I noticed people are landing on this isite blog after searching, or goggling “top construction blogs usa”. Intrigued, I checked this out – the isite blog ranks number 3 hit in the google return list – thanks!, (Not bad from a remote Lancashire hamlet even though I say so myself)
What a week for sustainability related news.
I should try and get to do more weekly round ups – the last couple of weeks have been quiet on the blog posts so here are things that hit my radar last week. (The WordPress linking seems to be broken at the moment – so I will repost with the links later)
Top of the list was probably Eco-Build, which although covered by Building and others, including Phils blog, hasn’t clearly communicated its message (whatever it was) outside of those attending but led to confusion – more thinking and more targets. People I have talked to who attended all volunteered that event itself didn’t feel sustainable and got a lot of carbons to get people there.
Good news then that Building are promoting the (worlds?) first virtual on-line sustainability conference on the 15th and 16th April.
I thought one spark from Eco Build was in the message I picked up in a number of reports that the drive and demand for greener homes, buildings and lifestyles should come from communities, business and individuals, not rely on legislation to led us… (sustainablity2.0 on which more later)
Paul King from the UKGBC did get good coverage (Friday Interview in the Guardian) – a must read article to understand the UKGBC intentions
The most depressing news this week by far was that Isle of White council cannot afford low or zero carbon homes – presumably they can continue to afford the high cost of low price, the on going high cost of wasted energy and the 30% or so wastage in the construction process. What the IoW, along with others, cannot do is align capital budgets with operational and life cycle budgets – the out of date focus on 1, not the 5 or even the 200. Standing in the future, looking back we may see that we fumbling with easy options, a luxury we may not have again – as the Stern report indicates tomorrows cost of in-decision today.
The cost of going low or zero increasingly is perceived as a barrier. In the US as reported here many times it is seen as a commercial opportunity. I fear our green agendas may well be funded by US led green finance arrangements before too long.
Environment Property Codes were launched with a fanfare by IPD and others – but at first glance looked a bit of a damp squid. Hard to see anything new other than (another) standard format – but until the benchmarking gets underway, and the scale of take up known, it may be too early to comment on. What is worrying is the fee to use approach a lot these schemes are adopting – in the face of open source movement elsewhere.
I scanned a copy of the Green Marketing Manifesto in Borders during the week. I thought it was in itself another greenwash book, with advice such as ‘add ECO in front of anything to increase its desirability’ (Eco-Build, Eco Homes, Eco Villages perhaps) until I saw the ‘blurb’ and forward by leading respected thinkers. A closer look revealed this gem – it’s the greening of the business that is important – not the greening of product. Taking this into the built environment – organisations will only be able to deliver low or zero carbon construction, provide environmental fm etc if they themselves are green at heart. A new way of cutting through greenwash perhaps.
Oh and the plastic bag story. Anyone traveling through Europe will know this is not leading edge thinking to ban or reduce plastic bags – we are playing catch up. At its worst it is a blatant retail and government greenwash – focus on the easy carrier bags and smokescreen the bigger issues. Supermarkets need to focus on packaging, open cabinet fridges, the energy inefficient stores (with one or two exceptions) and the travel miles they generate. Salisbury’s advert today tells us they are making it easy for us to reduce, reuse and recycle, nice green wash words when what is needed is rethinking.
And then the interview with James Lovelock who happily tells us we are past the tipping point, to enjoy life while we can (for which he gives us 20 years). But insists this gives us plenty to do – except they will be the things we don’t want to do.
And then I had my eyes opened to Twitter … but more of that later.
Having posted on the Welsh drive to zero carbon yesterday, only fair to note the The Scottish Government last month launched its consultation on pushing for 80% reduction by 2050 … signaling Scotland’s serious intent to lead the global effort to combat climate change.
This is significant as it is based on the now recongised carbon level of 350ppm that scientists agree we must acheive, not the out-of-date 450ppm level upon which the English and other targets are based on.
Also significant is the high profile that the contribution of housing and built enviroment within the launch article,
a particular focus on housing-related products and services such as green mortgages and loans for domestic energy efficiency works. The energy efficiency of Scotland’s homes is improving, partly as a result of existing Government programmes, but more needs to be done to achieve the carbon emission reductions needed. Lenders have a potentially significant role to play through products such as green mortgages.
As expected a number of mixed and potentially confusing announcements made at Eco Build question progress towards zero carbon construction, question the defintion of carbon zero while setting more targets for (non domestic) zero carbon construction by 2020.
Founder of the UK Green Building Council, Dr David Strong is right to question the focus on carbon reductions – we need to remember the ecological footprint as well. Unfortunately the carbon footprint is easier to comprehend, and to address that the wider ecological aspects. Yet we are heading for a skewed future if we do not. See the One Planet Living principles for an approach that encompasses carbon zero through to health and happiness as an example of the wider issues.
Perhaps Simon McWhirter, WWF-UK, a member of the newly announced carbon industry task group headed by Barratts boss Mark Clare to redefine zero carbon will remind this group (once again) of the wider issues?
I also see the barrier of cost being raised again in achieving these targets –“a cost premium for anywhere between 5% to 30% extra”. Now isnt that the estimated cost of waste in our industry, or lost time through uncollaboartive working ?
At a recent best practice club presentation I used a green scale – from grey to bright green – to help illustrate different views to the environmental concerns. Delegates agreed the UK built environment is stuck as accommodationalists – only just turning green from grey defined as ‘do as little as possible, be led by legislation , but no need to change core behaviour’
I cant help but think of the green build movement in the USA that is just getting on and doing it – talking about achievements and benefits of being green (including cost benefits) rather than talking about definitions, barriers, problems and more legislation to ‘help us’.
(Take a look at the buzz and the near evangelical speeches and presentations at the recent USGBC Green-build Conference – still on line for viewing ! – where it was reported that LEED Platinum accredited buildings produce 45% improvement in energy usage – its not anecdotal any more we have the proof said USGBC CEO)
Thanks to fellow blogger Phil Clarke and Building for news from Ecobuild – nearly as good as online !
Whilst the BRE and Prince Foundation square up on Code Level 6, watch out for the creeping LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) the US version of BREEAM.
In an article in the latest Plenty journal, Robert Watson (often hailed as the father of LEED ), talks about his determination to turn LEED into a worldwide benchmark, with a focus on developing countries of China and India.
In the interview, when asked how home owners can get involved in LEED, Robert replies – Look for the LEED label on your homes … And just demand it as a consumer.
Cant quite see the consumer demanding such labels here – yet – but come 2016?
Two thousand seven may go down as the year that green buildings became cornerstone of a global strategies to address global warming
Green building in the US gets a good review in the recommended recently published paper from Greenbiz.com State of Green Business. (Download from Greenbiz.com). The report neatly summarises sectors into swimming, treading water or sinking in efforts to address green and environmental issues.
As to building and property, the following extracts should wet your appetite to download and read:
In this fast-rising environment, green building is becoming less the exception than the norm, embraced by sectors ranging from hotels to health care to housing
The price premium for green building is shrinking, reducing one of the few remaining barriers to the industry’s growth.
Moreover, green building can provide a competitive advantage in a tough market,
Demand and planning for green buildings is rising like a skyscraper on steroids, the product of everything from high energy prices to corporate vanity to a better understanding of the dividends paid by environmentally sensitive facilities
Has Prince Charles reignited debate on architecture, traditional construction, eco homes and zero-carbon? – isdefining zero-carbon is the key? – the original articles at BD website are well worth the read – as is the astute comments from Phil at zerochampion (sorry Phil cant get use to Sustainable Blog!)
For an excellent and refreshing read of a collaborative project that is aligned to and sensitive to nature, read the the account of the new fishing store development at LL Bean (an old haunt of mine when living in New England many years back) on the Building Design and Construction website
To reinforce that we cannot address sustainability, carbon reduction and waste management from a hearts and minds, save the planet for future generations, common sense point of view and approach, JCT have started a consultation process as to which sustainability items should be made contractual within JCT forms of contract, as in legally binding commitments.
Details are on the JCT site
One of the consultation questions allows you to choose from a list of themes you would like seen as a contractual issue (see below), which gives a pretty good indication of what JCT is thinking.
Would the sustainability contract be with client and contractor, or all, as per the JCT Constructing Excellence Collaborative Contract (one would hope!). Or following a growing school of thought that that the earth should have ‘legal status’, hence with the earth itself?
Which would you like to see as a contractual clause:
| Carbon emissions associated with construction process |
| Carbon emissions associated with the end use of the ‘project’ |
| Commercial vehicle movements |
| Consumption of energy during construction process |
| Consumption of energy associated with the end use of the ‘project’ |
| Consumption of water during construction process |
| Consumption of water associated with the end use of the ‘project’ |
| Economic sustainability in construction supply chain |
| Maintenance or optimisation of biodiversity |
| Origin of construction materials |
| Waste management in construction process |
| Waste management associated with the end use of the ‘project’ |
Following on from earlier posts (whats wrong) on this site where I raised the question that Level 6 of the Code for Sustainable homes was seemingly too low a standard – as Barratts and Eddie Shah, and others, already claim they can achieve it , apparently without doing to much different, it is encouraging to see Bill Dunster pushing the goal posts further.
‘Anybody can build to Level Six,’ says Bill
Bill Dunster claims his RuralZED house, which will be shown at the Ecobuild exhibition (26-28 February at Earls Court), meets the unprecedented (and non-existent – he invented the term) Level Seven of the Code for Sustainable Homes, with a wind turbine producing energy to make up for the embodied energy in the materials and construction of the structure. more info at AJ
Level 6 and now Level 7 must remain stretch targets – targets to stretch our rethinking, our innovations and our urgency in addressing sustainability issues. To say we can achieve them today is plain greenwash. (Greenwash sin number 1, 2 3, or 6? )
And, on a similar issue will we see a higher level BREEAM assessment to continue to stretch our sector? After all if BREEAM Excellent doesn’t achieve the targets we need to reach nationally or globally then indeed we do need higher, tougher standards.
As Dr Jo Williams, in the latest edition of Journal of Environmental Planning and Management shows, the current government strategy is unlikely to drive the required increase in technological, infrastructural, service and knowledge capacity needed to deliver zero-carbon homes. If it is going to meet its carbon targets the government should make the current “code 6-star rating” (ie zero-carbon standard) mandatory for all new housing, and invest in the technology, infrastructure and knowledge needed to support its delivery… Without which we will head to an environmental disaster. (Guardian report – where are the green houses)
Or – the will (hearts and minds) and motivation to do so without legislation and standards – ie just getting on and doing it as in the spirit of Contraction and Convergence for example – but thats another post.
Fairsnape 