A recent report from the Institution of Civil Engineers (ICE) has warned that pressure on local authorities to keep waste out of landfill is at risk of backfiring. Ever increasing target rates for recycling is resulting in an emphasis of quantity not quality, producing a poor quality stream of recyclable material. Accordingly much of this is low-grade recycled material which holds no real economic value so ironically becomes destined for landfill anyway.

The report suggests that the waste industry needs to amend its culture to focus not only on increasing the amount of material recycled, but also on the quality and value of the material being recycled. This would then allow recycled materials to be fed back into the economy as saleable goods.

The report calls for the progression to a “circular economy” where recovered and recycled material is of a sufficient quality to be routinely reused in the economy. The ICE has suggested that the cost of making the required changes could be anywhere between £10-20bn by 2020.

BuilderScrap is of course fully aware of the need to change attitudes towards waste management, one method of ensuring that materials are not down-cycled is by ensuring that good quality new and used material are used for their intended purpose. For example construction waste, which equates to approximately 120 million tonnes includes approximately 14% of this is brand new material which has become surplus (WRAP). Furthermore, it is estimated that the same quantity again is reusable second hand material.

By recovering this material before recycling, significant savings can be made with reduced demands on energy and resources required in the recycling process, whilst also ensuring that the product has an economic value and not downgraded. Reclaiming and reusing materials is the most effective way to recover value from waste materials.

Defra has welcomed the report by the Institute of Civil Engineers (ICE) and will be utilising the report alongside their current review of waste policies in England. A spokesperson from Defra stated “It contains some interesting ideas and policy suggestions which we will look at in detail as part of our review”.

It will be interesting to see whether this review places greater importance on the areas of reuse and ensure that legislation and incentives ensure that the ideal waste hierarchy is achievable and economically viable.

Source: BBC News (13/01/2011) (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12172766)

Construction Materials supplier Jewsons have launched a free Sustainable Building Guide.

The free guide will be 62 pages and will give basic information on current legislation as well as upcoming legislation that will affect the construction industry. It will also include government incentives and sustainable products and practices.

Speaking at the launch at BRE, Watford, Peter Hindle MBE, managing director of Jewson said: “The key to greening our buildings is to give our clients the advice, support and training they need to build more sustainably”.

BRE chief executive Peter Bonfield said: “Builders’ merchants have an important role in ensuring customers make the right choices.”

On top of that Jewson is expected to open its Greenworks Training Academy in just under a month. The academy will be kitted out with rooms set for wet and dry work, an elevated drainage pit and low level roofing rig.

BuilderScrap are very pleased with the commitment Jewson has shown to being sustainable as a lot of emphasis has to be on the construction materials supplier to ensure a sustainable construction industry and they should also ensure materials are not recycled before used or thrown to landfill by supporting BuilderScrap and giving their customers a way of sourcing builders surplus and supply.

Councils in England are to be offered extra money for every newly-built home, as part of a government programme aimed at easing housing shortages.

Under the New Homes Bonus scheme the government will match the council tax raised on each new house for six years.

For every new home built the government will match the council tax raised on each new house for a period of six years – for a band D home that would be around £1400.

With 4.5m people now on council house waiting lists the new drive has been designed to help lower these lists and provide modern, efficient housing for their new residents.

Brendon Kenny of materials reuse platform BuilderScrap commented that, ‘this bold new initiative could help millions of people off waiting lists and into affordable housing. What the government needs to ensure is that construction site waste is minimised and that any reusable materials are put back into the community by posting them onto BuilderScrap. Statistics show that 14% (equivalent to approx 16.8m tonnes per annum)of all new construction materials are wasted and simply thrown away. Given the size of this new initiative, many other community building projects could benefit hugely if a properly managed, materials reuse policy using BuilderScrap is deployed by the construction companies’

Rules that decide the legal definition of surplus building materials in Scotland have been altered. This means that plasterboard which complies with the right environmental policies is no longer considered waste.

The technical definition of waste may seem to be insignificant legal footnote; regarding the topic of plasterboard this could mean huge turnover and environmental savings.

It is well known that construction companies are extremely wasteful of gypsum plasterboard, with more ending up at landfill than actually being used. When sent to landfill, gympsum rots and then mixes with organic waste, which leads to a vile toxin being released and a rather unpleasant smelling gas called hydrogen sulphide.

On its own Scotland is responsible for 1,750,000 tonnes of the product going to landfill every year. Under the new legal definition when properly dealt with it can be reused either to replace virgin gypsum in new plasterboard or can be used as a cement or soil conditioner.

SEPA, Scotland’s environmental watchdog, now says that plasterboard that meets a certain standard, as laid out by the BSI PAS109:2008, it won’t count as waste, cutting down on costs and paperwork when it comes to reprocessing it.

Kenny Boag, SEPA’s head of waste policy, said: “SEPA supports the responsible processing of waste materials into high quality products as part of achieving a Zero waste society. “

“SEPA’s policies on the disposal and recovery of gypsum from plasterboard will reduce pollution from land-filling and will also facilitate the recycling of this valuable resource.”

Since new sustainable standards were released by the Scottish Government builders and contractors have been left panicking during what is already a critical time for the industry.  Homes for Scotland (an industry group) are worried that the new plans will increase the cost of building a house by £8,000 by adding a ‘carbon premium’.  If this is the case then house prices are sure to rise to meet the new construction costs.  Jonathon Fair, the chief executive of Homes for Scotland believes that the future of sustainable construction lies with the refurbishment of existing properties.  BuilderScrap tends to agree with Fair as our agenda is all about reusing building materials.  Surely it is more sustainable and cost effective to salvage properties, renovating and restoring them rather than building a new one from scratch? 

 The plans dictate that all new homes built in Scotland as of 1^st October 2010 will have to have to be better insulated against sound and be more energy efficient.  Considering that the Scottish construction industry has “already reduced the carbon emissions of new homes by 60% from 1990 levels against the Scottish Government’s overall reduction target of 80% by 2050” (Jonathon Fair) it seems the government are focusing too much of their attention on driving that last 20% as soon as possible.  Whilst the BuilderScrap team are not against any form of sustainable building we have recognised that we are undeniably still in a recession and the construction industry is one of the hardest hit sectors.  However, whilst the recession is no excuse to ignore the need for more environmentally friendly buildings the Government need to focus more time and energy on trying to save costs whilst also saving the environment.  BuilderScrap is one way to do this and there are others out there (take a look at how we can help you now)!  The problem the Scottish Government and building industry are likely to find themselves in is that during the recession people simply can’t afford to pay up to an additional £8,000 for a house, so work is going to dry up and the houses which are built under the new rules may struggle to find a family who can afford to live in them.  However if Jonathon Fair’s advice is taken into account and more attention is paid to existing dwellings Scotland should still be able to reach its targets as long as, as many materials as possible are salvaged and houses already standing are restored.

Hi i’m Paul , this is my first blog for BuilderScrap. Hope you enjoy!

Every day over 100 different species become extinct, 150,000 acres of tropical rain forests are destroyed, every single day there is a staggering 2 million tons of toxic waste disposed of in our rivers. On top of all that there is also 22 million tons of oil extracted from our lands and 100 million tons of green house gas released into our atmosphere.

The cost of the pollution and destruction caused to the natural environment by the world’s biggest companies would cost them more than one third of their profits if they were held financially responsible, that is according to a major unpublished study for the United Nations.

The damage done to the earth by these major organisations was calculated at £1.4 trillion in 2008, which is a figure larger than the entire economies of every country in the world with the exception of 7. In truth though the figure is likely to be much higher than that as it is not taking in to account the damage caused by household and government consumption of goods and services, things such as objects that require power to work or the amount of waste which is thrown away.

So we have a major problem on our hands at the moment, a problem which is unlikely to be solved by squabbling world leaders. So what is the solution? What is going to save the inevitable destruction of the world? According to one ex lawyer turned campaigner Polly Higgins the way to solve this problem is to create a law which brings the people to blame to justice. Ecocide as it will be called has already had a successful launch at the UN in 2008 and the idea has already been adopted by the government of Bolivia.

Ecocide may well become the fifth ‘crime against peace’ law, alongside; genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and crimes of aggression (unprovoked war). It will be The International Criminal Court that would rule over the law if ecocide is passed.

Ecocide is the extensive damage or complete destruction of any ecosystem in the world which leads to a diminished way of life for the inhabitants of that area.

If ecocide was to be passed then it would mean large organisations would no longer be able to use up the worlds fossil fuels, destroy entire rain forests and leave the environment an unusable eye sore.

I for one hope that ecocide is accepted and becomes a law as it will serve as a deterrent for all those oil barons and mining millionaires who never spare a second thought for the baron waste land they leave behind for the future generations.

CRC or the Carbon Reduction Commitment is the latest government initiative to try to reduce the UK’s carbon consumption. The initiative requests that all companies using in excess of £500,000 of energy per year will need to register for the CRC. Those companies whom do not register will be hit with some fairly hefty fines.

The CRC commitments are designed to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide emissions as well as raise awareness in the larger organisations especially at a senior level. In turn there is a hope for changes in behaviour and infrastructure.

These commitments began on the 1st of April, and saw Wall Engineering to be the pioneer, being the first to register. After the initial year there will be a league table complied from the data and those companies producing more carbon than the average will be forced to buy carbon credits. Initial reports indicate these will be at a cost of £12 per tonne of Carbon, but will fluctuate in an auction style process after a few years.

On the flip side companies producing less carbon than the average will be rewarded with the money from carbon credit refunded to these companies. These rewards and punishments are intended to create a competitive market for carbon usage with financial rewards possible.

This competitive edge may well stem beyond obvious financial gains with the positive PR which will surround companies that are actively taking steps to reduce their carbon footprint. In terms of construction companies this will be firm evidence of their environmental and social commitment and could well prove to be important when tendering for jobs.

Clients are now starting to demand more than just competitive prices, but also clear indications of a company’s environmental and social impacts. In order to remain competitive construction companies are going to need to continue to move in accordance with client demands.

BuilderScrap is currently working with CCI North West and Salford University to develop a carbon calculator, which can effectively measure the reductions in carbon through use of the BuilderScrap website.

BuilderScrap.com would be interested to discuss your feelings on Bio-fuels. Specifically examining the  associated harm to the ecosystem and biodiversity. This is an extension on Mikes post from last week, but from a local point of view… in Avonmouth.

BBC News,Dave Harvey,Tuesday, 23 February 2010

Councillors on the North Bristol Planning committee face a busy Wednesday. A new house is being built in Sneyd Park, and they want to knock down some ‘non-listed structures’. Bristol Zoo have a standard renewal request with construction costs for overflow parking on The Downs. Oh, and then there’s Borneo’s orangutans.

Yes, a rather unusual application for a new power station in Avonmouth has raised a massive debate covering the future of the Earth’s rainforests and the protection of primates.

The officers’ report for the committee today notes there have been 1,121 letters from the public, two of which are in favour. It’s hugely complicated, and hugely fascinating. New technology that might bring us genuinely green electricity, or the latest piece of ‘greenwash’ from the bio-fuel industry.

The question is this. Should councillors, pardon the pun, give a monkey’s for orangutans?

Council officers clearly don’t think so, though their report puts it far more delicately. They’ve recommended approval of the plans. Here’s why.

First, because this is a planning committee, not a climate change debate. Officers have exhaustively trawled the local government literature, and they conclude:

“… direct planning guidance for this type of development is provided within PPS22: Renewable Energy and its companion guide, PPS22, Planning for Renewable Energy, and advises that the production of the fuel source itself does not fall within the remit of the Local Planning Authority decision-making process.”.

In other words, councillors must only decide if replacing this industrial relic with a new power station burning oil from palm trees or jatropha plants will spoil Avonmouth. As you can see, the site is not exactly a beauty spot at the moment.

“But but but but!” I can hear those 1,119 objectors cry, led by the Leader of the City Council herself, Barbara Janke. She wrote recently to Climate Change Secretary Ed Miliband:

“There is a strong danger to biodiversity, as well as the knock-on effect of taking land out of food production and climate change implications of processing the fuels and shipping them across the globe.”

Bristol is trying to win “Green Capital” status. The city is home to any number of ecological organisations, from the Soil Association to Sustrans and beyond. If this bio-technology is not sustainable, how can the city allow it on its own doorstep?

Officers, in the cool world of planning, note all the arguments and motions that have been passed in their report. But the killer argument is this. There already is a regulator for renewable energy, and it is not the planning committee’s job to second guess.

“It is evident that if the Government are requiring Ofgem to assess sustainability issues in nationally significant schemes relating to the sourcing of biofuels that receive Renewable Obligation Certificates [ROCs], the same would also apply to smaller scale schemes that receive ROCs. On this basis, for local planning authorities to also consider sustainability issues in respect of the proposed development would result in significant duplication of assessment on issues which are clearly controlled through other areas of legislative control.”

They are right, factually. Ofgem does police ROCs, which are the lifeblood of the green power business. Without them, new technologies like biofuel or offshore wind cannot make money. So the officers argue that since one hand of government is already checking the fuel source, there is no point every council in the land having their own opinion.

Will councillors agree with their officers? Who knows. But the temperature of this debate has been raised by Cllr Janke’s comments. Her own colleague, Cllr Steve Comer who is on the North Bristol committee, recently cautioned her high-profile intervention.

“It is possible that our opponents will accuse us of being subject to ‘whipping’ next month when this comes before the Committee, and will(selectively) quote from the Leader’s press release to do so.

The objection to this plant seems largely based on the source of the fuel that it might use once it is operating. I understand the objections, yet when it comes to planning we cannot use … morality to reject the application, any refusal will have to be on clear PLANNING grounds.”

If the house in Stoke Bishop awaiting ‘non-listed demolition work approval’ is yours, come prepared for a long wait before your application comes up.

bbc.co.uk/blogs/daveharvey/2010/02/bristol_or_borneo_how_are_biof.html

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.

The first blog post by our newest member of the BuilderScrap team – Michael Close.  Mike has been with us for two weeks now, and his first blog post looks at the Copenhagen Summit in December.

I am sure it will not have escaped most people’s attention that the Copenhagen summit recently came and went without any global agreement being reached. About 45,000 people descended on Copenhagen in December with the remit of producing a global agreement on climate change. So amongst all the protests and weeks of discussion why did the conference end without any legal agreement being reached?

The Deal which was to be set in place was a political policy named the Copenhagen Accord; this deal set out a number of key goals of which the primary focus was to set a ceiling on global temperature change of a maximum of 2 °C from pre-industrial times. Also in the accord are the need for developed countries to create commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and developing countries need to submit plans on how they are planning to curb their emissions. The accord though after many days of discussion was not adopted and the final outcome was that the accord finally voted to “take note” of it. This of course means that for all the discussions there is no legal deal and without countries adopting the policy or goals there is a grey area regarding what needs to be achieved and by who.

But what does the 2°C mean and how can this be achieved? Currently the mean global temperature increase stands at around 0.7°C and rising, but CO2 stays in the atmosphere for decades and many analysts believe that even at current levels this figure is set to rise to 1.5°C (BBC News).

So why the lack of agreement? Well that will depend on who you are and who you listen to.  It certainly has turned into a blame game since the treaty with the developing world blaming the developed world for not involving them; the developed countries have retaliated by blaming the developing countries for wasting time. China has been blamed by the UK and the US for trying to block any deal so as to not hinder their economic development. The US has been blamed by many for demanding concessions and going behind the UN’s back. The weather has been blamed for being too cold, protesters have been blamed for not protesting hard enough and the whole thing has ended with no treaty or legal agreement.

It seems that there are far too many agendas for a deal to be struck, I personally feel sorry for those countries that have a very real short term threat from rising sea levels as a result of global warming. It seems to be insulting that these nations appear to have nearly no voice on the global scale yet could face the most tragic outcomes. They must sit and wait for China and the US and the other leading nations to broker some sort of deal and hope that it comes soon enough.