The Cambridge Programme for Sustainability Leadership (CPSL) has included my book Integrated Sustainable Design of Buildings as one of their 'Top 40 Sustainability Books of 2010'.

The list builds on their previous research which was published by Greenleaf in 2009 as The Top 50 Sustainability Books. The updated list appeared in their recent report A Journey of a Thousand Miles: The State of Sustainability Leadership, 2011, which highlights some of the most interesting practice and research in the sustainability field.

CPSL is a department of the University of Cambridge focused on working with business and government to build leaders’ capacity to meet the needs of society and address critical global challenges. They run a number of executive education programmes and also convene groups of business leaders to engage in the public policy process, for example through The Prince of Wales’s Corporate Leaders Group on Climate Change.

My book is the only one in the list that includes 'building' in its title, the others primarily cover economics, politics, business, CSR, climate change and philosophy. Authors that feature in the list include such luminaries as Al Gore, Prince Charles, Lord Stern, Sara Parkin, Fred Pearce, Bjorn Lomborg and Mike Berners-Lee. A copy of the CPSL report can be downloaded from http://www.cpsl.cam.ac.uk/Resources/State-of-Sustainability-Leadership.aspx

A Rocky Road to 2050: The Coalition’s Budget 2011

This Government remains committed to a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions of 80% by 2050 compared with a 1990 baseline, but perhaps not on its watch. The 2008 Climate Change Act made this a legal requirement of course, as well as an interim target of a 26% reduction in CO2 emissions by 2020. More recently the Government’s 2050 Pathway Analysis has identified the need for massive investment in a combination of demand reduction and decarbonisation of the grid in order to meet carbon targets. The way forward for the construction sector has been eloquently signposted by the Low Carbon Construction Innovation and Growth Team (IGT) report, summarised in a previous posting.

New Homes
Recent policy developments from the Coalition have seriously undermined the likelihood of the 2050 carbon targets being met. Although there may be some good things in the 2011 Budget, it's not so good on the sustainable development front. Despite commitments in the recently published Carbon Plan and recommendations in the final report from the Zero Carbon Hub the Budget has removed the commitment to zero carbon homes being a requirement of Building Regulations from 2016. The requirement has been watered down to cover only those parts of the energy demand that depend on the design of the dwelling, and exclude the so-called 'unregulated emissions', such as white goods, TVs etc, which make up some 33% of carbon emissions. Combined with the recent row-back on the feed in tariff this is disastrous for an industry that has been gearing up for zero carbon for the last 4 years or so! Needless to say this will also impact on the proposals for zero carbon non-residential buildings, scheduled for 2019.
The reasons for this dramatic reversal in policy are clear. The Government is worried that the cost of achieving zero carbon will make homes unaffordable and hence inhibit growth. Unfortunately this results in a vicious circle since the demand for the materials and products required for zero carbon homes will be insufficient to bring the costs down to affordable levels. It also means that many of the manufacturers who have been gearing up for zero carbon will be left high and dry.
One side effect of the redefinition of zero carbon is that developers are less likely to be required to contribute to off-site community energy schemes, unless these are leveraged by Local Authorities through the Community Infrastructure Levy.
Only a few days before the Budget DECC came up with its unscheduled revisions to the feed in tariff (FIT). This dramatically reduces the FIT for PV installations of between 50 and 150 kW to 19p, between 150 and 250 kW to 15p and between 250 kW and 5 MW to 8.5p/kWh. These have been reduced from 32.9p for 10 to 100 kW installations and 30.7p for 100 kW to 5MW. The lowest rate also applies to any stand-alone installations, such as solar power stations. Ostensibly the reason for this is because there has been an excessive demand for FIT for large installations, although it could be argued that this is exactly what should be encouraged (see Germany), and the problem is one of under-funding. It will be interesting to see whether the Renewable Heat Incentive and the Green Deal suffer from the same under-funding problems. This seems highly likely for the latter since it will receive no funding from the Green Investment Bank and will rely instead on an extension of the existing Energy Company Obligation.
Last month the Zero Carbon Hub delivered its latest and final report on the path to zero carbon, which, in summary, recommends Carbon Compliance limits for built performance of various dwelling types. For example the maximum annual CO2 emissions, confirmed once constructed, were recommended to be 14 kg per square metre for a low rise apartment and 10 kg for a detached house. To get down to zero carbon an ‘Allowable Solution’ would have been required to offset the remaining carbon emissions. The aim was for Carbon Compliance to be achieved through some combination of building energy efficiency and on-site low or zero carbon energy generation. Allowable solutions include on-site energy and/or connection to zero carbon community energy. It seems likely that the Zero Carbon Hub will now have to revisit their recommendations since the requirement for 2016 will be, in simple terms, based on offsetting heat loss, hot water and lighting energy with zero carbon technologies.

Refurbishment/retrofit
It is clear from the IGT final report that the existing building stock represents the biggest challenge for the construction, property management and infrastructure sectors in meeting the 2050 carbon target. The majority of the 26 million existing homes and 2 million other buildings that need enhancing between now and 2050 will depend on a combination of a Green Deal type pay as you save arrangement to improve insulation and FIT/Renewable Heat Incentives or their successors to reduce connected demand. If these are not properly funded or the take-up is not adequate then they will remain ineffective.

Energy Infrastructure
Nobody can plan for the long term without an understanding of how the electricity supply is to be decarbonised over the next 40 years. The Government has recently responded to the evidence provided for its 2050 Pathway Analysis. The original report postulated a number of alternative pathways for achieving the 80% carbon reduction, including decarbonisation strategies based on some combination of renewable, nuclear power and fossil fuel with carbon capture and storage (CCS). Post-Japan it is interesting to examine the scenario in which no new nuclear plant is built. By 2050 all existing plants would be decommissioned and it is predicted that in excess of 500 TWh/year of electricity would be required from renewable sources and 220 from fossil fuels with CCS. The funding for this will be hundreds of billions of pounds, and presumably mostly have to be leveraged from the activities of the Green Investment Bank.
However if we are successful in decarbonising the grid there will be a corresponding drop in the carbon emissions associated with buildings, with a greater reduction in those buildings that rely primarily on electricity to meet their energy demands. This is the opposite of the current situation, which is why it is vital for those planning construction projects to be able to predict the carbon intensity of the electricity supply during the lifetime of their proposed buildings.

Planning
Continuing its measures to kick start the construction sector “(Government will make) radical changes to the planning system to support job creation by introducing a powerful presumption in favour of sustainable development; opening up more land for development, while retaining existing controls on greenbelt land; introducing new land auctions starting with public sector land; consulting on the liberalisation of use classes; and ensuring all planning applications and appeals will be processed in 12 months and major infrastructure projects will be fast-tracked.” (See page 24 of supplementary document: Plan for Growth, BIS).
There appears to be no mention of the recommendations from the IGT that Environmental Impact Assessments should include carbon targets and that all large projects should be scrutinised by a Major Projects Review Group.

Low Carbon Construction - The Road to 2050

Crossbank House, Oldham – a model of energy efficient retrofit

The Government in Westminster, no matter what its colour, has recognised that there is much to be done to meet the programme of carbon reduction targets set out in the 2008 Climate Change Act, culminating in a reduction in CO2eq emissions of 80% by 2050 compared with a 1990 baseline.
Interim targets include a 22% reduction in the years 2008-2012. It is interesting to note that, compared with a 1990 baseline of 777.8 MtCO2eq it has been reported that UK emissions (or ‘carbon budget’) for 2008 were 606.7, allowing for 19.3 purchased by UK companies under the EU ETS; a reduction of exactly 22% (carbon) .
Arising from the Climate Change Act the Government published its Low Carbon Industrial Strategy in 2009 and the Low Carbon Construction Innovation & Growth Team (IGT) was established under the auspices of the Department for Business Innovation & Skills (BIS) in September of that year. Its comprehensive and visionary final report was published in November 2010, setting out a strategy that strikes a tone of some urgency, whilst also taking the long view (can be downloaded from IGT). This might be considered a good start in achieving one of the objectives in the report: ie that Government set a clear strategy, vision and leadership in order to overcome barriers to low carbon construction.
Although this report has ‘construction’ in its title much of its content and a third of its recommendations deal with existing buildings and infrastructure. This is because approximately 75% of the stock that will be standing in 2050 is likely to be already built today. In the case of homes it is estimated that of the 27 million currently standing, 26 million will still be with us in 2050 with potentially a further 10 million built between now and then.
The report draws from work carried out by six working groups under the headings of Major Projects, Housing, Non-domestic buildings, Infrastructure, Cross-cutting and the 2050 Group, overseen by a Steering Group chaired by Paul Morrell, Chief Construction Advisor at BIS.
There are 65 recommendations across the headings, requiring action from both Government and industry. The following is distilled from the report, its recommendations and some of the references therein:
• A flexible and adaptive framework is required for delivery and monitoring of a programme of works resulting in a reduction of at least 80% in CO2eq across all sectors – new and existing buildings, public and private sector and infrastructure (Pathways to 2050, DECC, 2010 - Pathways
Different sectors have different lead-in times: for example decisions on power generation made today will impact on carbon emissions for the next 100 years, whilst low carbon construction products may have development periods measured in decades.
• A Major Project Review Group (MPRG) should be established which would provide approval for large projects based on an assessment of sustainability performance and legitimacy, following a similar model to that established by the soon to be abolished CABE.
• Environmental impact assessments should incorporate a mandatory statement on carbon reduction strategy and a carbon target based on an MPRG assessment.
• The cost of zero carbon homes should be no more than meeting 2010 Part L requirements.
• Government and industry should agree a standard method of measuring embodied carbon as part of a whole life carbon appraisal for use in feasibility studies and establishing a realistic price for carbon.
• Skills gaps will require an integrated approach to fill. A report produced by the NHBC, House Builders Federation, ConstructionSkills and Zero Carbon Hub has set out a long term strategy to address this (Home Building Skills 2020 - cskills)
Knowing how far adrift newly constructed buildings are from that predicted by current models used to assess Building Regs compliance (SAP and SBEM) is essential. Hence measuring carbon emissions associated with existing buildings requires a consistent and standardised approach.
• Barriers to the uptake of energy saving measures need to be overcome. For housing this could include linking carbon rating to stamp duty, Council Tax, Building Regulation approval and VAT, for example. For non-domestic buildings the situation is more complex and the report suggests solutions for overcoming barriers in Government, the supply chain and, in the case of existing buildings, owners and occupiers. The supply chain needs confidence to invest in innovation and work with others to provide a fully integrated approach to project management and delivery. Owners and occupiers need to see value in low carbon refurbishment and retrofit. Financial incentives for reducing carbon emissions include linking emissions to Stamp Duty Land Tax, levying differential business rates, reinstating and increasing Industrial Buildings Allowances for low carbon buildings and products and widening the scope of Enhanced Capital Allowances to cover not only products but whole-building solutions, such as natural ventilation and exposed structures.
• Government should set up an Existing Homes Hub on similar lines to the Zero Carbon Hub. Note that there already exists an Existing Homes Alliance (eha)supported by numerous commercial and public sector organisations and pressure groups. Their Finance working group produced a report in 2009 that compared various finance schemes that could be adopted by Government to support large scale retrofitting of existing housing stock, replacing the current Carbon Emission Reduction Target (CERT) and Community Energy Savings Programme (CESP) funding schemes that place obligations on utility companies, but which come to an end in 2012. The Government has launched its Green Deal funding package for home owners based on the ‘pay as you save’ concept which was one of the three packages favoured in this report. The Green Deal will become available in 2012 and is likely to fund insulation, double glazing and possibly renewable technologies, based on a loan repaid from savings in energy bills and attached to the property, not the occupier. This will be supplemented by the recently introduced feed-in-tariff (FiT) for renewable electricity and the similar Renewable Heat Incentive (RHI), both of which will pay householders for the energy that they generate in-house. The RHI is yet to be published in its final form following criticism during its consultation process for penalising solar hot water schemes by providing a lower investment return than for the likes of air source heat pumps and biomass boilers. The IGT report recommends that to cater for small organisations which are not covered by the Carbon Reduction Commitment Energy Efficiency (CRC-EE) scheme (approx 50% of emissions) a ‘pay as you save’ mechanism should be extended to cover non-domestic buildings as well as an energy efficiency obligation on energy suppliers to offer low cost measures such as BEMS and optimised controls.
• The Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) came into force through regulation in April 2010 to provide a mechanism for Local Authorities to raise money from developers to fund local infrastructure projects. These funds may be used for energy projects, but also transport, flood defences, schools, hospitals, parks, green spaces and leisure centres. They differ from funds raised through planning obligations (Section 106 of Planning Act) and highways improvement (Section 278 of Highways Act) contributions in that they will be spent on general infrastructure, taking into account cumulative impacts of several developments and not subject to negotiation.
• In July 2010 the Coalition Government announced the foundation of a Community Energy Fund which will enable developers to contribute to a district energy scheme serving a community that includes their development as an ‘Allowable Solution’ within the proposed definition of zero carbon.
• Community Energy Online ceo is esource to support local authority and community groups to initiate and develop local low carbon and renewable energy projects.
• London is benefitting from the Joint European Support for Sustainable Investment in City Areas (JESSICA) initiative with is providing funds for the £100m London Green Fund, including the Energy Efficiency Urban Development Fund (UDF) enabling investment in climate change infrastructure projects. Initially UDF will prioritise public and voluntary sector projects along with social housing.
• London is also one of the cities chosen to benefit from the Clinton Climate Initiative through the Building Energy Efficiency Programme (BEEP), currently funding energy efficient retrofits to a number of public buildings, managed by energy services companies (ESCo’s) and based on a similar pay-as-you-save model to that which will be employed for the Green Deal.
• The ability of the construction industry to deliver the necessary refurbishment programme must be assessed; based on an approach that incorporates standardized retrofit solutions, improved warranties and a ‘Strategic Retrofit Research Agenda’, with the social housing sector taking the lead.
• Schemes for improving the energy management and sustainability of existing non-residential buildings, such as the Green Building Management Toolkit and Green Leases (Better Building Partnership, 2010) and BREEAM in Use, should be more widely disseminated.
• An improved and enhanced DEC scheme should be extended to all existing non-residential buildings in advance of the July 2013 date required by the EPBD, with a worst-case carbon performance equivalent to an EPC rating of F to be achieved by 2020.
• Building Regulations Part L2B should be extended to cover more types of refurbishment and building fit-out.
• Landlords and tenants to agree on an energy management plan to accompany the DEC, including improvements identified through the energy efficiency obligation measures. The British Property Federation has developed tools to assist landlords in developing an energy statement and tenants in producing corresponding energy reviews that can be downloaded from http://www.les-ter.co.uk/page/home
• There is inefficiency and waste in many forms in the construction industry, and modernisation through techniques such as (but not limited to) value-based procurement, lean processes, building information modelling (BIM), benchmarking and continuous improvement, offsite manufacture and supply chain integration will enable project teams to deliver low carbon refurbishment and new build packages at the higher quality required and for significantly lower cost. The construction industry is strongly recommended to adopt modern methods of construction (MMC) and in particular use the resources provided by Buildoffsite http://www.buildoffsite.com/introduction.htm which can be used to download a number of publications including a guide to MMC (NHBC Foundation, 2006), specifying modular buildings (CIRIA, 2009) and an Offsite Toolkit.
• The IGT report addresses the weaknesses in the UK construction industry in managing the risk associated with innovative projects. It recommends the use of suitable tools such as Building Information Management (BIM), with Government leading the way on all projects >£50m. BIM is widely used in the US and computer-based tools are available from companies such as Autodesk. In addition tools should be developed that not only provide life cycle/present value assessment but also evaluate risk associated with innovation.
• Greater use of standards such ISO BS EN for low carbon and renewable technologies.
• The Cabinet Office Efficiency & Reform Group (ERG) to mandate a requirement for post-occupancy evaluation for Government projects.
Although the Government’s strategy for decarbonising infrastructure has been set out in the Department of Transport’s 2009 Low Carbon Transport Strategy and the Treasury/Infrastructure UK National Infrastructure Plan 2010 the IGT report stresses the importance of engagement between the infrastructure owners, policy makers and regulators and the construction industry to produce optimal carbon efficiency. The IGT report recommends that this collaboration should focus on developing models and undertaking research to achieve carbon reduction through better engineering and associated training and professional development.
The Government is expected to respond to the IGT report in April 2011. It is to be hoped that they take up the majority of the recommendations. It is difficult to see how the 2050 carbon commitment and interim targets are to be achieved without the actions recommended in this important report being implemented.

The Future of Biomass

Looked at holistically it could be argued that there is no such thing as a zero carbon technology, let alone a zero carbon building. Even those technologies, such as photovoltaics and wind turbines, that convert natural sources of energy into heat or electricity directly require fuel and power for manufacture, transport etc. (embedded carbon).

Biomass however suffers because there are not only carbon emissions associated with the manufacture and transportation of the hardware, but also from the processing and delivery of the fuel itself. Furthermore its definition as a renewable fuel is contingent on the carbon released during combustion being balanced against that absorbed during growth. However as these occur over different periods and in different locations the processes involved are complex. For example the plants that are used as fuel may have taken years to grow, during which time they are both absorbing and emitting CO2 from and to the immediate atmosphere. Whilst the total quantity of CO2 sequestered by the biomass during its lifetime is emitted in perhaps minutes when used as a fuel. The 2009 version of SAP takes account of the process and transport CO2 but assumes a balance between CO2 absorbed and emitted over the life of the biomass, giving emission factors for woodchip of 0.015 kgCO2/kWh and for wood pellets of 0.037, compared with 0.206 for natural gas and 0.591 for electricity.

Some consider burning biomass as a return to the ‘bad old days’ of coal fires and wood burners, with the potential for deterioration in air quality that implies. Indeed the concentration of such pollutants as NOx and fine particulates (PM10 and PM2.5) is worryingly high. A study in 2007 for the London Councils by the AEA concluded that: “...potentially increasing the contribution from small-scale wood fuelled biomass combustion to meet energy requirements in London under the London Energy Partnership scenarios may lead to a potentially substantial increase in nitrogen dioxide and particulate matter concentrations.” The study predicted that this could result in Air Quality Objectives (AQO) required of Local Authorities under the 2007 Air Quality Standards Regulations being exceeded. London

In the US a more militant stance is being taken by the Biomass Accountability Project, which is lobbying to outlaw the burning of biomass altogether. US

For the UK the problem is one of scale. The historic situation of a relatively low number of small scale installations spread out across mainly rural locations had little impact. However a recent survey by the Forestry Commission has reported an increase in the use of biomass boilers by 25% in the last two years and 86% of schools under the now truncated Building Schools for the Future programme are reported to be proposing biomass plant. Many of these new installations have been proposed to meet Local Authority requirements for a percentage of energy/carbon to be offset using on-site renewable technologies. The marginal capital cost of a biomass installation compared with other technologies can be low, hence many schemes have gone through on the basis of the economic case.

However the availability of biomass in the UK has become a major concern. Building operators procuring fuel for biomass firing have been competing with the likes of the Drax power station in North Yorkshire, which has been co-firing coal and biomass for some time. Drax was planning to increase the proportion of power generated from biomass initially to 500 MW, with new plants at Immingham, Hull and another site, yet to be announced, potentially contributing a further 900 MW. Drax. Note that industry estimates that there is a potential 5 GW of biomass generating capacity in the pipeline.

However, despite investing £80 million in co-firing in recent years and the Renewable Obligation Certificates (ROCs) awarded, in February 2010 Drax claimed that it was no longer cost effective for it to use Biomass. It complained that the low subsidy for biomass compared with wind power, along with the low cost of carbon under the Emissions Trading Scheme had forced this decision upon them. Indeed it was even considering selling 2 million tonnes of biomass it had stockpiled. Drax2

Furthermore with biomass generated electricity not benefitting from the Government’s new feed-in tariff the whole life cost of biomass is no longer looking so attractive for smaller schemes.
On the other hand the use of wood as a fuel is also being attacked, perhaps not surprisingly, by the Wood Panel Industries Federation (WPIF). Despite contrary evidence from Drax it claims that ROCs are encouraging power companies to use wood for electricity generation, since, as of June 24 2010, co-firing was eligible for 0.5 ROC and CHP could earn 2 ROCs, with the value of a ROC at that time being £49 per MWh. A study commissioned by WPIF estimated that, on average, electricity generators could pay more than double the price paid by the UK wood panel industry for its primary raw material. Woodpanel

Two reports commissioned by WPIF conclude that this is a major threat to jobs in the manufacture of wood panels, whilst the embodied carbon that would otherwise be trapped in the wood panels would be released as CO2 through combustion, potentially increasing carbon emissions by 1%, or around 6 million tonnes annually. Of course it could be argued that this carbon will eventually be released following demolition and disposal of the wood panels.

With regard to the future of biomass in the UK the Coalition Government's first Energy Statement, published in July of this year stated that it is “....taking immediate action to exploit the potential of bio-electricity and energy from waste, by grandfathering support under the Renewables Obligation (RO) for electricity from dedicated biomass, energy from waste, anaerobic digestion and advanced conversion technologies, such as pyrolysis and gasification.” A separate report on a consultation of proposals for grandfathering was published at the same time as the Energy Statement published. Grandfathering. Grandfathering is defined as “...the policy intention to maintain a fixed level of support for the full lifetime of a generating station’s eligibility for the RO (typically 20 years), from the point of accreditation.” However the support will only apply to dedicated biomass plant and not to the fuel.

In their response to the above consultation the anti-biomass lobby group Biofuelwatch expressed the view that “in the medium to longer term, we expect UK subsidies for biomass to accelerate the development of a new global trade in woodchips and wood pellets, leading to more destructive logging in many parts of the world and to more conversion of forests, grasslands and farmlands to monoculture tree plantations.” Biofuelwatch

Active Design

41 Cooper Square, New York

According to official statistics just under a third of the US adult population is obese, that is having a body mass index (BMI) of more than 30 kg/square metre. The figure for the UK for 2008 was 24.5% of those over 16 years of age. The proportion of the adult population of the US that is obese has more than doubled since the early 1960’s. Although this is in part due to diet, activity levels also make a significant contribution. There is incontrovertible evidence that active people are less prone to a whole range of illnesses. Regular physical activity contributes to the prevention and management of over 20 conditions including coronary heart disease, diabetes, certain types of cancer and obesity. For example, strokes cost the NHS £2.8 billion a year. Studies indicate that physical activity reduces the risk of having a stroke by a third.

With this in mind a federal programme has been launched in the US called the National Physical Activity Plan, whilst in New York City a inter-departmental initiative fronted by the Department of Design and Construction has introduced the Active Design Guidelines (see Reference 1).

In the UK Sport England, supported by the Department of Health, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) and the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE), published Active Design guidance in 2007 (see Reference 2).

As one might expect the New York Guidelines are tailored for high density inner city development and cover neighbourhood issues, urban design and architecture including:

• Develop and maintain mixed land use in city neighbourhoods;
• Improve access to transit and transit facilities;
• Improve access to plazas, parks, open spaces, and recreational facilities, and design these spaces to maximize their active use where appropriate;
• Improve access to full-service grocery stores and fresh produce;
• Design accessible, pedestrian-friendly streets with high connectivity, traffic calming features, landscaping, lighting, benches, and water fountains;
• Facilitate bicycling for recreation and transportation by developing continuous bicycle networks and incorporating infrastructure like safe indoor and outdoor bicycle parking.
• Increase stair use among the able-bodied by providing a conveniently located stair for everyday use, posting motivational signage to encourage stair use, and designing visible, appealing and comfortable stairs;
• Locate building functions to encourage brief bouts of walking to shared spaces such as mail and lunch rooms, provide appealing, supportive walking routes within buildings;
• Provide facilities that support exercise such as centrally visible physical activity spaces, showers, locker rooms, secure bicycle storage, and drinking fountains;
• Design building exteriors and massing that contribute to a pedestrian friendly urban environment and that include maximum variety and transparency, multiple entries, stoops, and canopies.

Most of these issues figure in LEED and perhaps it is no surprise that 41 Cooper Square, an exemplar Active Design development, is targeting a Platinum award under the Scheme
(http://morphopedia.com/projects/cooper-union). One of the iconic features of this stunning building is a four storey staircase that dominates the entrance area (see image above). The lifts are deliberately made inconspicuous to encourage all able bodied occupants to use the stairs.

The Sport England guidance is based on a similar agenda but orientated to masterplanning of sustainable communities, covering many of the transport issues in BREEAM, as well as those that figure in current proposals for Planning Policy Guidance and Department for Transport long term strategy. Guidance is provided under three headings:

• Improving accessibility
• Enhancing amenity
• Increasing awareness

The emphasis is on creating access routes for pedestrians and cyclists between “Everyday Activity Destinations”, such as homes, workplaces, schools, shops and community facilities. A reasonable walking distance is defined as between 400 and 800m, or a 5 to 10 minute trip one way, whilst for cycling a maximum distance of 5 km is suggested.

One innovative scheme, developed by the Smarter Travel Unit at Transport for London and Intelligent Health Ltd and known as Step2Get, encourages children to walk to school by offering incentives (http://www.intelligenthealth.co.uk/step2get/). School pupils are issued with personal cards which they swipe at touch points along a designated walking route. They accumulate points for each walk and are rewarded with Topshop or Odeon cinema vouchers when they have reached a set target.

Intelligent Health uses Near Field Communication (NFC) technology to monitor the walking route. The ‘receivers’ which act as the swipe points are designed and manufactured by the company. The scheme can also be used to direct children along specific routes for safety reasons or to reduce overcrowding on local public transport services.

This system is at the heart of the Wimbledon Schools Walking project, which was also designed to reduce congestion and dwell times of buses, and involved some 300 pupils at Wimbledon schools.

A review of current good practice in the planning and design of sustainable transportation schemes is provided in my book Integrated Sustainable Design of Buildings, details of which can be found elsewhere on this blog.

References

1 New York City Active Design Guidelines: Promoting Physical Activity and Health in Design (2010). Produced by NYC Department of Design and Construction. http://ddcftp.nyc.gov/adg/downloads/adguidelines.pdf

2 Active Design. Sport England (2007) http://www.sportengland.org/facilities__planning/planning_tools_and_guidance/active_design.aspx

The Zero Carbon Challenge

The Building Regulations for England and Wales are on a trajectory to achieve ‘zero carbon’ for new homes and schools by 2016 and for other buildings by 2019. This is all part of the UK Government’s strategy to meet its commitment to achieve a reduction in overall carbon emissions of 80% by 2050.

In the meantime the 2010 amendments to Parts L, F and J will be coming into force on 1 October, comprising revisions to regulations covering respectively:

• Conservation of fuel and power;
• Ventilation; and:
• Combustion appliances and fuel storage systems.

These represent the next step on the road to zero carbon and include CO2 emission targets 25% below those required by the 2006 Part L and 40% below the notional 2002 value, once corrected for changes in fuel carbon intensity.

The Labour Government established the Zero Carbon Hub (ZCH) in June 2008, following recommendations arising from the Calcutt Review of House Building Delivery http://www.callcuttreview.co.uk/default.jsp, under the auspices of the National Housing Building Council (NHBC) with the remit to both come up with a definition for ‘zero carbon’ and support the regulatory process. The definition for zero carbon has yet to be agreed and Grant Shapps, the Housing Minister in the Coalition Government, has told ZCH to review the level of on-site renewables required within the definition.

ZCH are in the process of publishing the results of a number of studies, setting out the key areas that need resolving before the 2016 amendments can be made. They have recently published documents covering future climate change; closing the gap between design and built performance; and how performance standards should be expressed; as well as an overview report http://www.zerocarbonhub.org/. They are still to produce the reports promised on carbon compliance tools and the carbon intensity of fuels.

The work already carried out on the definition of zero carbon has rowed back from the compliance requirements originally set out in the Code for Sustainable Homes to achieve Level 6 under Category 1: Energy and Carbon Dioxide Emission. This required the dwelling to achieve zero carbon for regulated and unregulated emissions (i.e. including household appliances and cooking) using some combination of passive design and renewable technology. The requirement currently under consideration will typically allow up to 53% of emissions to be achieved through “Allowable Solutions”, based on a reduction of at least 70% of regulated emissions compared with 2006 Part L targets (TER) to be achieved by energy efficiencies and on-site low carbon and renewable technologies. For an average dwelling meeting a 2006 TER regulated emissions represent around 67% of the total CO2 emissions. Allowable Solutions have not yet been agreed but are likely to include importing locally generated renewable electricity; exporting low or zero carbon (LZC) energy; financial contributions to providing LZC infrastructure and/or improving the energy efficiency of buildings in the neighbouring community. Of course in most cases some combination of these could be employed, along with going beyond the 70% criterion for passive design and on-site LZC measures.

In July 2009 ZCH published the results of a consultation defining a fabric energy efficiency standard for zero carbon homes. Similar in concept to Passivhaus and Energy Saving Trust standards this provides energy targets in kWh/m2/yr and limiting U values and air tightness standards, although it sets its sights a lot lower, with a recommended target of 39 kWh/m2/yr for an apartment or mid-terraced house compared with the Passivhaus target of 15 kWh/m2/yr, for example. U values are commensurately weaker, particularly for windows which are 1.4 W/m2K compared with 0.8 W/m2K for a Passivhaus window. ZCH recommends an air permeability of 3, compared with 1 for a Passivhaus dwelling. The reasons for not setting more challenging criteria are not clear, but appear to relate to cost and currently available construction techniques. However designers and house builders may decide it is more economically feasible to use a specification closer to the Passivhaus level rather than investing in an array of “Allowable Solutions”.

Designers may be interested in recent UK experience reported in BRE’s Autumn 2010 Constructing the Future newsletter: “Experience in Europe indicates that while a 6% extra overall cost is likely, the quality assurance procedure can actually help to reduce costs.... (Whilst) a housing project in London, which BRE is advising on, has achieved PassivHaus for the same cost as a delivering a typical social housing project.”

In the recently published ZCH studies overheating was a key focus, resulting in 14 recommendations for urgent action, including the development of an improved technique for predicting overheating for integration into the SAP calculation. The problem is that well-insulated airtight dwellings are prone to over-heating, particularly when window opening is problematic due to the close proximity of noise sources, such as roads, and/or site shape and orientation drives the design towards west facing bedrooms and/or living rooms. Potential temperature rise from global warming will of course exacerbate this problem. Any technique developed within SAP for predicting overheating must take into account predictions for temperature rise associated with global warming, such as those developed by CIBSE which publishes Future Test Reference Year and Design Summer Year (TRY/DSR) data for 14 sites across the UK for the years 2011-2040, 2041-2070 and 2071-2100. These take into account the four UKCIP02 climate change scenarios between Low to High CO2 emission rates. (www.ukcip.org.uk/index.php?id=161&option=com_content&task=view).

ZCH is also recommending a change to the method used in SAP for determining the carbon emissions factors for electricity. These are currently based on historical data, whilst ZCH recommend using predictions for 15 year rolling averages, updated annually. The modelling carried out by ZCH indicates that decarbonisation of the electricity grid will have a major impact on the energy balance for a typical new home, and hence the most efficient methods for meeting energy demand. ZCH envisages that as electricity generation decarbonises targets will have to be set in terms of primary energy demand rather than CO2 emissions.

SAP 2005 did not include allowance for a comprehensive menu of upstream CO2 equivalent emissions associated with energy generation. BRE are currently developing a consistent approach to ensuring such factors as fuel extraction, processing and delivery are accurately estimated in SAP, particularly for biomass and liquid biofuels.

ZCH also considers more work is required to establish consistent and reliable information and guidance to determine the CO2 emissions associated with community energy schemes. Currently Building Regulations require this to be undertaken by a competent person, but provide no standard methodology.

In 2007 Calcutt reported on the disparity between predicted and actual heat losses from homes as an example of the poor standards prevailing in house construction. This has subsequently been confirmed in a study of 16 dwellings by Leeds Metropolitan University, which found that some experienced a heat loss more than double that predicted by SAP. Ideally the heat loss for each new dwelling should be measured after construction and compared with calculated value. However this is unlikely to be practicable since current methodologies, such as the co-heating test, take at least a week to carry out and have to be done in winter, and hence are not commercially viable.

ZCH have recommended that a carbon compliance accreditation scheme be developed for designers, suppliers, manufacturers and builders that could include accredited details such as have been developed for Part E under the Robust Details scheme. This would include post-construction whole house audits of a sample of whole dwellings and services as part of the accreditation process. They are considering the incorporation of confidence factors (i.e. margins) to the calculation for dwelling emission rate (DER) that would be reduced for accredited organisations and hence provide an incentive for accreditation.

It seems that the whole process leading to zero carbon by 2016, with an interim stage in 2013, has been thrown into turmoil by the new Building Regulations Minister Andrew Stunell at a meeting of the Energy Efficiency Partnership for Homes in July, revealing that he has instructed civil servants to examine the feasibility of bringing forward the 2013 Part L revision to 2012. This has not gone down well with the construction industry, not least because of the uncertainties that it has introduced to an already challenging economic time for the industry.

Climate Change: the scientist, the journalist and the politician

The frustrating situation that climate change science finds itself in reminds me of one of those disaster movies – you know the one – where a flawed hero is trying to save the planet, or whatever, but is being distracted at every turn by either his own problems, or noises off. In our case the flawed hero is represented by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the climate change scientific community; and the flaws have received enough publicity in recent months for me not to dwell on them here. A small but vocal minority of so-called climate change sceptics and deniers have provided the noises off. It could be argued that the ‘hero’ needs these distractions to overcome his flaws and go on to save the day!

This might describe the process that followed the exaggerated claims of Himalayan glacier melting rates quoted in the Working Group II contribution to the IPCC 4th Assessment Report, resulting in publication of the “Review of the Processes and Procedures of the IPCC” by the Inter-Academy Council on 29 August (IAC Report). There have also been two inquiries into the circumstances behind the leaked emails from the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit, colloquially known as “Climategate”, chaired by Lord Oxburgh and Sir Muir Russell that reported in April and July 2010 respectively.

Put simply all this has revealed that some scientists working in the climate change sector have been both slipshod in their practices and overly protective of the information they hold. On the other hand some of the tactics of the more extreme ends of the climate sceptic community have been aggressive, bizarre and ignorant. See Skepticalscience for a useful review of these tactics. Sometimes lost in this melee however are some perfectly reasonable questions concerning some of the more dramatic certainties coming from the climate change protagonists.

The main problem here is just how much is riding on climate change predictions. You have only got to read the 2006 Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change to get a feel for the sums involved and the potential impacts of the decisions with which Governments are faced. As we saw at COP 15 in Copenhagen in December 2009 some Governments are not yet in a position to sign up to significant cuts in carbon emissions when faced with the prospect of curtailing the rate of economic growth at home. On the other hand, although the energy sector makes much of its involvement in renewable energy, there have been reports from the US that companies involved in oil exploration, such as Koch Industries and Exxon Mobil, have funded climate sceptic groups to the tune of millions of dollars.

Although many politicians and journalists involved in making decisions and reporting on and around climate change have a background in science, mostly they rely on the information provided to them by scientists. But of course climate science is incredibly complex and the prediction of climate change far from certain. Politicians and journalists on the other hand like to deal in certainties. In his excellent online book “Sustainable Energy without the Hot Air” (free to download from MacKay) David MacKay provides an example of how journalists can get it so badly wrong. The following is a quote from Dominic Lawson writing in the 8 June 2007 edition of the Independent and paraphrased by Professor MacKay :

“The burning of fossil fuels sends about seven gigatons of CO2 per year into the atmosphere, which sounds like a lot. Yet the biosphere and the oceans send about 1,900 gigatons and 36,000 gigatons of CO2 per year into the atmosphere – . . . one reason why some of us are sceptical about the emphasis put on the role of human fuel-burning in the greenhouse gas effect. Reducing man-made CO2 emissions is megalomania, exaggerating man’s significance. Politicians can’t change the weather.”

Unfortunately Mr Lawson makes some fundamental errors in this article. Apart from getting all the numbers wrong, the emissions from the biosphere and oceans into the atmosphere are balanced by almost exactly the same quantity of CO2 flowing in the opposite direction and being absorbed by the biosphere and oceans. As the IPCC and others can testify, getting the numbers right is also important. In Mr Lawson’s case he makes the common error of mixing up carbon and CO2. In fact the figure he quotes for CO2 emissions from anthropogenic activities is actually that for carbon and should read 26 Gt CO2/annum. Worse still the 36,000 gigatons quoted represents the amount of carbon held in the oceans, the estimated flow rate given by MacKay is 90 gigatonnes of carbon/annum (330 Gt CO2/annum), whilst the flow to and from the biosphere has been estimated at 440 Gt CO2/annum. This cyclical flow of gases between the earth and its atmosphere has been occurring since the atmosphere, oceans and biosphere evolved and is an intrinsic part of the earth’s ‘metabolism’.

The challenges of reporting on climate change science are being presented by the BBC’s Environment Correspondent, Roger Harrabin in his essay “Uncertain Climate”, the first half of which was aired on Radio 4 on Monday 30 August. In this he recognizes that the nuances of climate change science have been lost in the mix, whilst some scientists have expressed an exaggerated degree of certainty about the prospects for global calamity. In contrasting interviews with Al Gore and Tony Blair, he demonstrates both the potential for evangelism driving out rationality, in the case of Gore, and an acceptance that politicians must apply the precautionary principle whilst communicating uncertainties (Blair).

Coincidentally a well-known ‘sceptic’ and author of the “Skeptical Environmentalist” Bjorn Lomborg was reported on the same day as having gone through a Damascene conversion in his most recent book “Smart Solutions to Climate Change”. In fact Lomborg is only the editor of this volume, which has a number of contributors. A closer reading of his cannon however reveals a more nuanced picture than the headlines might portray. Lomborg has never denied the science, he has only questioned priorities, although based originally on what some have claimed is a simplistic comparison of the cost of mitigating climate change with tackling malaria, HIV/AIDS and inadequate sanitation and water supply. This latest book focuses specifically on the priorities to mitigate climate change, analysing the likely costs and benefits of a very wide range of policy options, including geo-engineering, mitigation of CO2, methane and 'black carbon' (soot) emissions, expanding forestation, research and development of low-carbon energy technologies and encouraging green technology transfer. In an interview for the Guardian Lomborg is reported as saying that "the crucial turning point in his argument was the Copenhagen Consensus project (of which he is Director), in which a group of economists were asked to consider how best to spend $50bn. The first results, in 2004, put global warming near the bottom of the list, arguing instead for policies such as fighting malaria and HIV/AIDS. But a repeat analysis in 2008 included new ideas for reducing the temperature rise, some of which emerged about halfway up the ranking. Lomborg said he then decided to consider a much wider variety of policies to reduce global warming, 'so it wouldn't end up at the bottom'." Which sounds a bit like altering the parameters in order to give the result you are after.

The metaphorical hero in our disaster movie may be the IPCC, but the villain of the COP 15 conference proved to be China. As can be seen from the Figure at the start of this post, copied from the MacKay book referred to above, the total CO2 equivalent emissions in 2000, as indicated by the area of each block, were similar for China to that for the USA, although the per capita emissions in the US were about 6 times those for China. However China is going through its very own industrial and economic revolution leading to massive growth in all those criteria that result in increasing greenhouse gas emissions.

China is reported to be commissioning new coal fired power stations at the rate of 2 or 3 per week, with a long term programme to construct more than 500. They are in the middle of a major airport construction and improvement programme, with 42 new airports in the pipeline and 70 being improved. Car ownership increased 5 fold between 2003 and 2008, whilst China’s urbanisation continues unabated, with the percentage of urban residents increasing from 18% in 1978 to 44% in 2006 according to an article in the Economist online.

The latest International Energy Agency statistics (ref IEA energy statistics 2010) indicate that China’s CO2 emissions doubled between 2000 and 2008, coincident with a doubling of coal production.

These same statistics predict an increase in total primary energy supply (TPES) globally of 65% by 2030 from 1990 figures based on ‘policies under consideration’. No predictions are given for the corresponding change in CO2 emissions.

These are scary statistics, and there are plenty more where they came from! One conclusion that can be drawn from the above is that the failure of COP 15 and the ‘noises off’ from climate sceptics must not be allowed to get in the way of future global agreements to mitigate global warming. What we all need is a clear and consistent message from the scientists who have dedicated their lives to studying this complex subject.