I see what Alex means by the lack of real government action, but I
believe we have a chance to change this now, by promoting tradable
carbon quotas, which I think is the fairest and most effective way of
bringing down our emissions. There are various schemes under this
heading, but I am most familiar with the one promoted in Mayer Hillman's
book 'How we can save the planet'. Individuals would be given tradeable
quotas for the proportion of emissions directly attributable to
individuals (basically private transport and home energy bills). Each
individual would be given a quota equal to the average (though children
would receive a smaller quota) and would be able to sell any spare quota
they didn't need to energy brokers who would then resell it to those who
had run out of quota. Since most people consume less than the average,
most people would have quota to sell (which should make the scheme very
popular!). In order to reduce emissions the quota would be reduced each
year, so people could only continue to remain within their given quota
allowance and have some spare quota to sell by reducing their energy
consumption (which might mean travelling less, or buying an electric
car, or insulating their house etc - the beauty of this system is that
it gives people a *choice* of how to reduce their emissions). Of course
those who have an energy profligate lifestyle, for instance by flying
off to some exotic location several times a year, are going to have to
pay to buy extra quota.
We have to get *all* political parties to support this, which may not be
all that difficult if we can get the public behind it, and given that
most of them will be getting money through selling quota, that should be
easy, so long as we make a good job of explaining the scheme. The Green
Party already support tradeable quotas, as do the climate change
minister Elliot Morley and the chief scientific advisor Sir David King
(though this may be because he sees it as a way of bringing back nuclear
power, which he supports, which would be the case if nuclear energy were
zero carbon rated).
Tradeable carbon quotas are a much more effective way of bringing down
emissions than taxes, since we can never be sure how much we need to
raise the price of energy to cut demand sufficiently, and the amount
would vary with the economic cycle. But since demand for energy is
relatively inelastic, prices would probably have to increase
considerably, which would create great hardship for the poor. Given
that thousands of (mainly elderly) people already die each year because
of fuel poverty, increasing the price of energy significantly is likely
to prove politically impossible.
To those who object to all trading as it involves 'privatising the
atmosphere' I would say that really the scheme outlined above involves
'socialising the atmosphere' since individuals would be given *equal*
rights to pollute (apart from children being given a smaller allowance,
in line with their smaller needs)
Chris
alex plows wrote:
>
> apols for typos i appreciate your points Iris and i also appreicate
> your optimism
> compared to the political and cultural "climate" post -Rio things have
> come a long way and the green movement can claim a lot of the cred for
> this, we have broiughht green thinking to the poltical maninstream
> through many differnt formats; becuase the diuscourse of the real (as
> opposed to 'greenwash' ) sustainable development paradigm has been the
> only one to consisnetly make sense/ be proved right since Rio. and
> themes like food miles, local production and conspumtion etc have made
> links with smnall farmers and issues of rural poor as much as other
> issues on personal responsibility and SOME half haearted moves towards
> infrastructural support for SD form policy makers. you ask any small
> business how much help they actually receive eg trying to reduce orr
> cut down on emissionsa. the info is out there nbut the support
> networks are lacking. the 'big hitters' like shell will get their ISO
> standard but its the SMEs who need most support.
>
> also change has not happened not fast enough (even tho an econmoic as
> much as an envtl case can be made for SD) and prob is while eg
> infrastructiure develpment- out of town siupermarkets., the roads
> netwrok etc- continues to developp, and our railways get run down even
> further, then smale scale shifts are all a bit beside the point. i am
> still waiuting for holistic joined up thinking on this one as i think
> ,many in the green movement are. i am sick of targets for co2
> reduction by 2020 etc etc which come in with a big fanfare and die out
> in a fizzle.
> this is what i mean re optimismism and pessimism
> i presonally am not prepared to give the UK govt any kind of carrot
> when i think they need more stciks. anyuone been on the railiways
> recently? seen the plans for roadbuiolding? they can have as many post
> kytot targets as they like but we all know that short term eceonomic
> devpment is the focus of every govt due to the poltiical system- what
> poltical interest do govts have in buil;ding SD social capacity for
> future govts to reap?
> but also well done to all of us for the changes we have mangaed to
> help catalyse :-) i hope as Iris forecasts(!) that public uptake will
> be rapid. but they will need structural, resourced, support. my
> feeling is most people have their heads down trying to pay off their
> ,mortgage and worrying how they will meet bills post xmas.
> i have a few papers available online re greens and the fuel protests
> and the anti road movement and one or two other things if anyone
> interested
> best
> dr alexandra plows
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> *To:* Chris Keene <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> *Cc:* alexandra plows <mailto:[log in to unmask]> ;
> Andrew Simms <mailto:[log in to unmask]> ; Aubrey Meyer
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]> ; Crisis Forum
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]> ; Leila Kiersch
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]> ; GP climate
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]> ; GP energy
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]> ;
> [log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]> ; Ian Finlayson
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]> ; James Abbott
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]> ; John Lanchbery
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]> ; Jon Clarke
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]> ; Jon Fuller
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]> ; Louise Sales
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]> ; Mark B
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]> ; Miriam Kennett
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]> ; Nick Dunlop
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]> ; Nick Rau
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]> ; Nick Robins
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]> ; Peter Bunyard
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]> ; Phil Thornhill
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]> ; Raya Sadi
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]> ; C Roberts
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]> ; Stephen Lawrence
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]> ; Titus Alexander
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]> ; Vanja Bjorke <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> *Sent:* Thursday, November 10, 2005 9:58 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [Gp-energy] Green rules [on renewable energy] are
> spreading out ofLondon
>
>
> I think the important thing here is not the fact that it is 10% or
> 20% or whatever figure is decided upon but the gradual change of
> public perception that renewable energy is feasible, cost
> effective and likely to be increasing in the future. Once you
> have got past the resistance to change in most people's mindset
> and it is seen that industry and the public sector are employing
> the new technologies, it will take off very quickly. Lead-free
> petrol started off slow and now you cannot buy leaded any more.
>
> What is called ' a radical energy policy' now will be commonplace
> within a few years time. (Well I am hopeful)
>
> Iris
>
> _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
> IMPORTANT: The information contained in this e-mail and attachment
> (if any) is intended for the person to whom it is addressed and
> may contain confidential and/or privileged information. The
> contents of this message may contain personal views which are not
> the views of NEC Europe Ltd or its subsidiaries, unless
> specifically stated. You should not copy, retain, forward or
> disclose its contents to anyone else, or take any action based
> upon it, if it is not addressed to you personally. If you have
> received this e-mail in error please contact the sender
> immediately. Any legally binding agreement resulting from its
> content must be made separately in a printed medium.
> _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
>
>
>
> *Chris Keene <[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>*
> Sent by: [log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>
> 09/11/2005 11:44
>
>
> To
> GP climate <[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>, GP energy
> <[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>, Crisis Forum
> <[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>, Ian Finlayson
> <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>, Titus
> Alexander <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>, Mark B
> <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>, Andrew Simms
> <[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>, Aubrey Meyer
> <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>, Miriam Kennett
> <[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>, Phil Thornhill
> <[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>, Jon Fuller
> <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>,
> Peter Bunyard <[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>, Nick Robins
> <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>,
> James Abbott <[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>, Raya Sadi <[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>, John Lanchbery
> <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>,
> Jon Clarke <[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>, C Roberts
> <[log in to unmask]>, alexandra plows
> <[log in to unmask]>, Louise Sales
> <[log in to unmask]>, Nick Rau <[log in to unmask]>, Stephen
> Lawrence <[log in to unmask]>, Vanja Bjorke
> <[log in to unmask]>, Leila Kiersch <[log in to unmask]>, Nick
> Dunlop <[log in to unmask]>
> cc
>
> Subject
> [Gp-energy] Green rules [on renewable energy] are spreading out
> of London
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On first sight this might look an encouraging development, but
> when you
> compare it to the scale of the problem it is seen to be totally
> inadequate. Most of these new developments are going to be around in
> the year 2050 and according to the Green Party Manifesto for a
> Sustainable Society we are going to need to cut our carbon
> emissions by
> about 90% by then, the developments ought to be generating at
> least 90%
> renewable energy not 10%.
>
> Chris
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Green rules are spreading out of London
> Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 19:15:09 +0000
> From: Chris Keene <[log in to unmask]>
> To: chris keene <[log in to unmask]>
>
>
>
> Developers join climate of change
>
> Green rules are spreading out of London, says Terry Slavin
> Sunday October 30, 2005
>
> Observer
> The Mayor of London has seen the city's future, and it's green. Ken
> Livingstone's radical energy strategy, which requires all planning
> applications for developments referrable to him to generate at
> least 10
> per cent of their energy needs from renewable sources, is having a
> far-reaching impact on property developers as they are forced to
> get up
> to speed with wind turbines, solar panels and borehole cooling - and
> take the cost of installing the new technologies on the chin.
>
> Only large developments need a green light from the mayor's
> office, but
> the 10 per cent mantra is also on the lips of local councils. A
> grassroots planning revolution that began in south London is fast
> spreading across Britain.
>
> Adrian Hewitt, principal environment officer of Merton council in
> south-west London, which was the first to bring in a 10 per cent
> renewables requirement for commercial developments a year ago,
> says 87
> councils across the country have followed Merton's lead. In London
> alone, 17 of 33 other local authorities have a similar requirement.
> North and south Devon, Cambridge, York, Milton Keynes, Canterbury,
> the
> Isle of Wight and Gateshead have also espoused 10 per cent and
> Leicester, Liverpool, Edinburgh and Brighton will not be far behind.
>
> Some developers have embraced the revolution. Neil Pennell, project
> engineering director for Land Securities, the UK's largest quoted
> property company, said: 'We are all conscious that we have to
> provide a
> contribution to mitigating climate change.'
>
> He said that Land Securities was incorporating renewables and energy
> efficiency measures in its design of office developments long
> before it
> was impelled to do so. 'But a lot of companies won't do it
> voluntarily.
> It's right that [local] government creates targets and takes the
> whole
> marketplace along.'
>
> Quintain Estates, which is leading the £1.3 billion regeneration
> of the
> land around Wembley Stadium and, with partners Lend Lease, the £5bn
> regeneration of the Greenwich peninsula, has announced a 50/50 joint
> venture with Bioregional, initiator of the BedZED zero carbon
> eco-community in south London. The joint venture, BioRegional
> Quintain,
> plans to build 500 homes a year on BedZED principles around the UK.
>
> Quintain director Nick Shattock said his company staunchly supported
> what Livingstone is doing in London: 'The agenda is changing. Led
> by the
> ODPM [Office of the Deputy Prime Minister] and the mayor of
> London, the
> least damaging approach is no longer good enough. We think it [the
> requirement to incorporate renewables] is going to be the norm and
> are
> keen to get a technology lead, if not a market lead, before it
> becomes
> the norm.'
>
> That the developer of the £335 million Caesar's casino complex at
> Wembley is also planning to build homes on deep-green principles
> of zero
> waste, zero carbon and sustainable transport for the mass market is
> indication of how much has changed.
>
> John Slaughter of the Home Builders Federation said the issue is a
> big
> concern for his members. He said renewable technologies add to build
> cost and because mainstream consumers were not prepared to pay a
> premium
> to be green, profit margins are being hit. 'At this stage of the
> market
> it's not necessarily economic to deliver [renewables] on a mainstream
> basis for new development,' he said. 'You can't charge an extra
> £6,000
> or £7,000 for a home. There isn't the demand. And it's a significant
> amount of money to take out of margins.'
>
> He said a plethora of local councils developing individual
> policies was
> not the best way to cut carbon emissions. 'It's potentially a
> nightmare
> [for developers] if you have a whole string of local authorities with
> different requirements. We think it's better to work through national
> policy measures such as building regulations. The government is also
> working on a [voluntary] code for sustainable buildings.'
>
> Building regulations are due to be revised next April, and
> designed to
> increase the energy efficiency of new buildings by 25 per cent. This
> coincides with implementation of the EU energy efficiency in
> buildings
> directive, which will require buildings to be certified for their
> energy
> efficiency in much the same way that household refrigerators are
> rated.
>
> But for the renewables industry the 10 per cent requirement is the
> one
> bright spot when the industry is on a knife-edge, facing a yawning
> funding gap between the imminent end of two DTI schemes, Clear
> Skies and
> the Solar PV Major Demonstration programme, and their successor,
> the low
> carbon buildings programme, which is not expected to begin giving
> grants
> until next summer at earliest.
>
> Since 2002, the DTI has pumped £43m into grants for small users to
> install renewable technologies, but the low carbon buildings
> programme
> is expected to be far less generous. It is a severe disappointment
> for
> the industry after two energy white papers which promised long-term
> funding for photovoltaics and other renewables technologies.
>
> 'Since the white paper the one success story has come from local
> government,' said Sebastian Berry, head of micro-renewables at the
> Renewable Power Association.
>
> Hewitt in Merton estimates that the value of the environmental
> technologies that will be installed as a result of his borough's
> policy
> is £3m a year: 'If 250 of the largest 400 boroughs had this rule, it
> racks up to monumental sums: £710m a year.'
>
> Developers who have already had to dance to the 10 per cent tune
> seem to
> have emerged relatively unscarred. Hemel Hempstead-based developer
> Chancerygate recently finished building 4,500 sq m of industrial
> warehouse units in Merton. It installed 10 micro-wind turbines,
> photovoltaics and a raft of energy saving measures to satisfy the
> planners.
>
> 'The measures added about 3 per cent to our building costs and we
> had to
> absorb that,' said Charlie Withers, a director of Chancerygate. 'For
> both parties it was a learning curve, but we've come out the other
> end
> and the overall experience worked well.'
>
> And it has not deterred Chancerygate from seeking planning permission
> for other sites in Merton. With more councils fast joining the
> bandwagon, said Withers, renewables is not an issue developers
> will be
> able to avoid.
>
> Environmental extras
>
> There is a clear link between the market value of commercial property
> and its environmental credentials, according to a study by the Royal
> Institution of Chartered Surveyors released last week.
>
> The study, which looked at how environmental features added value to
> buildings in the UK, Canada and the US, found that green buildings
> can
> earn higher rents and prices, attract tenants and buyers more quickly
> and cut tenant turnover. They also cost less to operate and
> maintain and
> benefit occupants more than the underlying asset value as a result of
> increased productivity from staff working in a more comfortable
> environment.
>
> The report stresses that green buildings could command higher
> rents if
> there was greater recognition of the 'hidden benefits'.
>
> RICS chief executive Louis Armstrong points out that buildings
> account
> for about 40 per cent of carbon dioxide emissions: 'The property and
> construction industries have a leading role to play in tackling
> climate
> change. This work shows that achieving real environmental benefits
> can
> also be profitable.'
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gp-energy mailing list
> [log in to unmask]
> http://lists.greenparty.org.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gp-energy
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> Version: 7.0.289 / Virus Database: 267.12.8 - Release Date: 03/11/2005
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> *To:* Chris Keene <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> *Cc:* alexandra plows <mailto:[log in to unmask]> ;
> Andrew Simms <mailto:[log in to unmask]> ; Aubrey Meyer
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]> ; Crisis Forum
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]> ; Leila Kiersch
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]> ; GP climate
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]> ; GP energy
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]> ;
> [log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]> ; Ian Finlayson
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]> ; James Abbott
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]> ; John Lanchbery
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]> ; Jon Clarke
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]> ; Jon Fuller
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]> ; Louise Sales
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]> ; Mark B
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]> ; Miriam Kennett
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]> ; Nick Dunlop
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]> ; Nick Rau
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]> ; Nick Robins
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]> ; Peter Bunyard
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]> ; Phil Thornhill
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]> ; Raya Sadi
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]> ; C Roberts
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]> ; Stephen Lawrence
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]> ; Titus Alexander
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]> ; Vanja Bjorke <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> *Sent:* Thursday, November 10, 2005 9:58 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [Gp-energy] Green rules [on renewable energy] are
> spreading out ofLondon
>
>
> I think the important thing here is not the fact that it is 10% or
> 20% or whatever figure is decided upon but the gradual change of
> public perception that renewable energy is feasible, cost
> effective and likely to be increasing in the future. Once you
> have got past the resistance to change in most people's mindset
> and it is seen that industry and the public sector are employing
> the new technologies, it will take off very quickly. Lead-free
> petrol started off slow and now you cannot buy leaded any more.
>
> What is called ' a radical energy policy' now will be commonplace
> within a few years time. (Well I am hopeful)
>
> Iris
>
> _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
> IMPORTANT: The information contained in this e-mail and attachment
> (if any) is intended for the person to whom it is addressed and
> may contain confidential and/or privileged information. The
> contents of this message may contain personal views which are not
> the views of NEC Europe Ltd or its subsidiaries, unless
> specifically stated. You should not copy, retain, forward or
> disclose its contents to anyone else, or take any action based
> upon it, if it is not addressed to you personally. If you have
> received this e-mail in error please contact the sender
> immediately. Any legally binding agreement resulting from its
> content must be made separately in a printed medium.
> _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
>
>
>
> *Chris Keene <[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>*
> Sent by: [log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>
> 09/11/2005 11:44
>
>
> To
> GP climate <[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>, GP energy
> <[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>, Crisis Forum
> <[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>, Ian Finlayson
> <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>, Titus
> Alexander <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>, Mark B
> <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>, Andrew Simms
> <[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>, Aubrey Meyer
> <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>, Miriam Kennett
> <[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>, Phil Thornhill
> <[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>, Jon Fuller
> <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>,
> Peter Bunyard <[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>, Nick Robins
> <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>,
> James Abbott <[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>, Raya Sadi <[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>, John Lanchbery
> <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>,
> Jon Clarke <[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>, C Roberts
> <[log in to unmask]>, alexandra plows
> <[log in to unmask]>, Louise Sales
> <[log in to unmask]>, Nick Rau <[log in to unmask]>, Stephen
> Lawrence <[log in to unmask]>, Vanja Bjorke
> <[log in to unmask]>, Leila Kiersch <[log in to unmask]>, Nick
> Dunlop <[log in to unmask]>
> cc
>
> Subject
> [Gp-energy] Green rules [on renewable energy] are spreading out
> of London
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On first sight this might look an encouraging development, but
> when you
> compare it to the scale of the problem it is seen to be totally
> inadequate. Most of these new developments are going to be around in
> the year 2050 and according to the Green Party Manifesto for a
> Sustainable Society we are going to need to cut our carbon
> emissions by
> about 90% by then, the developments ought to be generating at
> least 90%
> renewable energy not 10%.
>
> Chris
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Green rules are spreading out of London
> Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 19:15:09 +0000
> From: Chris Keene <[log in to unmask]>
> To: chris keene <[log in to unmask]>
>
>
>
> Developers join climate of change
>
> Green rules are spreading out of London, says Terry Slavin
> Sunday October 30, 2005
>
> Observer
> The Mayor of London has seen the city's future, and it's green. Ken
> Livingstone's radical energy strategy, which requires all planning
> applications for developments referrable to him to generate at
> least 10
> per cent of their energy needs from renewable sources, is having a
> far-reaching impact on property developers as they are forced to
> get up
> to speed with wind turbines, solar panels and borehole cooling - and
> take the cost of installing the new technologies on the chin.
>
> Only large developments need a green light from the mayor's
> office, but
> the 10 per cent mantra is also on the lips of local councils. A
> grassroots planning revolution that began in south London is fast
> spreading across Britain.
>
> Adrian Hewitt, principal environment officer of Merton council in
> south-west London, which was the first to bring in a 10 per cent
> renewables requirement for commercial developments a year ago,
> says 87
> councils across the country have followed Merton's lead. In London
> alone, 17 of 33 other local authorities have a similar requirement.
> North and south Devon, Cambridge, York, Milton Keynes, Canterbury,
> the
> Isle of Wight and Gateshead have also espoused 10 per cent and
> Leicester, Liverpool, Edinburgh and Brighton will not be far behind.
>
> Some developers have embraced the revolution. Neil Pennell, project
> engineering director for Land Securities, the UK's largest quoted
> property company, said: 'We are all conscious that we have to
> provide a
> contribution to mitigating climate change.'
>
> He said that Land Securities was incorporating renewables and energy
> efficiency measures in its design of office developments long
> before it
> was impelled to do so. 'But a lot of companies won't do it
> voluntarily.
> It's right that [local] government creates targets and takes the
> whole
> marketplace along.'
>
> Quintain Estates, which is leading the £1.3 billion regeneration
> of the
> land around Wembley Stadium and, with partners Lend Lease, the £5bn
> regeneration of the Greenwich peninsula, has announced a 50/50 joint
> venture with Bioregional, initiator of the BedZED zero carbon
> eco-community in south London. The joint venture, BioRegional
> Quintain,
> plans to build 500 homes a year on BedZED principles around the UK.
>
> Quintain director Nick Shattock said his company staunchly supported
> what Livingstone is doing in London: 'The agenda is changing. Led
> by the
> ODPM [Office of the Deputy Prime Minister] and the mayor of
> London, the
> least damaging approach is no longer good enough. We think it [the
> requirement to incorporate renewables] is going to be the norm and
> are
> keen to get a technology lead, if not a market lead, before it
> becomes
> the norm.'
>
> That the developer of the £335 million Caesar's casino complex at
> Wembley is also planning to build homes on deep-green principles
> of zero
> waste, zero carbon and sustainable transport for the mass market is
> indication of how much has changed.
>
> John Slaughter of the Home Builders Federation said the issue is a
> big
> concern for his members. He said renewable technologies add to build
> cost and because mainstream consumers were not prepared to pay a
> premium
> to be green, profit margins are being hit. 'At this stage of the
> market
> it's not necessarily economic to deliver [renewables] on a mainstream
> basis for new development,' he said. 'You can't charge an extra
> £6,000
> or £7,000 for a home. There isn't the demand. And it's a significant
> amount of money to take out of margins.'
>
> He said a plethora of local councils developing individual
> policies was
> not the best way to cut carbon emissions. 'It's potentially a
> nightmare
> [for developers] if you have a whole string of local authorities with
> different requirements. We think it's better to work through national
> policy measures such as building regulations. The government is also
> working on a [voluntary] code for sustainable buildings.'
>
> Building regulations are due to be revised next April, and
> designed to
> increase the energy efficiency of new buildings by 25 per cent. This
> coincides with implementation of the EU energy efficiency in
> buildings
> directive, which will require buildings to be certified for their
> energy
> efficiency in much the same way that household refrigerators are
> rated.
>
> But for the renewables industry the 10 per cent requirement is the
> one
> bright spot when the industry is on a knife-edge, facing a yawning
> funding gap between the imminent end of two DTI schemes, Clear
> Skies and
> the Solar PV Major Demonstration programme, and their successor,
> the low
> carbon buildings programme, which is not expected to begin giving
> grants
> until next summer at earliest.
>
> Since 2002, the DTI has pumped £43m into grants for small users to
> install renewable technologies, but the low carbon buildings
> programme
> is expected to be far less generous. It is a severe disappointment
> for
> the industry after two energy white papers which promised long-term
> funding for photovoltaics and other renewables technologies.
>
> 'Since the white paper the one success story has come from local
> government,' said Sebastian Berry, head of micro-renewables at the
> Renewable Power Association.
>
> Hewitt in Merton estimates that the value of the environmental
> technologies that will be installed as a result of his borough's
> policy
> is £3m a year: 'If 250 of the largest 400 boroughs had this rule, it
> racks up to monumental sums: £710m a year.'
>
> Developers who have already had to dance to the 10 per cent tune
> seem to
> have emerged relatively unscarred. Hemel Hempstead-based developer
> Chancerygate recently finished building 4,500 sq m of industrial
> warehouse units in Merton. It installed 10 micro-wind turbines,
> photovoltaics and a raft of energy saving measures to satisfy the
> planners.
>
> 'The measures added about 3 per cent to our building costs and we
> had to
> absorb that,' said Charlie Withers, a director of Chancerygate. 'For
> both parties it was a learning curve, but we've come out the other
> end
> and the overall experience worked well.'
>
> And it has not deterred Chancerygate from seeking planning permission
> for other sites in Merton. With more councils fast joining the
> bandwagon, said Withers, renewables is not an issue developers
> will be
> able to avoid.
>
> Environmental extras
>
> There is a clear link between the market value of commercial property
> and its environmental credentials, according to a study by the Royal
> Institution of Chartered Surveyors released last week.
>
> The study, which looked at how environmental features added value to
> buildings in the UK, Canada and the US, found that green buildings
> can
> earn higher rents and prices, attract tenants and buyers more quickly
> and cut tenant turnover. They also cost less to operate and
> maintain and
> benefit occupants more than the underlying asset value as a result of
> increased productivity from staff working in a more comfortable
> environment.
>
> The report stresses that green buildings could command higher
> rents if
> there was greater recognition of the 'hidden benefits'.
>
> RICS chief executive Louis Armstrong points out that buildings
> account
> for about 40 per cent of carbon dioxide emissions: 'The property and
> construction industries have a leading role to play in tackling
> climate
> change. This work shows that achieving real environmental benefits
> can
> also be profitable.'
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gp-energy mailing list
> [log in to unmask]
> http://lists.greenparty.org.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gp-energy
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> Version: 7.0.289 / Virus Database: 267.12.8 - Release Date: 03/11/2005
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
>Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
>Version: 7.0.289 / Virus Database: 267.12.8 - Release Date: 03/11/2005
>
>
|
