The BuilderScrap team have come up with a fun construction/environment related quiz, see how you get on, answers will be published on the site next week!

1) For every tonne of household waste how much do commercial, industrial and construction businesses produce?
a. Another 2 tonnes
b. Another 6 tonnes
c. Another 15 tonnes

2) What are the most environmentally unfriendly construction materials?
a. Concrete
b. PVC based products
c. Bricks

3) How many lego bricks were needed for James May’s full lego house?
a. 6.7 million
b. 5.4 million
c. 3.2 million

4) Which animals have been discovered to predict earthquakes?
a. Cats
b. Toads
c. Rats

5) How many tonnes of ice are falling into the sea every year?
a. 2 ½ million
b. 250 million
c. 250 billion

6) What building material did the Romans invent?
a. Bricks
b. Copper Piping
c. Concrete

7) WWF estimated that how many people switched their lights off as part of their campaign during Earth Hour?
a. 600,000
b. 4 Million
c. 1 Billion

8 ) Match the following famous architectural landmarks with the correct names

i. Kuwait Towers
ii. Arc de Triomph
iii. Petronas Towers
iiii. Constantine’s Arch

9) What radical idea have the Chinese planned for their landfill sites?
a. Spraying landfill sites with deodorant
b. Giant fans pointing away from the cities
c. Face masks to be given out free of charge

10) What legendary computer game character was spotted on Saturn’s moon Minas?
a. Lara Croft
b. Mario
c. Pac-Man

Have fun and keep an eye out for the answers next week!

BuilderScrap.com are looking at the defra 2009 Public attitudes and behaviours towards the environment survey. Investigating the extent to which respondents were involved in volunteering for environmental and other organisations. The post concludes with an analysis of respondents‟ self-reported life satisfaction.

Involvement with organisations that are linked to the environment

Respondents were presented with a list of fifteen third sector organisations whose remit had some links to the environment and asked if they were a member of, or made regular donations to any of these. A third (32%) of all respondents were involved with at least one of these organisations. Respondents were most likely to be involved with Oxfam (12% of all respondents), The National Trust / The National Trust for Scotland (9%), Christian Aid (6%), RSPB (5%) and Wildlife Trusts (5%).

DEFRA September 2009

Involvement with these organisations appears to have decreased since the 2007 Defra Survey from 42% to 32% in 2009. As shown in the above table, reported involvement has decreased for most of the individual organisations listed in the survey, such as Oxfam and The National Trust, though there was an increase in the numbers reporting involvement with unlisted organisations concerned with the environment (from 1% in 2007 to 5% in 2009).

Public attitudes and behaviours towards the environment – tracker survey DEFRA September 2009

Working with Builders merchants in the UK, we know the majority have good links with volunteer organisations on both a charitable and social inclusion organisations.

So lets keep up the great work!

Landfill sites have a number of associated problems including high emissions, ground and water contamination as well as being unsightly and smelly. One problem that an innovative landfill in Beijing is looking to solve is the bad odours created by landfill following a barrage of complaints from local residents bemoaning the unsavoury stench.

Beijing has a population of 17 million which is developing a more and more westernised throw away attitude, the city generates 18,000 tonnes of waste every day. This has led to a number (reports suggest around 200) of poorly managed tips on the city outskirts, many of which are illegally operated.

The landfill in question which is adopting a new strategy to reduce bad odours is the Asuwai dump site; they are set to install 100 large deodorant guns on the site. The giant deodorant guns can spray dozens of litres of deodorant each minute over a 50 metre radius. There are also plans to add more plastic covers over the landfill site to reduce the number of bad odours from becoming airborne.

Now local residents will be able to wake up to the smell of a combination of garbage and l’eau de toilette. Let’s just hope that the Beijing residents approve of the choice of deodorant, maybe a poll could be undertaken to determine a favourite fragrance.

Of course this can only be a temporary fix (if indeed it can be called that), China is developing a massive consumer economy and the statistics above tell us that longer term solutions are required. Less than 4% of rubbish in Beijing is recycled compared to 35% in the UK. Further to this only 2% is burned and the remainder is sent to landfill.

China faces a big challenge in order to ensure that its economic growth and success does not come at the cost of society and the environment. Consumer growth over the last 10-20 years has meant that the problem of waste has emerged too quickly to deal with effectively. The Chinese Government now realises this is an issue that will need to be actively addressed with plans to invest in a number of new incinerators, although this has been met by some strong local opposition as concerns have been raised regarding the safety of these. I assume that strangely they do not have similar concerns over the safety of the giant deodorant guns?

Source – The Guardian

At 8.30pm (local time) on Saturday the 27th March 2010, 4000 cities in more than 120 countries across the world turned their lights off as part of the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) organised demonstration to raise awareness about climate change and the need for an ambitious global climate deal. This was the fourth time that “Earth Hour” has taken place in an attempt to increase awareness and has been described by the organisers as “both a warning and a beacon of hope”.

Millions turned their lights off for “Earth Hour” beginning at 8.30pm local time in the Chatham Islands off the coast of New Zealand. Over the course of the day lights continued to switch off as local times reached 8.30pm plunging many famous landmarks into darkness including the Sydney Opera House, The Eiffel Tower, Big Ben and The Empire State Building.

Whilst the singe hour will do little to nothing to reduce carbon emissions, the symbolic display was to raise awareness for a longer term climate solution. Whilst critics have been quick to point out that the short term switch off would create an upsurge when lights were turned back on after a relatively quick period of time. This could in fact lead to an increase in carbon emissions for the event.

The event has received backing from Gordon Brown and the UN as well as a number of other global leaders. Let’s hope that “Earth Hour” will have demonstrated that there is support for action and the need for a climate deal is of the utmost urgency.

We’ve found a very interesting article By Jeremy Cooke Rural affairs correspondent, on the BBC News, 23rd March 2010

Personally I’m not sure about the predictability of wind, and suitable areas for wind farms are often near the coast, where land is expensive for any Home builders. I’m also of the opinion that covering the landscape with these towers is unsightly.

What about the environmental impact on migrating flocks as they tend to like strong winds. However, I understand from my colleagues that this is rare, and they tend not to build wind farms on migratory routes anyway.

Have a read

Scottish island backs wind power

It is among one of the most remote corners of Britain. It is also one of the most unspoilt landscapes this country has to offer. But right in the centre of Westray Island, in the Orkney Islands, stands a 67m wind turbine that dominates the surrounding countryside. It is exactly the kind of alternative energy project which would seem certain to attract bitter opposition in many of our rural communities. But here there has been not a single planning objection to the turbine.

David Stephenson is a retired Englishman who has chosen a new life on this Scottish Island. He is a prime mover in the community trust which built the turbine.
“There were no objections,” he says. “That’s not because everybody on Westray likes wind turbines. We know that some don’t but they think that if there is an opportunity for a turbine on Westray, then let it be owned by the community with all the benefits from it being invested back into the community.” And that’s exactly what is happening. It was the community itself which raised the £1.5m to pay for the turbine, through a combination of bank loans and grants. That means that, perhaps uniquely, the project is wholly owned by the community and will eventually raise a projected £200,000 a year in annual income.

For the ladies of Westray’s knitting circle it is this common-ownership-for-the-common-good approach which helps make the turbine acceptable. As they chat over tea in the Half Yok café they seem well acquainted with the business plan. Kathy Maben sums it up: “We all had a chance to say what we thought and we all had a chance to put forward our views. It really is a good thing. The money that will come from it in the long run… will do so much to help Westray.”

Not everyone here loves the look of the turbine. In the sunlight it stands even more prominent as the light reflects off the rotating blades. But Dorris, a long time Westray resident with a beautiful Orcadian accent, laughs as she describes how she uses it as an instant update on the weather. “It’s quite fine. I look out the door every day and see it barrelling away. If it goes round fast you know it’s a bad day and if goes round slowly you know it is a better day.”

Theological gains

So could the Westray model be used to help make alternative energy schemes more accepted in rural communities across the country?

The instinct to protect the landscape is often the driving factor for the more than a hundred campaign groups in Britain which are dedicated to stopping the renewables scheme in their areas.

In Westray that opposition seems to have been removed. That’s largely because of the cash benefit to the community but also because of the scale of the development; one wind turbine rather than a big wind farm. At the Island Church, or Kirk, Reverend Iain MacDonald believes Westray’s example could be a way forward for other communities: indeed other islands have are already investigating their own “community energy projects.” As he stands in the Kirk, which has its own small wind turbine and ground source heat pump, it is clear that he believes alternative energy is the right thing to do: an act of faith.

“It’s an environmental thing, clearly. It has an ethical angle. From a Christian point of view it’s got the angle of theological stewardship. But it’s also a very cost effective thing. Stewardship is not just about the theological side, it’s also about the very practical side… And we gain on both,” he says.

The Westray project is in its first year on line and as the blades go around, the control room at the base of the turbine keeps track of the amount of energy which is being fed from here into the national grid. It will take some time to calculate just how much cash will be raised. But the community here takes satisfaction in the fact that whatever money there is, will come back to them, rather than profit a big energy company.

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8574330.stm

Are wind farms noisy?  Wind generators have a reputation for making a constant, low, “swooshing” noise day and night, which I’ve heard can drive you nuts.  Having said that, as aerodynamic designs have improved modern wind farms are now much quieter. A lot quieter than, say, a fossil fuel power station; and wind farms tend not to be close to residential areas anyway.

Your thoughts

Builderscrap.com are looking at the defra 2009 Public attitudes and behaviours towards the environment survey.

The survey also included a number of measures to capture how often people used green spaces and the importance they placed on these in their lives. Around half (48%) of respondents said they used public gardens, parks, commons and other green spaces at least once a week with 10% saying they used these six or seven days a week. A quarter said that they used them either once a fortnight or once a month (26% of all respondents) with the same proportion reporting that they used them less than once a month or never (26%).
A large majority of respondents indicated that having public gardens, parks, commons and other green spaces nearby was important to them. Just 5% of respondents did not think that this was important to them (with the majority of these people saying it was “not very” rather than “not at all” important to them). Table 41 shows the results for these questions for both the current and 2007 Defra survey.

DEFRA September 2009

While the figures appear similar for each response about usage of green spaces, in total the proportion who claimed to use green spaces once a week or more had decreased from 54% in 2007 to 48% in 2009.

Respondents rated the importance of having green spaces nearby very highly and the total proportion rating this as very or fairly important had increased from 91% of respondents in 2007 to 95% in 2009. The biggest difference was in the proportion of respondents who said that having such spaces nearby was very important to them (up from 65% in 2007 to 74% in 2009). There was little variation in response by the type of area the respondent lived in – respondents living in villages were marginally more likely to say that having public gardens, parks, commons and other green spaces was very important to them than those living in cities and towns (80% compared with 75%).
In follow-up to these questions, respondents were asked to pick the three most important reasons for spending time in public gardens, parks, commons and other green spaces (from a list of eight options). As one of these top three reasons, the most frequently cited reason was fresh air (by 57% of respondents). This was followed by open space (44%), plants and wildlife (35%), scenery (30%), tranquillity (26%) and leisure opportunities (26%). There was little variation in response by type of area lived in, although respondents living in villages were more likely to cite plants and wildlife (46%) and scenery (42%) as important reasons for spending time in public gardens, parks and commons than those living in cities and towns (34% and 28% respectively).
An equivalent question was asked on the 2007 Defra omnibus survey to ascertain the most important reasons for respondents visiting open countryside – the top reason given at that time was also fresh air (mentioned by 61% of respondents), followed by scenery (56%), tranquillity (45%), open space (39%), and plants and wildlife (38%) which are the same reasons as those most frequently cited in 2009 though in a different order. Leisure opportunities were cited as a reason for visiting open countryside by around one in ten (11%) respondents.

Public attitudes and behaviours towards the environment – tracker survey DEFRA September 2009

Copenhagen climate summit undone by ‘arrogance’  By Richard Black Environment correspondent, BBC News

The “disappointing” outcome of December’s climate summit was largely down to “arrogance” on the part of rich countries, according to Lord Stern.

The economist told BBC News that the US and EU nations had not understood well enough the concerns of poorer nations. But, he said, the summit had led to a number of countries outlining what they were prepared to do to curb emissions. Seventy-three countries have now signed up to the non-binding Copenhagen Accord, the summit’s outcome document.

The weak nature of the document led many to condemn the summit as a failure; but Lord Stern said that view was mistaken. “The fact of Copenhagen and the setting of the deadline two years previously at Bali did concentrate minds, and it did lead… to quite specific plans from countries that hadn’t set them out before,” he said.

“The reality is different from half a year ago Gro Harlem Brundtland” UN special envoy on climate change

Still real, still a problem

“So this process has itself been a key part of countries stating what their intentions on emissions reductions are – countries that had not stated them before, including China and the US.

“So that was a product of the UNFCCC (UN climate convention) process that we should respect.”

The former World Bank chief economist and author of the influential 2006 review into the economics of climate change was speaking to BBC News following a lecture at the London School of Economics (LSE), where he now chairs the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment.

During the lecture, he compared the atmosphere at the Copenhagen summit to student politics in the 1960s – “chaotic, wearing, tiring, disappointing” – and said it was one in which countries had little room for real negotiating.

However, he said, it was vital to stick with the UN process, whatever its frustrations.

Twin tracks

Having failed to agree a treaty to supplant or supplement the Kyoto Protocol, and having failed to set a timetable for agreeing such a treaty, opinions are inevitably split on how countries seeking stronger curbs on greenhouse gas emissions should move forward.

“It could have been much better handled by the rich countries” Lord Stern

Speaking in Brussels, Gro Harlem Brundtland – the UN’s special envoy on climate change – suggested there would now be a twin-track approach, with some of the important discussions taking place outside the UNFCCC umbrella.

She also acknowledged that the talks had proved much more problematical than some governments – particularly in the EU – had anticipated.

“They got the message that it was much more complicated than [they had believed], and that they have to work with Brazil and China and others, not only in the broad framework of UN negotiations but also more directly and pragmatically,” she said.

“The reality is different from half a year ago.”

Lord Stern agreed that what he described as the “disappointing” outcome of the Copenhagen talks was largely down to rich nations’ failure to understand developing world positions and concerns.

“[There was] less arrogance than in previous years – we have, I think, moved beyond the G8 world to the G20 world where more countries are involved – but [there was] still arrogance and it could have been much better handled by the rich countries,” he said.

The EU limited its room for manoeuvre, he said, because too many of the leading political figures wanted to demonstrate that they were leading.

Brass from pockets

The most concrete part of the Copenhagen Accord is an agreement that richer countries should raise funds to help poorer nations adapt to climate impacts and “green” their economies.

Lord Stern is a member of the group set up by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon to advise on how to raise $100bn (£66bn) per year by 2020 using various “innovative mechanisms” that could include taxes on international aviation and banking transactions.

But the immediate objective, he suggested, was to enact the short-term promise of providing $30bn over the period 2010-12 from the public purses of western nations.

If that money did not start to move fairly quickly, he said, that would further erode trust among developing countries.

Speaking in Brussels during a meeting with EU leaders, Mexico’s environment secretary Juan Rafael Elvira endorsed the point.

“The developing world needs to see clear signals to have something in their hands at Cancun,” he said.

The Mexican coastal city will host this year’s UNFCCC summit.

“The developing countries want to see this money unblocked; the island nations especially are waiting for this funding,” said Mr Elvira.

How and where these funds are to be disbursed has yet to be decided.

Richard.Black-INTERNET@bbc.co.uk

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8571347.stm

At BuilderScrap.com we’re all for responsible targets. One of our concerns regarding the Kyoto Protocol has been that it exempts developing nations from targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Accordingly, many people worry that developing country emissions will skyrocket as they develop economically.  Regardless of recycling waste to landfill policies can we really reduce our emissions sufficiently to compensate for other less economically developed nations.

We’d love to talk Building services all day, but we’re aware that most of our readers have more interest in our environmental posts.  Some topics are hotter than others…  more now from the defra 2009 Public attitudes and behaviours towards the environment survey.

Defra asked respondents to list reasons why biodiversity should be conserved and asked them to rank them in order of importance, starting with the most important. The reasons given were:
- It makes green open spaces more pleasant places to visit
- It contributes to the quality of our air and water
- We cannot afford to lose species that might one day provide medical or other benefits we have not yet discovered
- We all have a duty to minimise our impacts on nature and the planet.

For the purposes of the current analysis, these reasons have been ranked according to the proportion of respondents that selected them as either the 1st or 2nd most important reason, followed by the proportion that selected them as either the 3rd or 4th most important reason. Table 40 summarises this analysis for each of the factors.

DEFRA September 2009

Respondents reported that the most important reason to conserve biodiversity (of the four) was “we all have a duty to minimise our impacts on nature and the planet‟. 65% selected this as either their first or second most important reason and were least likely to select this as the third or fourth most important (35% selected this).
The second and third options in Table 40 (“we cannot afford to lose species that might one day provide medical or other benefits we have not yet discovered‟ and “it contributes to the quality of our air and water‟) were rated as of similar importance. About half of respondents selected one of these two statements as either their first or second most important reason (52% and 51% respectively). However, a similar proportion selected these statements as their third or fourth most important reasons.
Overall, the least important reason as judged by respondents was “it makes green open spaces more pleasant places to visit‟ – one third (33%) of respondents selected this as either the first or second most important reason, while around double this proportion (67%) selected it as either the third or fourth most important reason.

Public attitudes and behaviours towards the environment – tracker survey DEFRA September 2009

Want to know more about BuilderScrap.com… visit our Youtube Channel

As I’m sure you all know we’re a completely free website for the construction trade, set up by builders for builders, that aims to facilitate contact between different trades people and help them to use up surplus in the supply chain. BuilderScrap.com provides an outlet to encourage reuse of material that would otherwise be thrown away. It’s a way for the industry to work together to reduce the amount of builders’ waste sent to landfill.

Lets have a look at some of our more interesting available items…. with a water theme.

Executive Restrooms

A Swimming Pool Slide

Stainless Steel Urinal Trough

We do have a wide and varied range of items available