Category Archives: politics

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.

Conservatives, Blackpool and the built environment

1 Reply

Attending a number of fringe events hosted by Climate Clinic at the conservative conference in Blackpool (because of the location not any political alliance) looking for hints as to the future treatment of the built environment left me slightly worried. Cutting through the rhetoric, I found very little conviction that politicians or advisors have a handle on dealing with our sector. There appears to be a blinkered approach with no joined up thinking.

Key themes I took away include

More political focus will be placed on the built environment sector as a tool to reduce overall carbon emissions. However this would seem to lead to more confusion as Merton Rules, Building Regulations, grants and subsides, etc get tampered with.

Mircopower, decentralised power suppliers and feed in tariffs are very popular. Interesting question though is how large scale green power schemes – such as wind and Severn barrier become environmental problems associated with centralised power

The Quality of Life group group paper Blueprint for a Green Economy from authors Goldsmith and Gummer is the mantra of the conservatives, with praise upon praise being heaped on to Zac Goldsmith every time the document was mentioned. Yet, this is a market driven approach, very close to Tory values that may well have contributed to where we are today, (for example ‘Construction companies must take the lead in ensuring new buildings are as green as possible,) and has a few striking omissions, such as biodiversity. Still worth reading …just in case. The highlights relating to buildings include:

  • Stamp duty should be abolished on homes which have a very low carbon footprint.
  • Local authorities would have the power to reduce council tax bills on low-carbon properties, and homes which reused water efficiently, as incentives to occupants to be greener.
  • Public buildings should be forced to adopt the highest possible energy performance standards.
  • There should be greater incentives to construct eco-friendly homes.
  • Construction companies must take the lead in ensuring new buildings are as green as possible, and to prioritise the environment when considering ways to revamp existing buildings.
  • Home Information Packs (Hips) should be abolished by any incoming Conservative government and replaced with National Building Standards, which would ensure all properties reached required standards.
  • Walking, cycling and using public transport should be prioritised as part of the planning process for any new neighbourhoods. (source BBC)

Two non political comments I took away, which sums up the problems we face:

From Michael McCarthy, Environmental Editor of the Independent…“be clear: this is the ultimate political issue”

and from Sunand Prasad, President of the RIBA, who queried in the Quality of Life question time session whether this issue was too big to be political and requires some form of non, or a – political body to drive, to collect green taxes and make the ‘polluter pay’.

Listening and reading between the lines, and indeed one of the questions at the Quality of Life question time,was the difference between he Goldsmith-Gummer approach and those who feel the environment agenda has gone to far, notably the Redwood degulation camp.  The question to the panel was for how long can both remain within a conservative party.

Leaving the event the most striking moment however was the fantastic sunset, in contrast to the high energy usage Blackpool Illuminations, just a reminder that the earth and nature is far superior and will out survive our messing it up, and how important nature and biodiversity etc are in the balance of our approaches. (Ok, a Gaia moment but hey…)

Tony Juniper sums up the conservative environmental approach from a Friends of the Earth view here – A Paler Shade of Green 

Merton Rule – why is it important

2 Replies

One of the key themes emerging at the Conservative conference fringe events attended yesterday and today was the future and the importance of the Merton Rule.  Cutting through the rhetoric found at any political party event, there were interesting and important comments from the Micropower Council. citing the current political football being played as possible serious consequences for the industry

The Merton Rule, also known as PPS 22, requiring a proportion of any development to source energy from alternative means, is driving the devlopment, capacity and skills of the mircopower companies, that in time will become essential in meeting targets such as the 2016 zero carbon homes.

Take this in conjunction with the recent Mind the Skills Gap skills report , and we could be heading for a problem of skills and knowledge to achieve targets and milestones.

Praise for Preston Bus Station

1 Reply

Good to see the article in the Guardian yesterday A baroque cathedral for buses giving praise to the Preston Bus Station scheduled for demolition for the Titheburn regeneration project.

It is cinematic, sculptural, heroic – and one of the most dramatic public buildings from the 1960s, writes Jonathan Glancey, who  heartbroken to hear that Preston bus station is to be demolished.

The station is a thing of swoops and curves. Great ramps whizz cars up and down the parking floors, while buses move to and fro below.

The article is worth a read as it makes comments on regeneration schemes that will be … an air-conditioned town-centre shopping complex with some “luxury apartments”, a spot of genteel public art, a few water features and yet more chain-store retailing. Tithebarn will, of course, look like every other exciting new “urban regeneration” project in Britain.

About maintenance ….   To reduce the weight of the cantilevered balconies, they were kept so thin that, in the words of the architect for Preston borough council: ‘In many cases this has resulted in inadequate cover to the steel reinforcements which in turn resulted in the need for continual inspection and maintenance.

About Preston  …  Preston lacks impressive historic buildings; many of its streets are lined with glum, run-of-the-mill office blocks and gloomy multistorey car parks. In another city – mainland European, not British – something as striking and monumental as Preston bus station might have been listed, loved and worked intelligently into a new development. It would take just an ounce or two of imagination to rejig the building and give it a new life.

About community and place … The building was created at a time when the car was deferred to, and pedestrians were expected to enter major new public buildings through underground passageways. This is rarely done today, not least because most city subways are, at best, frightening. The arrangement of underground passages explains why the bus station appears to be isolated, set on an ocean of roadway with no pedestrians in sight among the buses, taxis and cars.

New housing to fund energy improvements to old stock through 106?

Leave a reply

Interesting post on today’s Building website – exploring the use of Section 106 on new developments to improve existing housing stock in the area

Fringe climate events at conservative conference, Blackpool

Leave a reply

There is an impressive series of fringe events being organised by Climate Clinic along side the conference next week in Blackpool. Of note is the Ask an Architect event on Monday and Tuesday, hosted by the RIBA, billed as

Get advice from some of Britain’s best green architects on creating new, environmentally friendly buildings or improving the energy performance of existing buildings. Understand the science of climate change and get advice from the science experts – Met Office Sustainable Energy Advice – learn about easy steps you can take to be more energy efficient – Energy Saving Trust

I am hoping to get to some of these events and will feedback through here.

Updated -comments here: conservatives, blackpool and the built environment

Details at Climate Clinic

How much coal is required…

Leave a reply

…. to run a 100-watt light bulb 24 hours a day for a year?

Came across the useful – and frightening – link on How Stuff Works.  Take a look – the answer is a lot and a lot of carbon emissions as a by product.

Timely as news from the government to phase out traditional light bulbs.  But why wait till 2012 –  they are already yesterdays news in Australia and elsewhere.

Greenpeace director John Sauven, reported in the Guardian, said: “For every year of delay in getting rid of these bulbs, 5m tonnes of CO2 are emitted into the atmosphere unnecessarily.”

Greenwash buildings

Leave a reply

There has been an inetresting series of articles and reports recently on technology versus hearts and minds approach to climate change, carbon management and the approach we seem to be taking to becoming green, and greening the built environment.

As mentioned here before, it was Einstein who said “we cannot solve todays problems with the same patterns of thought that created them in the past” and that we need to rethink.   Technology and its use has contributed to the environmental problems of today, can we now rely on technology to take us out of it?  There is a very strong case for more focus on hearts, minds and spirit, or what is becoming known as the eco-mind.

Mark Lynas (whose book High Tide should be on every shelf) writes in a recent Guardian article  Can shopping change the planet?

Some in the business community argue that the whole green consumerism thing is just a passing fad, a sort of climatic version of the dotcom bubble. … According to Phil Downing, head of environmental research at Ipsos Mori, the majority of the population are “fairweather environmentalists” who remain very reluctant to take lifestyle change seriously.

George Monbiot on his blog writes

“Green consumerism is becoming a pox on the planet”, Green consumerism will not save the biosphere … drowning in eco-junk … heading for eco-cide

Are we seeing the same green commercialism, or greenwash in our built environment sector.  Increasingly every product and organisation is keen to inform of green credentials.

Most material suppliers carry their Environmental Commitment on their web sites – prominently – which usually has the aim of reducing pollution or carbon emissions (eg Travis Perkins) yet how serious can they be in attempting to save carbon when these companies still sell patio heaters ? (Just one patio heater will negate the climate value of half a dozen micro wind turbines)

There is a growing need and call to verify  green, carbon and environmental claims.

We seem to be heading down a technological solution route, coupled with carbon off-setting, and yet, seeing carbon emissions continue to increase.

Interviewed in the current issue of the informative Plenty journal, Function Over Form.  Travis Price, a seasoned architect, architectural and environmental pioneer, takes aim at the green building movement he’s been part of for over thirty years, arguing that it’s veered off course: more technical than spiritual; more about regulation than nature. The answer, he says, is to move away from a mandated “checklist” approach and toward an inherently eco-minded design aesthetic. (take a look at the Travis Price website)
Price uses expressions like building in the spirit of place, the context of the earth, a lexicon we dont hear too much in built environment … and yet may be just the rethinking we need.

And, last week we had the Arup report for the Academy of Sustainable Communities, Mind the Gap which assessed the gaps in the supply and demand of skills required to deliver the sustainable communities programme. These are a combination of technical skills, linked to regeneration and the built environment, and generic skills, linked to, for example, finance and project management, leadership and communication and in summary

The key finding is that England faces a significant shortage of qualified professionals with the necessary skills to deliver sustainable communities between now and 2012…. A national drive to address labour shortages and skills gaps is needed .. and … Organisational culture must evolve.

Are we, in the built environment,  stuck in an accommodationist view – ie we can accommodate climate and ecological change, by embracing a fair weather environmental approach,  by using technology and through a little legislation – but crucially without changing lifestyles, or as the Arup report suggests educational and training issues.

A dangerous view and route to take:

The effects of climate change will be felt sooner than scientists realised and the world must learn to live with the effects, experts said yesterday. Martin Parry, a climate scientist with the Met Office, said destructive changes in temperature, rainfall and agriculture were now forecast to occur several decades earlier than thought.