BuilderScrap.com are looking at Biodiversity. The survey included a number of questions to gauge respondents ‘knowledge of’ and ‘attitudes and behaviours’ towards biodiversity. We’re going to summarise the findings from these questions alongside findings which relate to respondents’ use of green spaces (including gardens, public parks and open spaces).

Knowledge of the term biodiversity

Respondents were asked to say how much, if anything, they knew about the term biodiversity. The question was asked without providing respondents with a definition of what biodiversity was. Just over one in ten in total knew either a lot about it (3%) or a fair amount about it (8%). Around one fifth (19%) said they knew just a little and 17% said they knew nothing about it but had heard of the name. Half (50%) said that they knew nothing about it and had never heard of ‘biodiversity’.
The 2009 figures indicate a lower level of knowledge about biodiversity compared with 2007 (the same question was asked on the 2007 Defra omnibus survey). In 2007 fewer respondents said they had never heard of biodiversity in 2007 (44%) and respondents were more likely to indicate that they knew nothing about biodiversity but had heard the name (21% in 2007 compared with 17% in 2009). However, these changes were small and the proportion who said they knew a lot or a fair amount about biodiversity is comparable between the two surveys.

After responding to this question, all respondents were provided with a definition of biodiversity so everyone was able to answer subsequent questions: ‘Biodiversity is the variety of living things and the natural environments that support them’.
Respondents were asked to indicate how much thought they had given prior to the survey to the loss of biodiversity in the UK and elsewhere in the world. The findings from this question are presented in Table 37 compared with the 2007 Defra omnibus survey findings.

The results in the above table show that the level of thought given to loss of biodiversity in the UK was very similar to that given to loss of biodiversity elsewhere in the world. A small proportion (7%) of respondents said they had given a great deal of thought to biodiversity in the UK or elsewhere, while 14% said they had given a fair amount of thought. It was more likely for respondents to say they had given a little thought to loss of biodiversity in the UK (25%) or elsewhere in the world (24%). However, the largest group of respondents indicated that they had not really given any thought to loss of biodiversity either within the UK (49%) or elsewhere in the world (49%).

A smaller proportion of respondents said they had given some thought to the loss of biodiversity in 2009 compared with 2007. In 2007, slightly more than two thirds of respondents said they had given either a little, a fair amount or a lot of thought to loss of biodiversity in the UK (67%) and elsewhere in the world (70%) compared with less than one half in 2009 (45% on both measures).

Usually at the BuilderScrap.com offices we’re discussing Free Building Materials and how to get rid of Builders Surplus Supply. We’d like our readers to know we’ve a vested interest in Carbon offsetting and various other environmental projects.

This post from the current defra survey looks at respondents’ attitudes towards carbon offsetting and the types of offsetting schemes that are available. As part of the omnibus survey, the respondents who said they knew a lot or a fair amount about carbon offsetting were presented with three statements about offsetting and asked how strongly they agreed or disagreed with each (on a scale ranging between strongly agree and strongly disagree). Figure 1 summarises responses to these statements and compares these with the findings from the 2007 Defra survey.

Respondents who reported having already used offsetting and who knew a fair amount or a lot about carbon offsetting were presented with one additional statement (‘by making people more aware of how their behaviour affects the environment, carbon offsetting encourages more environmentally-friendly behaviour in other areas of their life’). As so few respondents answered this question, the results for this statement are provided for indicative purposes only – the base size is too low to support meaningful interpretation.

Due to the relatively small base sizes for each of the statements, most of the apparent differences shown in Figure 14 are not statistically significant. However, people‟s attitudes towards carbon offsetting do seem to have become slightly more positive since the 2007 Defra survey. The main significant changes since 2007 are highlighted below.

Compared with 2007, respondents who knew a lot or a fair amount about carbon offsetting, were more likely to agree that ‘I would trust companies offering carbon offsetting to use the money I paid in the right way’ (35% agreed compared with 24% in 2007) and more likely to disagree that ‘carbon offsetting will make no difference to the fight against climate change’ (50% compared with 42% in 2007). Respondents were less likely to agree that ‘carbon offsetting encourages people to carry on doing things that harm the environment’ (44% agreed compared with 57% in 2007). All of these changes indicate that respondents were more positive towards carbon offsetting compared with 2007.

More from BuilderScrap.com on Carbon Offsetting. The survey also looked at the factors which might prompt people to start or stop paying into carbon offsetting schemes.

Those who had paid into a carbon offsetting scheme (169 respondents in total) were asked to state the main reason for choosing to offset their emissions. Respondents were presented with a list of five options but also given the chance to select an “other” code and provide their own verbatim response. The reason given most frequently for paying into a carbon offsetting scheme was because “it helps the environment” (41%). A smaller number of respondents reported that it was because “it is the right thing to do / we have a duty to do it” (11%) or that “it is an easy thing to do” (11%). Smaller proportions said they had paid in because “it makes me feel less guilty about my lifestyle” (9%) or because “it adds little to my travel and/or household bills” (4%).

Those who had not yet paid into a carbon offsetting scheme were asked what the main reason was for this. Again, respondents who answered this question were given a list of pre-coded answers to choose from. Responses were more evenly divided between “I can’t afford it / it’s too expensive” (14%), “it is not important to me” (13%), because “I don’t think it would make a difference‟ (12%), or because “I don’t know enough about it / need more information‟ (10%). A smaller proportion of respondents reported that they had not paid into a scheme because they “don’t trust companies offering carbon offsetting to use the money I paid in the right way” (4%) or because they had “never thought about it” (4%).

If “knowing that you were buying Government approved offsets would make you more or less likely to offset?‟. One quarter (25%) of respondents said they would be more likely to offset if they knew the scheme was Government approved with around one in ten (12%) saying they would be less likely. However, around one half (49%) said that knowing this would make no difference. Table 36 summarises the responses to this question.

At BuilderScrap.com we’d like to know how many Builders would use the government approved schemes to carbon offset when disposing of their Builders Supply!

At the BuilderScrap.com office we’re discussing Carbon offsetting and we’d love to hear your thoughts. Comments not just from our regular visitors using the site to trade Builders Surplus but people who believe its either a great idea so simply doesn’t work.

Carbon offsetting schemes operate in a number of areas, to compensate for travel emissions but also for emissions coming from energy use in the home. Respondents who had ever paid into a scheme or were thinking about paying in were asked what they would be willing to offset (choosing items from a pre-coded list of three options). In total 371 were asked this question. Just over half (51%) of these respondents said they would be willing to offset the electricity and/or gas that they and their household used. This was followed by 29% who said they would be willing to offset the flights they take for holidays and 26% their annual car mileage. A smaller proportion of respondents (14%) said they would not be willing to offset any of these three items while 7% indicated that they did not know. Results from this question are summarised in Table 35.

This same group of respondents were also asked whether they would be most interested in paying into projects in the UK, projects in other countries (particularly in developing countries), or whether they did not mind which. Just under half (46%) of these respondents expressed a preference for paying into a UK-based project, with 15% expressing a preference for paying into projects in other countries. Slightly fewer than a third (29%) indicated that they did not mind which type of scheme.

Here at BuilderScrap.com we like to pass on information we hope that our readers will find useful. This post comes from the BBC News Website 1/01/2010. We’re not sure if you’re local Builders surplus stores have any Solar Panels going spare….

Plans to reward eco-friendly householders for the green energy that their solar panels produce have received a muted welcome. The clean energy cashback plan, known as “feed-in tariffs”, offers incentives from April for those who install small scale renewables on their homes. The government claims one in 10 homeowners could fit panels or small wind turbines by 2020. But the scheme has been criticised as not generous enough.

Payments

The UK gets about 5.5% of its electricity from renewable sources and, in order to hit green targets in 10 years’ time, this would have to rise to 30%.

Under the programme, people will be paid a fixed rate by their energy provider for electricity from small renewable power sources. They could also save money on their bills. Homeowners who install photovoltaic panels could earn £900 a year when they first put in the technology, along with saving £140 a year on their bills, the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) said. Renewable energy groups suggest people will have a 5% to 8% rate of return on their initial green investment for up to 25 years, although this technology remains relatively expensive to install.

Solar panels and wind turbines of up to five megawatts will be paid for the electricity they generate, even if the homeowners used it themselves.

“The feed-in tariff will change the way householders and communities think about their future energy needs, making the payback for investment far shorter than in the past,” said Energy Secretary Ed Miliband.

However, the cost of the scheme will come from higher charges for other customers who do not fit renewable energy sources. The typical customer will face an extra £11 on their annual bill by 2020, DECC said.

Lack of incentive

While many consumer groups have welcomed the move, they have also criticised the level of incentive payments provided under the scheme.

“Ministers have been far too timid with a policy that could make a significant contribution to cutting emissions and boosting energy security,” said Dave Timms, of Friends of the Earth.

The Solar Trade Association said the rate of return was half of that seen under other schemes.
And Liz Laine, of watchdog Consumer Focus, said that the scheme could help people make big savings and cut carbon emissions, but more ambitious targets were needed from the government.

“It needs to offer more attractive cashback rates to overcome the cost-barrier of installing this technology and provide better information and advice to consumers,” she said.

Proposals for a second incentive scheme for renewable heat, which will pay people to install technology such as ground source heat pumps and biomass boilers, have also been published. Details will be published in the 2010 Budget.