|
Time to clear the smokescreens around carbon emissions
It
is
now
a
given
that
it
is
“a
good
thing”
to
be
environmentally
friendly.
It
is
even
better
to
strive
towards
“carbon
neutrality”
or a
“zero-carbon
footprint”
and
the
construction
industry,
aided
and
abette
But what do these terms actually mean? Do they have any relevance to the current industrial landscape or are they simply being employed as marketing tools by the major house builders? Will the compulsory imposition of a green rating on homes make any practical difference?
The received wisdom is that householders can make their further contribution by adhering to green guidelines on matters such as cavity walls, loft insulation, efficient boilers, thermostats and low-energy lighting. Landlords, too, are being swept into the current with an obligation from next year to have a green certificate for their building along the lines of the compulsory energy performance certificates which are a key part of the Home Improvement Packs in England and Wales. But although these measures have been driven by the EU since 2001, there is still no universally accepted standard or measurement which would make sense of the term zero-carbon home, either in Hips or the now-delayed Single Survey provisions in Scotland. And while a zero-carbon home may eventually mean a home which can be lived in without creating carbon, that does not mean it can be built without creating carbon. It does not take into account the enormous amounts of energy use and carbon creation in the manufacture of basic building components. Cement, brick and block manufacture is notoriously energy intensive as is the production of insulation Doubts have to be aired, too about just how enthusiastic home-buyers are likely to be following new research in October by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors which reveals that – using the information in EPCs – owners will have to wait up to 208 years to recoup the costs of their energy saving measures
The
institution
calculated
cost-recovery
times
and
found
that
payback
times
for
EPC
energy
improvements
on
an
average
three
bedroom
terraced
house
range
from
five
years
for
cavity
wall
insulation
to
208
years
for
solar
heating. The cost-recovery times for other common energy saving measures include 124 years for double glazing, 38 years for boiler replacement, and 61 years for under-floor insulation. The fact is that altering carbon emissions involves a complex web of interconnected variables, where cause and effect cannot necessarily be accurately computed in advance. Nor does the current drive for carbon-zero homes take into account the huge proportion of the housing market taken up by second-hand or pre-owned homes. In line with the unalterable law that the best way to alter people’s behaviour is to appeal to their wallets, perhaps the government should consider turning its attention away from its current pre-occupation with“food-labelling”-style legislation. Instead, it could consider reducing Vat on energy saving measures and re-introducing practical grant aid packages such as the successful double-glazing programmes of the late seventies. This would benefit new build homes as well as the older stock. But what a fragile market needs most is clarity, transparency and a level playing field. It is long past time to blow away the smokescreens around carbon emissions. Gerry Gilroy is Head of Building Surveying Services at Ross & Liddell Property Management.
ENDS 724 words
|
| Source: Ross + Liddell |
d
by
the
government,
is
actively
publicising
its
stated
aim
of
building
a
new
world
of
“zero-emission”
homes.