However, as I was browsing through my copy of h&v news this week I came across an article by Kelly Butler of TEHVA, some of which I agreed with. As I said when I started blogging, changing my mind is my prerogative:

it is clear that as the generation of electricity de-carbonises, any form of heating that uses electricity increases in carbon defined popularity. But de-carbonisation is some way off yet and it takes a big leap of faith in political terms to guide us towards a more strategic set of policy instruments that appreciate that the services of the future need to built into the houses of today.

His crystal ball is showing him a future where the grid is decarbonised and it’s business as usual. Butler goes on to point out the applications where electric heating is suited:

domestic electric heating and hot water services are ideally suited to dwellings that have:

• Low heat requirements and the need for highly responsive well controlled heating, which is why they are so popular in new apartments.

• Restrictions on other services, such as gas pipe for high rise or economically unviable CHP; again relevant in apartments.

• Small hot water draw-off, with smaller cylinders and in some cases instantaneous delivery.

• Some form of renewable such as solar or heat pumps which needs to work with a supplementary heat source.

However, one thing Butler tries to gloss over is the fact that heating water using electricity (which is a scarce resource) could be at the detriment of using it for other uses which cannot be fuelled any other way. The grid capacity is just not there. Also the vision of business as usual with a decarbonised grid seems rosy and contrary to say, a Transitions Towns type vision. As Butler says himself, it is a big leap of faith, but I suppose it is one possible scenario of the future.

I wasn’t completely won over by the electric heating special feature though – the page opposite had a marketing pitch from an electric heating manufacturer which was wholly lacking in substance. Electric heating has it’s place, and will probably continue to replace some gas applications in the future, but an article on how to ‘trick’ Part L compliance does still not sit well with me.

• How to save money running a startup (17 really good tips) – The article that started the workaholic furore. Leaving that point aside, the tips are pretty good, especially the second monitor and the expensive chairs. Look after your staff appears to be the mantra – it pays for itself in the end.
• Fire the workaholics – This response by 37 Signals to Jason Calacanis’ (slightly) misrepresented tip of firing folks who are not workaholics has some good points. Worth following the thread to read Jason’s original and subsequent posts.
• Yorkshire’s Top Architects – Carey Jones knock SMC Gower off the top of the chart and DLA jump 3 places. Rance Booth and Smith drop from 21 to 30. All the usual suspects really…
• Go Caroline! – Building – Chris Addison (best known to me from ‘The Thick of It’ – what’s he doing writing for Building?) spoofs Caroline Flint. Best line – ‘I saw it on Grand Designs once’.
• Lightweight vs Heavyweight Construction Seminar – 13th March, Bristol – Is it better from an environmental point of view to build lightweight framed construction with insulation infill or heavyweight masonry construction with thermal mass?
• What’s wrong with cheap flights to Krakow? – Building – What on earth was Mark Leftly thinking? Gets quite rightly trounced in the comments, not so much for his views (he’s welcome to them) but the lack of journalistic rigour to the article. Nil point. Could do much better…
• Second Life avatars and Brazilians: the same carbon footprint – Ack! The internet’s carbon footprint revealed! Not good news…
• A New Form of Accounting as Carbon Calculator Goes Live – CALM is the first free business-based calculator which shows the balance between annual emissions and carbon sequestration of the key greenhouse gases associated with the activities of individual land-based businesses.
• Government fails to deliver on Part L – members of M&E Sustainability have denounced the Govt?s reluctance to enforce Part L. Describing the situation as ?shambolic?, they have raised serious doubts about the future impact of of other sustainability measures.
• Planning policy on renewable energy – Scottish proposal to dump planning permission for domestic renewables
• As Indians get power, carbon emissions rise – India has pledged to ensure that its per capita emissions never exceed those of the developed world. It points out that it contributes 4.6 percent of the world’s greenhouse gases although its people represent 17 percent of the world’s population.
• ASHRAE green building standard (189.1P) open for second public review- 3/3/2008 1:43:00 PM – Building Design & Construction – Proposed Standard 189.1 will provide minimum requirements for the design of high-performance new commercial buildings and major renovation projects, addressing energy efficiency, a building?s impact on the atmosphere, sustainable sites, water use etc
• Water to be the next commoditised resource – Wind generation requires just five litres of water to generate five megawatts, the average amount of energy consumed by a household per year. Coal requires 10,000 litres, while nuclear needs 12,500, to produce the same amount of power.
• Rising energy prices could make microgeneration viable – Faithful and Gould at EcoBuild

para.  20:

In particular, planning authorities should:
– not require applicants for energy development to demonstrate either the overall need for renewable energy and its distribution, nor question the energy justification for why a proposal for such development must be sited in a particular location;
– ensure any local approach to protecting landscape and townscape is consistent with PPS22 and does not preclude the supply of any type of renewable energy other than in the most exceptional circumstances;
– alongside any criteria-based policy developed in line with PPS22, consider identifying suitable areas for renewable and low-carbon energy sources, and supporting infrastructure, where this would help secure the development of such sources, but in doing so take care to avoid stifling innovation including by rejecting proposals solely because they are outside areas identified for energy generation; and

- expect a proportion of the energy supply of new development to be secured from decentralised and renewable or low-carbon energy sources.

Now read that again with the mindset that regulation exists to form boundaries.  Is it just me, or is this giving permission to innovate (which surely does not need to be given).  An awkward way of saying things, in my opinion – being specifically told what we don’t have to prove…

From the press release: The collection of renewable energy statistics – began in 1989 via a project carried out by ETSU (now FES – a part of AEA Technology Environment) on behalf of the UK Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) and the Statistical Office of the European Communities (SOEC, also referred to as Eurostat). The project identified all relevant renewable energy sources and, where possible, information was collected on the amounts of energy derived from each. The database now contains 17 years of data from 1989 to 2005. RESTATS currently holds information on heat and electricity generated from all the following sources:

* Biofuels, including the combustion of biomass and wastes, co-firing, gas from landfill sites and digestion processes
* Hydro-electricity, both large and small-scale
* Wave power
* Wind turbines and wind-farms – onshore and offshore
* Solar – active solar heating and photovoltaics
* Geothermal aquifers
Information contained in the RESTATS database provides support to Government and Industry in a range of activities related to renewable energy. In particular, it is perhaps the most reliable means by which the success of the UK New and Renewable Energy Programme can be measured and monitored. More info at http://www.restats.org.uk

The backlash begins in earnest…

 It’s all a bit predictable – two steps forward and one step back again. Public awareness of issues such as carbon footprinting, renewable energy and water conservation are probably at their highest in the past 20 years. And so, the irksome critical naysayer’s start to inch forward their views, knocking back what have generally been positive messages (and as I have said before – there is no point in scaring people into being green).

 I have made my views on the B&Q Windsave turbines clear here – there are very few sites in the UK where they will be effective and the payback is still uneconomical. That said, the tone of this article in the Guardian is uncalled for in my opinion.

Arup are being slightly more bullish in their predictions. In a report undertaken for Zurich, looking at typical housing in 2080, they proclaim :

 ‘Wind energy systems are one of the most cost-effective, home-based, renewable energy systems available. Depending on the location of the home, a small wind energy system can lower an electricity bill by 50 to 90%.’

It follows an article entitled ‘Wind turbines ‘may actually do more harm than good’ in The Daily Mail of all places (::via Treehugger). Whilst analysis of some of their arguments concurs with my own analysis of Windsave, I have a few issues with the article.

::thanks also to Shades of Green

The voluntary pursuit of any activity, which encompasses concern for energy efficiency, environment, water conservation, use of recycled products and renewable energy is defined as green.

and

Green buildings embody a design intent on balancing environmental responsiveness, resource efficiency, and cultural and community sensitivity.

Leading UK Sustainability Expert Joins Enermodal Calgary: Matt Grace, B.Eng., M.Sc., C.Env.

Matt Grace brings to Enermodal 12 years of professional experience in sustainable building design and assessment, including work on office, institutional, industrial and housing developments, renewable energy and energy efficiency. He has conducted over 150 assessments of green buildings, developed BREEAM (the UK equivalent to LEED), and conducted building research for the International Energy Agency. Matt’s education includes degrees in both Engineering and Energy and the Environment, and he is a Chartered Environmentalist (UK). We look forward to the fresh perspective on green building design and rating that Matt brings to Enermodal.

Matt was last seen at Ferguson Brown, whose website is still under development some 8 months after I first reported it ‘coming soon’.  The Calgary office of Enermodal opened in November from what I can gather.

Good luck in Canada, Matt…

Topics covered include recycling (I covered recent figures on Leeds here),  lightbulbs, plastic bags, food, carbon allowances (DEFRA’s rough guide available here (pdf, 41pages) and the RSA’s working paper came out today (pdf, 7 pages)) and nuclear energy.

Moderator says: This webchat will start at 1030 GMT on Thursday 1 March 2007.We look forward to seeing your questions.Moderator says: Good morning and welcome to our webchat.  We’ve had a few hundred questions but we’ll try and get as many answered as we can in the hour that Mr Miliband has available.

Moderator says: We hope to be underway in a moment or two

David says: Good morning.  I have just come from a Cabinet meeting where amongst other things we talked about climate change so I hope I can reflect back some of the discussion in answering your questions this morning.

Martin Maloney: We are asked to recycle more yet my local authority (Kirklees) only collects my green recycling bin every 4 weeks against the weekly collection of my grey rubbish bin, what will be done to address this imbalance and thus make recycling far easier for the british people?

David replies:  That’s interesting because recyclying rates haave gone up four fold in the last 7 or 8 years.  I don’t know the figures for Kirklees but I would be surprised if they have not risen a lot.  I agree with you we need tomake recycling easy – that’s why we have curbside collection for 90% of households.  Each local authority has its own contract so that explains the different approach in different parts of the country.More details on this can be found on DirectgovSam Parry: I have heard you speak in the past about personal carbon allowances and personal carbon trading. I think this could have huge potential. Are there any plans for such a scheme to be implemented in the UK?

David replies: Thanks.  You can see details of the debate at my blog www.davidmiliband.defra.gov.uk.  Households are responsible for 44% of UK emissions.  The idea of personal allowances is that people who are environmentally thrifty would benefit financially and there would be a cost for the highest emitters.  There is a lot of work to be done on the details of the scheme but the Royal Society of Arts have launched a pilot to see if it works.

Andrew Candish: Dear DavidI see that Australia has banned tungsten light bulbs in favour of energy efficient ones. Would it be possible to do the same in the UK?Best wishes
AndrewDavid replies: We are seeking a Europe wide shift to lower energy lightbulbs and are discussing with industry whether there is scope for a voluntary agreement for the UK to move faster.

Julie: When will we finally ban plastic bags? People in general know the implications but still insist on taking them as they are free. I believe 250-300 supermarket bags alone are used per person per year. The poor whale that died in the Thames had bags in it’s stomach!!! Alternatives are available

David replies:  Yesterday we announced an agreement with the retailers to cut by 25% plastic bag use.  One has to look at the details because it turns out that the environmental footrprint  of a lot of paper bags is greater than the plastic bags.Read about what happens to plastics and plastic bagsBeth Hewis: Why are more wind farms rejected in the U.K by local councils than are approved and why do so many have to go to appeal before they can start being built?

David replies: Good question.  The short answer is that the planning system allows people to object.  My view is that wind turbines actually look nice and need to play a big part in raising our renewable electricity supply to 20% of the total.
Gill Rhodes: Have the government considered insisting that all new houses built have some form of alternative energy source-like solar panels? This would not only reduce our use of non renewable energy but the increase in demand would help to reduce the cost of solar panels so they were more affordable for everyone.

David replies: We have comitted that between now and 2016 we will ratchet up the building regulations so that from 2016 every new home must be zero carbon.  I think it is better to mandate a zero carbon outcome rather than insisting on particular technologies.

Carolyn: Does the House of Commons currently have energy saving devices in place? and, if so, in which areas (lighting, heating etc.) and to what extent?

David replies: Jack Straw, the Leader of the House of Commons, is pushing hard on this.  Obviously it is difficult in a building parts of which date back to the 12th century.  But at least every office now has a recycling bin – at least mine does so I assume others do.

Beth Hewis: Why is the government set on increasing incineration targets to 25% when it will simply mean less recycling and that more precious resources are lost forever, not to mention more CO2 being released as well as toxins into the atmosphere?

David replies: Our targets are for diversion from landfill – because landfill creates methane which is 20 times more toxic than carbon dioxide.  We talk about a waste hierachy – re-use where possible, then recycyle, then produce energy from waste and only as a last resort send waste to landfill.

astrojoeuk: With reference to the first question about recycling, my council (Herefordshire) refuses to recycle plastics… even those marked with the swirling recycle logo. Can Mr Milliband contact councils to ensure that they are aware of what they should be doing?

David replies: Interesting.  The problem relates to the high volume/low weight of plastic bottles.  We are certainly in contact with local authorities to see how we can overcome the problem and will be setting out proposals in our new waste strategy soon.

miss Clare bell: Instead of aiming at households to reduce their energy usage why don’t you target businesses, especially electrical retailers who have all their televisions and computers on all day every day. Why can they not just have a selection console that lets the customers switch on which product they want for a specified amount of time? All companies can reduce the amount of energy they use and pressure should be put on them to cut energy consumption.

David replies:  I think we need to do both!  Government has to get its own house in order, business has to play its part.  I think individuals want to be part of it too.Read more on what individuals can do on the Energy Saving Trust website r: We are Primary 6 at the Edinburgh Academy Junior school and we are currently studying the rainforest.We would like to have your thoughts on how long the rainforest will last if we keep using it the way we are.David replies: This is a really important problem.  De-forestation acounts for nearly 20% of greenhouse gas emissions.  I met the coaltion of rainforest nations last year and we are now working to find an international solution that delivers resources to poorer countries to combat the problem of illegal logging.

Mr Fergus Munro: I fully support the construction of new nuclear power stations in the UK. I think we should have done this 5 years ago. Please maintain your plans for the Energy Review, I have not yet read the Sullivan judgement but please keep any reconsultation focussed on resolving any procedural issues. If private industry is building and running the stations, why is cost an issue for the public?

David replies: I have a pragmatic approach to this.  Nuclear is currently 20% of our electricity supply which is the equivalent saving of 150 million tons of carbon compared to coal fired supply.  Nuclear is not a quick fix but I think it has to remain an important part of the electricity mix.

Mrs Jill Dowling: I was very disappointed to hear David Milibands uninformed views on organic produce today. Organic produce is not just a food choice, it is an environmental necessity. The production of nitrogen fertiliser releases a compound into the atmosphere which is 3oo times more potent a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. Conventional farmers rely on this, organic farmers would not touch it.

David replies: I am sorry you were disapointed.  I think the growth of organics to about 4-5% of food supply is a very exciting development and I think it will continue.  However, when I was asked about the scientific consensus on health benefits, I gave the best advice from the Food Standards Agency which is that they are not yet proven.  In respect of the environmental impact there is a very interesting “shopping trolley” report on the DEFRA website which looks at different produce and different methods of production.  I think you will find it interesting.

Mr Richard Billingham: To encourage use of public transport why not make public transport free for children going to school. This will relieve early morning congestion caused by parents taking their children to school.

David replies: I went to secondary school in Leeds and remember my blue free bus pass.  In London it is free now and in my consitituency in the north east there is special provision for young people.  I will ask my friend, Douglas Alexander, the Transport Secretary, what the rules are.

Harriet Crosthwaite: Will the Government use the forthcoming White Paper to mandate smart meters?

David replies: Smart meters allow electricity companies to read your meter without having to visit and in some versions – what are called “real time displays” – allow households to see their electricity use minute by minute.  We are running some pilots at the moment which are encouraging and will certainly report back in the Energy White Paper.

Rowena Moore: I too would like to see firm steps toward personal and business carbon emissions allowances… why is it the Royal Society of Arts who are doing a pilot… seems a strange place for it to happen.. can you expand the governments position on it more please

David replies: Government is running some studies on this but I think the RSA are in quite a good position to run a pilot.  Details of our work are on the DEFRA website.

Alan Covel: We are told that britain produces 2% of the worlds polution and that china`s will increase by 12% per year. so what is the point in taxing us when any reduction we make is whiped out by china, not to mention the USA and India.

David replies: Good question.  There are two reasons for us to take a lead – first, because it is in our economic interest to becoem a low carbon economy and second because we have not got a cat in hell’s chance of persuading developing countries to make responsible decisions if we do not do the right thing ourselves.

Jon Doyle: How does the Minister believe the majority of Britain’s Energy will be generated in a hundred years time?

David replies: Hard question.  I think we will have a mix of low carbon sources – tidal, solar, wind, nuclear and probably continued gas.

rowena moore: why is more pressure not being put on supermarkets directly to reduce food air miles and packaging waste. We seem to take a very hands off attitude to this and they do what will gross them the biggest profit – which is not necessarily best for the environment or for our agricultural economy.

David replies:  We have agreed with the supermarkets to develop an environmental labelling scheme that allows shoppers to see the envrionmental impact of what they are buying.  But don’t forget that Kenyan roses flown to Britain have a much lower environmental footprint than roses grown in Europe in non-renewable energy sourced greenhouses.For more details on the Government’s plans you can read a speech I gave on Mondayjohn furniss: why did you lie about the turkey flu NOT coming from Hungary…before the facts were investigated, what or who were you trying to protect?

David replies:  I did not lie.  I explained clearly to the House of Commons that the turkeys were not Hungarian chicks (February 5th).  At that stage all avenues were being explored but the most likely source was wild birds – the source of every outbreak in Europe.  When the leading hypothesis of wild bird transmission became less likely, as a result of scientific investigation,  we immediately said so.For more information see these responses to the recent outbreak of avian influenza in Suffolk Tim Duke: Now consumers are starting to recycle, what plans does the government have to get businesses to recycle more, especially as the commercial sector produces vast amounts more waste than householders?

David replies: The figures show higher levels of recycyling by the commercial sector but we obviously want to push further and are looking at how we can make most progress on some of the biggest waste streams.

John Berry: Will the government support measures to faclitate a more dispersed model of energy generation? Should the UK’s farmers be looking to diversify into the production of energy for their local communities?

David replies: Yes.  Distributed energy, including combined heat and power and micro-generation, are important parts of the Energy White Paper.  As for farmers, I said in my speech to the National Farmer’s Union conference on Monday that we wanted to support the use of anaerobic digestion technology as a source of energy.

Chris Preist: Please could you say a bit more about some of the promising options being discussed in your meeting with the coalition of rainforest nations, you mentioned in your reply to Primary 6? Thankyou.

David replies: The essential deal is to get resources from the richer north to support sustainable forest management in the south.  The German presidency of the G8 are taking this forward.  The key is obviously to combat illegal logging by creating alternative income flows.

rlemmy: If the government is so concerned with climate change,why have you given the go ahead for the expansion of major airports in the uk,eg Heathrow when it takes the average 747 series boeing 3000 gallons just to take off,and over 30000 gallons over a ten hour flight. With hundreds of flights per day from each airport, why are`nt you chasing big business with the same gusto as the motorist.

David replies:  Who said all these were easy questions!  Aviation represents about 5% of UK greenhouse gases but is rising faster than any other.  We believe aviation must play its part in beating cimate change.  All future developments, following the statement by the Transport secretary in December, will be subject to an emissions test. The key in the end is for overall emissions to come down.For more information about our work on climate change read my speech to the Green Alliance on Tuesdaymr andrew pick: i work as at pat engineer (electrical testing) , and i work out of hours quite often in offices. as im working in these offices at night, or on weekends the amount of pc’s i find that are left on locked, just so people can save a few minutes logging on in a morning, is obsene. if you clamped down on this the amount of electricity saved would be enormous, thus reducing carbon emmisions.
just thought you might be interested to know how big this problem really was, there are after all thousands of offices in the country, work with the electricity companys and fine the wasters.

David replies: This is a really good point.  The legislation we are promoting at European level on standby switches will help tackle this problem.

Michelle Slater: As Honda launch their new “green” livery for the 2007 F1 season, how important do you think getting sport involved in environmental issues is? It seems logical from a motor racing perspective, but would it be a good idea to encourage other sports to spread the word on saving our planet?Thanks
MichelleDavid replies: That is an interesting idea.  Some of the new stadiums – I’m an Arsenal fan – have got high environmental standards.  Let me think how we can rope them in.

David Norman: How will your Climate Change Bill influence the behaviour of any future UK government that’s less committed to tackling climate change than the current government?

David replies: It will create a legislative requirement on all future governments. I think it will be an international landmark when it is published in a couple of weeks time – the first country in the world to establish a clear emissions reduction path between now and 2050.

Tanya: We are asked to ‘do our bit’ but it is a fight all the way – not enough recycling collections, planning decisions against renewable energy – I would like to put a solar panel on my property but have had a battle with planning and now discover that the DTI grant runs out of funds each month within an hour! Why is it that when we try to follow governments advice and do our bit other departments know us back? when will all the departments work together so that we can make some headway?

David replies: We are trying to take on the problems you highlight, for example form October 1st the planning rules will changed to make it as easy to install a wind turbine as a satellite dish and to be fair, recycyling is rising fast.  One thing that will help will be a “carbon calculator” which will be launched in the next couple of months and allow people to see their own carbon footprints and give practical reduce it.

George Percy: I’m doing a university dissertation on the perceptions of woody biomass energy and its promotion by the government and would like to know if the government plans to promote biomass more actively (in line with the rest of Europe), and if so, how?

David replies: Short answer yes.  We have a biomass strategy and will be updating it in the next few months.  Sound like your PhD might help us!

Miss Rosie Harper: My name is Rosie Harper and I am 11 years old.I am writing to tell you that me and my friend Sophie that we feel strongly about the Global warming.If it is possable we would like to have a meeting with you to say what we could do to help the world by saving animals and to get our school and other schools to help the world to be a better place and save living things.

David replies: I try to get around as many schools as possible.  The best thing for the school might be to join the Eco Schools Programme.  If you send me an email via the DEFRA website we can see if I am going to be in your area in the near future.

David says: I have really enjoyed doing this.  Thanks for your questions and I hope you liked some of the answers.

Moderator says:  Thanks for all the questions.Why not let us know what you think of our webchat service by completing this survey

The merits of carbon offsets are hotly debated, so erring on the side of caution would mean abjuring all carbon-emitting activities. That rules out all non-self-propelled travel; it means going off-grid and growing all one’s own food and neither participating in nor purchasing the results of any industrial process. Etc. It’s possible to reduce one’s environmental footprint substantially, even to get it close to zero, but it requires extraordinary effort and self-discipline, and a life far, far out of the mainstream in any developed country.

Any attempt to live carbon free is in the widest sense of the word, not sustainable.  Sustainable development definitions commonly refer to the “interdependent and mutually reinforcing pillars” of sustainable development as economic development, social development, and environmental protection.

By attempting to do a “Tom and Barbara” and withdrawing from society, you ignore the economic and social development pillars.  So whilst carbon free on an individual basis is no doubt an exemplary state, if your sphere of influence does not extend beyond the boundaries of your own home, it cannot said to be contributing to a more sustainable planet.

On the other hand, this is not carte blanche for tearing round the world on private jets attending meetings (“It’s OK – we discussed renewable energy when we got there”) (not that many in the construction industry have private jets, but hey, I’m trying to make a point).  The diagram above shows a sustainable state in the centre.  This is a balancing act – a somewhat precarious one, and no doubt there will be slip-ups along the way. 

Sustainable development is a very complex issue, which includes factors far beyond the normal realm of a corporation (but which are increasingly becoming issues).  We are all now familiar with CSR (corporate social responsibility) but as we delve deeper into this, we will find ourselves becoming involved in politics, economics, social equality – issues which we may not be comfortable with proclaiming a public opinion on, especially as to do so may contradict or compromise longstanding relationships within the industry.

Focussing on carbon produces concrete facts and figures and draws attention away from more intangible or tricky fields of reporting.  The cynic in me fears for many it will be a welcome distraction, and an ideal vehicle in which to to bury bad news.

I believe the challenge which lies ahead for the industry is not how little carbon you have used this year (although that does seem to be flavour of the month at the minute) – but how you align your company activities so they all meet in the centre of the diagram.  In this more critical, political and transparent atmosphere, empty promises and canny marketing ploys will increasingly fail to meet the grade.  The sticky bit comes when deciding how to report this ‘balance’.  In order to report, your position must be stated – on matters which currently are often not made public outside the confines of the company and may very well never have been written down (such as social, economic and political beliefs and models).  There is a further danger that by stating these, rather than merely infering them, companies may alienate staff as well as clients.  Interesting times ahead.

Developers, though, are not the biggest barriers to the spread of sustainable design. If occupiers will pay more for green buildings, developers will build them: it’s as simple as that. Agents are the real sticking point, because they are refusing to let green buildings, claiming they do not have the standby facilities and power generation capacity that occupiers need.

This is a valid point and one which I have recently been exposed to. We have hopefully overcome any reservations by the agents by providing a flexible solution which will suit a broad range of occupiers (the project is currently a speculative office block). Compromises may have to be made on carbon consumption, but a zero energy building which overheats in summer due to high internal loads (people and computers) is obviously inferior to a low carbon building which meets the comfort criteria required by the occupiers. Sustainable construction needs to be seen in a broader context than purely carbon, or we run the risk of building uninhabitable buildings which are not fit for purpose – the opposite of sustainability. The same can be said for renewable energy – slapping 10% renewables on a leaky glass and steel box does not mean you have built sustainably. I’m glad to see that Ken Livingstone is taking a pragmatic approach (not every scheme in London needs to meet 10%, such as King’s Cross – but it does need to be at least considered), but other councils are taking differing views.

We must strive wherever possible to reduce carbon consumption to the absolute minimum, but not to the detriment of the many other parameters to which we all design. Communicating this message to the market is a key challenge, which I look forward to tackling on a daily basis.

From the same conference, Building reports that RIBA want BCO to raise the maximum temperature in summer from 22º to 24º:

Corenet has argued that 30,000 tonnes of carbon could be saved a year if offices were 24°C all year round. This is the equivalent of the carbon generated by 90,000 return flights between London to New York.

Again, this has to be a good idea – and I can’t see the agents arguing against it (could they?). The higher temperature in the winter (from 20º to 24º) seems counterintuitive, until you take into account the fact that with buildings being built to much higher fabric standards and with high internal gains from occupants, the heating season has shortened considerably.

In a tenuous link to the above, it has been announced today by RICS that:

Four leading UK property bodies have formed an alliance to tackle major property issues in a more co-ordinated way while retaining their separate identities and roles.

The formation of the Property Alliance, announced today, will give the commercial property sector a stronger voice on issues where greater coherence can make a difference.

The four members of the Property Alliance are:

• British Council for Offices (BCO)
• British Property Federation (BPF)
• Investment Property Forum (IPF)
• Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS)

Among its first actions the Property Alliance has agreed to set up a pan-industry research group to improve coordination of research programmes across the sector and maximise the impact and reach of that research.

The Alliance will also be undertaking work designed to examine levels of satisfaction among commercial property tenants.

It will worthwhile keeping an eye on this alliance and how their work ties into EPBD (European Performance of Buildings Directive) and it’s impact on the UK commercial property market. It seems to me to be the obvious direction for research to go next.

And stateside I came across a great article in the NYT looking at green architecture and the relationship between design and sustainability.  This quote made me snort:

“I think the trouble with environmentalism is that at most architectural schools it’s been confined to a dreary backwater of mechanical engineering,” he said. “That’s not the way we teach it here.”

They reprieved themselves by going on to state:

David W. Orr, chairman of the Environmental Studies Program at Oberlin College in Ohio, says he thinks that teaching sustainable design requires a whole new educational approach, one that includes architecture but incorporates many other disciplines.

Well said.  Now, how do we go about that particular conundrum?