Last week, I took a quick look at the Copenhagen Summit and briefly discussed its failings; today I wanted to find out a little more about the US commitments to carbon, partly as research, but also to highlight the importance of the US developing an ambitious carbon reduction policy.

In the run up to the Copenhagen conference, President Obama declared that the US targets would be a reduction of Greenhouse gas emissions by 17% on 2005 levels by 2020. This compares to targets from the EU of 20% which could rise to 30%. Also the 2005 baseline is very misleading with the international standard baseline being 1990, this would only equate to a 4% reduction using this baseline if the US achieved their targets. Whilst it could be considered a breakthrough that the US is trying to implement some environmental targets and policies, it is disappointing that these are not more ambitious in attempt to set a benchmark for others.

Why is the US involvement so important? The US is no longer the biggest polluter in the world since China surpassed them in either 2006 or 2007 depending on which reports are believed.  However, the US is still by far and away the biggest polluter per capita than any other nation. With approximately 5% of the world’s population it accounts for more than 30% of the worlds emissions (http://www.seiu.org). Most of the world is looking at China and the US to lead the way in creating a deal as the two largest polluters with many seeing a deal as pointless if both are not involved. With China pledging to match the 17% levels set by the US though it seems unlikely that other countries will follow with greater targets.

The US still will be unable to pass this as legislation until it has been approved by the Senate however, and it will now be considered. But if the bill is passed what incentives/punishments can the US put in place to help? Suggestions have been for Carbon Taxes to be phased in for businesses and households; in turn these could be used to pay for research for more efficient energy schemes and to be used to assist developing countries to cope with climate change.

It is crucial that the highest polluting countries and businesses take the initiative. The need for polluters to take responsibility is imperative; it is the actions of the big polluters that directly impact on other countries. We need to create a similar feel to that of smoking in the UK where we appreciate that it not only damaging to the smoker but the actions are detrimental to others, a taboo has successfully been created whereby smokers are frowned upon for their actions. Similarly high polluters must appreciate that they have a responsibility to the developing countries that are struggling with the effects of climate change and act accordingly to reduce emissions. We need to reach a situation where it is no longer acceptable to be a country or company that is not tackling the problems of high emissions and these are condemned by others both socially and politically; this needs to be done globally, and I believe for this to happen it is the China and the US who will need to take the lead. Others will feel that their own contributions are negligible against the big polluters unless this occurs; ultimately action is needed by all.

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.

At BuilderScrap.com we like to think we know about carbon offsetting. All respondents in the omnibus survey were asked how much they knew about carbon offsetting. Figure 13 summarises responses to this question compared with data from the 2007 Defra survey.

Respondents’ perceptions of how much they knew about carbon offsetting have decreased since 2007. In the current survey a little over a third (37%) of respondents said they knew at least a little about carbon offsetting’ down from 43% in 2007. The proportion of people saying they knew nothing and had never heard of the term had increased from 35% in 2007 to 40% in 2009. Respondents who said they knew at least a little about carbon offsetting were asked whether they had ever paid into a scheme personally. This question was followed up using a stages of change response scale to assess the extent to which respondents had considered paying into such a scheme. The results for both questions are presented in Table 34.

Of those who knew at least a little about carbon offsetting, 6% said they had paid into a scheme at some point in the past (the equivalent of 2% of all respondents). This represents a statistically significant increase from 3% in 2007.

The second question presented in Table 34 was asked after providing all respondents with a description of what carbon offsetting was, to help assess willingness to act. This suggests a slightly different picture, with 14% of those who knew at least a little about carbon offsetting saying that they were at the maintenance stage of carbon offsetting (having either ‘done this before and intending to do it again’ or ‘done this before though not as much as I’d like’). This may reflect a difference in what is understood by ‘paying into’ a carbon offsetting scheme rather than ‘using’ a carbon offsetting scheme. One third of respondents (33%) were at the pre-contemplative stage (having either never heard of it or thought about it), while around one quarter (27%) had thought about it but rejected it and 17% were contemplating it but had not yet used a scheme. Only 2% of respondents who knew at least a little about offsetting had used a scheme previously but stopped.

The public were asked whether they agreed with the statement “people have a duty to recycle“. The vast majority (88%) agreed representing an increase of ten percentage points since 2007 (see Figure 11). The level of disagreement with this statement was very low – just 5% of respondents disagreed in 2009, representing a small decrease from 7% in the 2007 Defra survey.

At our Builders Exchange we love to to look back at old surveys to compare and contrast results.

Reuse of items and use of own bags when shopping were also measured in the 2007 survey. There have been distinct increases in the numbers reporting that they were doing these behaviours (Figure 10). Since 2007, the proportion of respondents saying that they always or very often reused items has more than doubled, from 18% to 45%. Those saying that they never reused items had decreased by nine percentage points to 13%.

Figure 10 shows that those who always or very often take their own bags when they shop had nearly trebled since 2007 from 25% to 70%. In 2007 there was a larger proportion of respondents who would sometimes or occasionally take their own bags (22%), but the survey findings suggest that this has become more frequent for the majority of shoppers. In 2007, a third of respondents said they never took their own
bags – this has now reduced to just 10% of respondents.

Double, trebled great work!

This post from BuilderScrap.com concerns not just building materials but also the recycling of common waste.  Consistent with 2007, 83% of respondents said there was a bottle or recycling bank in their area. However, reported usage of these facilities had increased slightly compared with 2007 (see Table 18). Around three-quarters (71%) of respondents said they made use of recycling banks, an increase of six percentage points since 2007.

Respondents who said that they used their local recycling facilities were then asked what type of items they took there (see Table 19 for a full breakdown). People were most likely to take glass items to bottle banks or recycling centres – with nearly three quarters (70%) of respondents reporting taking these to be recycled. This is slightly less than the 76% who reported that they used their doorstep recycling collection for glass. Just under half (47%) took clothes to be recycled. Around a third of respondents reported that they took paper items, cardboard, shoes or tins and cans to their local recycling banks. It is likely that this is influenced by levels of doorstep collection for certain items, for example door-step collections for glass and clothes recycling are less widespread than paper.

In 2007, similar proportions of respondents were taking each of these items to recycling facilities. Where there had been changes in recycling, the largest increases were for tins, cans and foil, and paper items where the proportion of respondents who said they took these to be recycled had increased by eight percentage points.

We all support our local suppliers… don’t we? Across the main surveys three statements about purchasing were presented to all respondents. They were asked to say how strongly they agreed or disagreed with each using a five-point scale (ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree). The findings are presented in Figure 8.

Around three-quarters (73%) of respondents agreed that they made an effort to buy things from local retailers and suppliers, while just 11% of respondents disagreed.

Half (50%) agreed that newer products are more environmentally-friendly compared with 15% who disagreed. Opinion was more divided when looking at whether respondents would be prepared to pay more for environmentally-friendly products. Just under half (46%) agreed that they would be prepared to pay more for environmentally-friendly products, while just under a third (31%) disagreed with this. There is no statistically significant difference between the 2007 and 2009 results – in 2007, 44% agreed with the statement while 29% disagreed with it.

Roger Harrabin the Environment analyst for the BBC News suggests;

The cost of installing and owning solar panels will fall even faster than expected according to new research.

Tests show that 90% of existing solar panels last for 30 years, instead of the predicted 20 years. According to the independent EU Energy Institute, this brings down the lifetime cost.

The institute says the panels are such a good long-term investment that banks should offer mortgages on them like they do on homes.

At a conference, the institute forecast that solar panels would be cost-competitive with energy from the grid for half the homes in Europe by 2020 – without a subsidy.

Basically everything (in the industry) is bound to grow still further. Growing further means less cost Heinz Ossenbrink, EU Energy Institute

Incentive programmes for solar panels in Germany, Italy and Spain have created manufacturing volume that’s bringing down costs. Solar panel prices dropped 30% last year alone due to an increase in output and a drop in orders because of the recession.

But Heinz Ossenbrink, who works at the institute, said China had underpinned its solar industry with a big solar domestic programme which would keep prices falling. There are large-scale solar plans in the US and India too.

Panels had been expected to last for 20 years and price calculations were based on this (with a free energy source, purchase and installation represent almost the entire price of solar power).

But Dr Ossenbrink says the institute’s laboratory has been subjecting the cells to the sort of accelerated ageing through extremes of heat, cold and humidity that has long been a benchmark for the car industry.

Long lifetime

It has shown that more than 90% of the panels on the market 10 years ago are capable of still performing well after 30 years of life, albeit with a slight drop in performance.

Dr Ossenbrink says 40-year panels will be on the market soon.

A key goal for solar is what is known as grid parity. That is the point when it is as cheap for someone to generate power on their homes as it is to buy it from the grid.

It varies from country to country depending on electricity prices, but the institute estimates that Italy – which has a combination of sunny weather and relatively high electricity prices – should reach grid parity next year. Half of Europe should be enjoying grid parity by 2020, it estimates.

Cloudy northern countries like the UK could wait further, possibly up to 2030. But the day would come when solar panels on homes would be cost-competitive without a subsidy, even in Britain.

Dr Ossenbrink says: “Basically everything (in the industry) is bound to grow still further. Growing further means less cost. Less cost means grid parity.”

“We have been surprised in the past five years at the drop in prices. It’s due to good incentive programmes first in Germany then Spain and Italy. That created a kind of a boom that was helping industry to reduce costs and get into profitability. And when an industry is in profit it drives on its own.”

Owning solar

Professor Wim Sinke, from Utrecht University in the Netherlands, who leads the solar umbrella group the European Photovoltaic Technology Platform, says the industry has even greater ambitions.

“The target of the sector as a whole is to reach grid parity in almost all of Europe over the next 10 years. So by 2020 we should have grid parity in most of Europe,” he told BBC News.

Key sticking points for domestic solar, he said, would be the lack of flexibility in electricity grids to take in surplus generated energy and difficulties with finance.

Dr Ossenbrink said: “What I would like to see is the finance sector saying solar power is a product like financing a house – except they can predict the value of the solar panel much more safely than they can predict the value of the house in a volatile market.

“Electricity will never be given away free. Banks should offer mortgages on people’s solar panels like they do on homes – the bank should own the panel, then it would transfer to the householder when the loan has been paid off. It would be perfect for life assurances.”

It will take much longer for solar to match fossil fuel power at the point of generation, the institute says, as wholesale electricity prices are much lower than retail prices.

Hopefully one day we might see second hand solar panels on BuilderScrap.com or Builders merchants

The fifth and final stage of the Buildability Process is all to do with what happens at the end of a buildings life cycle.  Many buildings are demolished, whereas we believe that, wherever possible, disassembly and reuse whould be encouraged and employed. 

The following points should be looked at when arriving at this stage:

Use the reverse of the installation process to minimize damage
Allow realistic tolerances in the deconstruction process
There should be no “false economy” solutions
Identify markets for reused materials before commissioning deconstruction
Engage with all local third sector and voluntary organisations as potential ‘reusers’
Deconstruction/re use supply chain
Look for “outside the box” proactive reuse and recycling initiatives

So that finishes our series of blog posts concerning Buildability – Managing the Lifecycle of Your Building.  The following points offer a summary of the whole process:

1) Minimise the number of different types of components – this will simplify the process of sorting on site and make the potential for reprocess more attractive due to the larger quantities of same or similar items

2) Use an open building system where parts of the building are more freely interchangeable and less unique to one application – this will allow alterations in the building layout through relocation of component without significant modification

3) Use modular design – use components and pre-assembled subassemblies that are compatible with other systems both dimensionally and functionally

4) Use assembly technologies that are compatible with standard building practice – specialist technologies will make disassembly difficult to perform and may require specialist labour and equipment that makes the option of reuse more difficult

5) Provide access to all parts of the building and all components – ease of access will allow ease of disassembly, if possible allow for components to be recovered from within the building without the use of specialist plant equipment

6) Use components that are sized to suit the intended means of handling – allow for various possible handling options at all stages of assembly, disassembly, transport, reprocessing, and re-assembly

7) Provide a means of handling components during disassembly – handling during disassembly may require points of connection for lifting equipment or temporary supporting devices

8 ) Provide realistic tolerances to allow for movement during disassembly – the disassembly process may require greater tolerances than the manufacture process or the initial assembly process

9) Design joints and connectors to withstand repeated use – to minimise damage and deformation of components and materials during repeated assembly and disassembly procedures

10) Allow for parallel disassembly rather than sequential disassembly – so that components or materials can be removed without disrupting other components or materials.  Where this is not possible make the most reusable or ‘valuable’ parts of the building most accessible, to allow for maximum recovery of those components and materials that are most likely to be reused

11) Use prefabricated subassemblies and a system of mass production – to reduce site work and allow greater control over component quality and conformity

12) Provide spare parts and on-site storage for them – particularly for custom designed parts, both to replace broken or damaged components and to facilitate minor alterations to the building design

13) Sustain all information on the building manufacture and assembly process – measures should be taken to ensure the preservation of information such as ‘as built drawing’, information about disassembly process, material and component life expectancy, and maintenance requirements.

The fourth stage of the Buildability cycle is the management and maintenance of facilities and buildings.  Through managing each stage of the process, care can be taken to ensure that a complete construction project is as sustainable as possible, with as little adverse effect on the environment as is possible.  The following stages should be considered after a building project has finished, during the lifecycle of the building.

Energy performance certificates and monitoring
Manage running costs by efficient maintenance of high spec plant, therefore reducing carbon emissions
Observe all legal requirements and statutory obligations
Prevention of “sick building syndrome”
Life cycle costing

The final phase of this process, is to look at what happens at the end of a buildings life – the ‘deconstruction’ of said building.  Watch out for the next post which looks at this.