training that enables them to perform effectively.
It will again be interesting to see how this emerges, and whether an open source approach to knowledge share and education is adopted (open source sustainability)
I noted no mention of measuring the ecological (or carbon) footprint of civil engineering activities.
Recent comments from the team at i-think – what do yu think? Join the debate at i-think
Sustainable development or jobs for the boys?
The Communities and Local Government department says the Government’s ‘Planning for a Sustainable Future: White Paper’ “proposes reforms on how we take decisions on nationally significant infrastructure projects – including energy, waste, waste-water and transport – responding to the challenges of economic globalisation and climate change. It also proposes further reforms to the Town and Country Planning system, building on the recent improvements to make it more efficient and more responsive.”
Friends of the Earth say that “sustainable development is being stripped apart to benefit big business. These proposals are bad for people, bad for democracy and bad for the environment … They will leave affected communities with no meaningful say in how their area is developed.”
What do you think? Click here to comment on i-Think.com.
Climate Change for the Masses
The plethora of recent events designed to tackle climate change culminated last week in Live Earth, Al Gore’s much publicised 24-hour, 7-continent concert series. With the aim of triggering a mass global movement in response to the climate change agenda, more than 100 musical acts were united in order to reach a worldwide audience of an estimated 2 billion people.
So do these essentially ‘consumer’ events help or hinder the cause? Live Earth has been criticised for being little more than a middle-of-the-road publicity stunt and, with many of the acts arriving via international air travel, could be seen as making a mockery of the entire underlying message.
And yet maybe that’s the point. Live Earth may not have had any measurable effect in terms of tackling global warming, but at least we all know what the point of the event was. As Environment Secretary Hilary Benn pointed out, “Events like Live Earth can help to bring people together to encourage them to take action locally, nationally, and internationally and with more than 40% of the UK’s carbon dioxide emissions coming from people’s homes and travel, inspiring people to act is increasingly urgent.”
Perhaps the message that we should take away from Live Earth is one of inclusiveness. Clearly business organisations need to play their part in reducing carbon emissions, but corporates should not be expected to shoulder the full weight of responsibility.
Research commissioned by DEFRA found that although 94% of British people think that the world’s climate is changing, only 66% say that they are personally taking action to limit this change. So what about the other 28%?
Using low energy lightbulbs, less of a reliance on air-conditioning and/or heating, switching off electrical appliances rather than merely leaving them on stand-by and a careful consideration of transport options are among the easiest changes that we can all make right across our every day lives.
Climate change is a big deal, but living and working sustainably, even at a personal level, need not be.
Log on to i-think to comment.
Recently published paper from ISA-UK Research & Consulting, based in Durham looks at the commonly used term of ‘Carbon Footprint’
definition of ‘carbon footprint’.
The term ‘carbon footprint’ has become very popular over the last few years and is now in widespread public use. With climate change high up on the political and corporate agenda, carbon footprint assessments are in strong demand.
The paper suggests the following definition, which may be useful in understanding the carbon footprint of the construction process, the building or facility itself as well as the facilities management aspects.
“The carbon footprint is a measure of the exclusive total amount of carbon dioxide emissions that is directly and indirectly caused by an activity or is accumulated over the life stages of a product.”
(my italics)
In any case, all direct (on-site, internal) and indirect emissions (off-site, external, embodied, upstream, downstream) need to be taken into account.
Further to the recent post here, the effectiveness of the new Construction Minister is slowly being revealed:
From today’s Building web news:
In a newly-published list of ministerial responsibilities Timms, who is officially minister of state for competitiveness, will look after e-commerce, communications, information, bioscience, chemicals, pharmaceuticals, shipbuilding, automotive, manufacturing, creative industries, retail, steel and construction as part of his brief.
He is also responsible for enterprise, growth and business investment, regional economies, business support simplification, corporate governance and corporate social responsibility, as well as overseeing the Small Business Service, Companies House, the Shareholder Executive and the Industrial Development Unit.
Your views – here on on the Building website – always count
By far the highest number of searches that end up at this blog are related to the words Construction Carbon Calculator, and pages in this blog that talk about carbon calculators receive the highest visits.
This leads me to think that there is not a suitable carbon calculator for our industry – for the construction process – not the building or facility
A challenge then – is anyone out there aware of or using a calculator, or is anyone developing one.?
It could well be that we just do not know what the carbon footprints of construction activities really are, and that is worrying.
Comments, views and links to those construction carbon calculators please…
I have a meeting planned down at the BRE in a week or so and hope, as part of the visit to view the buildings erected as part of the Offsite 2007 event. (now closed, but the website contains much useful information)
As we lead up to the LCBPC Innovation event on the 5th July, its well worth looking at the modern methods of construction innovations from offsite 2007, both in off site prefabrication, in innovative on site technology, and near-carbon-zero construction. The photo diary blog of the construction and event provides an fascinating insight.
Of particular interest is the Rethink School building from Wilmot Dixon – The school building itself is a teaching and learning tool, with every part of the school’s design, construction and operation an educational opportunity.
In comparison to the news that the UK housing sector is to be invetsigated, and with the media quick to pick up on the numbers that only 3 in 4 (76%) of people buying new homes are satisfied with quality, I was intrigued to get news from the USA on the emerging Slow Homes Movement.
This movement is similar to the slow food movement that kicks back against the fast food industry, kicking back as it does against the fast home industry – as the worldchanging website states:
Brown (founder of SHM) makes the increasingly known correlation between suburban living and obesity, indicating that fast food and fast housing not only have comparable results within their respective industries, but literally the same result: a declining state of health across a huge swathe of the North American population.
The movement is based on an interesting, worthwhile and common sense set of 10 principles – which may ring a few bells in our own hosuing sustainability / carbon zero agendas – or maybe not :-
1. GO INDEPENDENT Avoid homes by big developers and large production builders. They are designed for profit not people. Work with independent designers and building contractors instead.
2. GO LOCAL Avoid home finishing products from big box retailers. The standardized solutions they provide cannot fit the unique conditions of your home. Use local retailers, craftspeople, and manufacturers to get a locally appropriate response and support your community.
3. GO GREEN Stop the conversion of nature into sprawl. Don’t buy in a new suburb. The environmental cost can no longer be justified. Re-invest in existing communities and use sustainable materials and technologies to reduce your environmental footprint.
4. GO NEAR Reduce your commute. Driving is a waste of time and the new roads and services required to support low density development is a big contributor to climate change. Live close to where you work and play.
5. GO SMALL Avoid the real estate game of bigger is always better. A properly designed smaller home can feel larger AND work better than a poorly designed big one. Spend your money on quality instead of quantity.
6. GO OPEN Stop living in houses filled with little rooms. They are dark, inefficient, and don’t fit the complexity of our daily lives. Live in a flexible and adaptive open plan living space with great light and a connection to outdoors.
7. GO SIMPLE Don’t buy a home that has space you won’t use and things you don’t need. Good design can reduce the clutter and confusion in your life. Create a home that fits the way you really want to live.
8. GO MODERN Avoid fake materials and the re-creation of false historical styles. They are like advertising images and have little real depth. Create a home in which character comes from the quality of space, natural light and the careful use of good, sustainable materials.
9. GO HEALTHY Avoid living in a public health concern. Houses built with cheap materials off gas noxious chemicals. Suburbs promote obesity because driving is the only option. Use natural, healthy home materials and building techniques. Live where you can walk to shop, school and work.
10. GO FOR IT Stop procrastinating. The most important, and difficult, step in the slow home process is the first one that you take. Get informed and then get involved with your home. Every change, no matter how small, is important.
Comments???
Noticed this on the Carbon Trust website recently:
The Low-Carbon Building Accelerator seeks to demonstrate that major refurbishments of non-residential buildings can be completed in both a low-carbon and a cost-effective manner. It involves the Carbon Trust’s specialist consultants working with a range of building projects in the retail, hospitality, government and education sectors. The specialist consultants are working with developers and their advisors, providing input on how to ensure that refurbishment projects are carried out in a way that minimises the carbon emissions from the building. Case studies backed up by robust data will be published at the end of each project
It will be interesting to review the case studies on this one, but it is significant the Carbon Trust has identified building as one of …
…those technologies that offer the greatest UK carbon saving potential in the short to medium term and also where the Carbon Trust investments can be material in bringing forward these technologies.
Dr David Vincent, Technology Director of the Carbon Trust, explains, “The assessment enables the Carbon Trust to focus its resources effectively. By targeting those technologies which offer high carbon savings potential and where our resources can be material, we can take the lead on low carbon technologies innovation in the UK.”
The Sunday Times yesterday reported that the BSF programme is missing a big opportunity to promote sustainable building methods.
A report from the education and skills select committee, headed by Labour MP Barry Sheerman, will slam the programme for missing a big opportunity to promote sustainable building methods.
About £150m has been set aside to improve environmental standards on the Building Schools for the Future (BSF) scheme, but MPs believe this is a drop in the ocean in the context of the £45 billion BSF programme.
The Sustainable Development Commission told the MPs that it would add 15% to 20% to the cost of building schools to make them carbon neutral and more energy efficient. Schools account for about 15% of the public sector’s carbon footprint in the UK.
One committee source said: “There is no doubt the green stuff has just been tacked on as an afterthought in this programme � which is amazing given the government preaching about its green agenda.”
Read more online
It would be interesting to hear comments from BSF programmes in the area….
Fairsnape 