Greening the construction industry

Leading property and construction firms have formed the UK Green Building Council and given themselves 10 years to transform their industry and make it sustainable. They also make the sensible observation that energy saving measures shouldn't just be applied to new builds as houses that have already been built will still account for 75% of the housing stock in 2050.

Technorati tag: EcoHouse

Climate Challenge

Can you balance the budget, keep the electorate happy and fed and reduce greenhouse gas emmissions? Try the BBC's Climate Challenge.

Technorati tag: Climate

Solar power heads toward the dollar per watt landmark

Solar power costs are dropping and could soon cross over the point where they're cheaper than fossil fuels and other supplies. Germany passed a law demanding utilities buy excess electricity from microgeneration at a good price and the take up of solar, and no doubt other technologies, has soared.

The only people too stupid to be excited by these developments are the electricity and oil companies.

"There is no silver bullet," said Jeroen Van der Veer, Shell's chief executive.
"We have invested a bit in all forms of renewable energy ourselves and maybe we'll find a winner one day. But the reality is that in twenty years time we'll still be using more oil than now," he said.

Technorati tag: Solar Power

The 2010 Imperative

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/brian_wilson/2007/02/building_a_green_future.html
http://www.2010imperative.org/
The Global Emergency Teach In, next Tuesday.  Share ideas and plans for reducing the eco-impact of the built environment.

Sacrifice What?

I've noticed the word "sacrifice", or variations on it, popping up in discussions of global warming recently. The deniers and nay-sayers gleefully tell us that "ordinary people" won't be able or willing to make the sacrifices- ie lifestyle changes- necessary to cut carbon dioxide output. I believe they are insulting the very people they pretend to champion, under estimating what the average citizen is capable of.

Sadly, too many Greens have taken up this idea and talk of the troubles we face. All talk of sacrifice suggests we'll have to go back to the Dark Ages to cut consumption.

It's all nonsense, of course. What's needed is a fresh look at just what we'd be giving up and a more honest description of it. So let's make a few sacrifices. Let's sacrifice-

Paying too much for bland, boring food that's over packaged and shipped halfway around the world. Research has shown that local shops and markets are consistently cheaper than the supermarket chains. They're also friendlier, put more money into the local economy and stock foods you won't find on Tesco's shelves.

Burning money running a status symbol that increasingly says bad things about you, that is a danger to everyone on the road- including its occupants- and spends most of its life carting nothing more substantial than air. If people took the time to find the largest car they needed, rather than the ideal vehicle for a trek across Alaska with the extended family, they could save hundreds, if not thousands, of pounds a year without sacrificing any of the convenience and comfort of having a car. Of course, it would be best if they could leave the car behind more often as well, but maybe they'd learn that when they realised how little they really needed it.

Teaching children to be unhealthy and dependent on others. They could walk to school, getting exercise, building self confidence and teaching them to do stuff for themselves. It would probably make them safer in other ways as well. Recognising, and being recognised in, their neighbourhood should help children spot trouble such as the mythical danger stranger if it ever appeared.

Paying exorbitant energy bills because our filament bulbs use more energy making heat than they do making light. Really, when a decent compact fluorescent bulb will pay for itself in less than a year, why do people insist on the false economy of filament bulbs?

That's just a sample. Next time someone tells you the culture won't change because of the sacrifices involved try one of them as a reply. We're all in a position to make sacrifices which actually leave us better off as well as helping the environment. When we've pocketed the money from them, more drastic action will be less painful and easier to contemplate.

Reviewing the Nuclear Review

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/6364281.stm
The Government's nuclear review (AKA whitewash) has been judged biased and misleading and there are calls for a new white paper on the subject.

Tony Blair et al insist that their fixation on nuclear power is a brave and radical attempt to counter global warming when it's actually a cowardly and backward effort to avoid doing anything.  If they want to do something radical they should start subsidising insulation and double glazing for houses in the worst Council Tax bands and paying to put solar water heaters on every South facing roof in the country.  Start by reducing the need for centralised energy production and helping those whose energy costs are a greater proportion of their expenditure.  It will increase the prosperity of the country, likely encourage further spending on energy saving and cut carbon dioxide production.

Then they can start funding micro-generation and communal energy projects.  Water turbines on weirs, local windmills, geothermal for a whole street, that sort of thing.  Lots of little projects have a better chance of coming in on time and under budget than one big one and a distributed power generation system will be more robust.

There are a lot of reasons why this won't happen, but they all have one common factor- Tony Blair's cowardice.  The Daily Mail would moan about the undeserving getting cossetted with free insulation and rail against "Nanny Statism".  The NIMBYs would try to halt schemes designed to make them better off.  Big Energy companies would complain because they would lose their monopolies and hold over consumers.  Most of all, this sort of scheme would give power back to ordinary people, the sort of prospect that gives every politician nightmares.

Carbon Footprints

To coincide with teh publication of teh Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report last week, activists stencilled "carbon footprints" on the pavement outside flight centres etc.

Starry Night Lights

This is a paid review through ReviewMe.

At first I thought Starry Night Lights were going to be unhappy with what they'd spent their money on. The company is dedicated to providing outside lighting that cuts down light pollution. This, I thought, was an aesthetic issue, of interest only to astronomers and Lisa Simpson.

With the caveat that exterior lighting should be reduced as much as possible, Starry Night Lights do make a fair argument for the environmental benefits of their products. They want house-holders to eliminate unnecessary illumination and install shaded and low energy lighting only where it's absolutely necessary, and then have it linked to motion sensors so it only comes on when needed.

There's no denying the earnestness of the man behind this company, he even has his own outdoor lighting blog where he questions the logic of illumination oneupmanship and suggests solutions. The site, sadly, is a bit clunky, looking very much like an old school effort from the early days of online commerce. And it's based in the USA, so of no use to me even if I was in the market for low energy external lighting.

Technorati tag: EcoHouse, Lighting