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.

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.

Thanks to our colleagues over at BuilderBusiness for this article. 

As the economy starts to show tentative signs of recovery, many involved in the industry will be wondering how they are going to get an edge over their competitors throughout 2010.

Keeping a focus on the job in hand is quite rightly the number one priority however it doesn’t mean the other elements of running a successful business can be let to slip. So builders wanting to make the most of 2010 will be interested to hear of a new club that will provide them direct and easy access to a whole host of services, information and advice.

Called Builderbusiness Club, those who sign up online at builderbusiness.co.uk will automatically become part of the UK’s biggest buying group with members also getting free access to a range of building support services.

The brainchild of builder Adrian Wild, who, with over 25 years experience of running a design and build company is all too familiar with the frustrations and pitfalls of the construction industry and knows how important it is to have the right suppliers, support, tools and finance in place at the right price.

Being first to enquire on a new planning application, finding the best van insurance, getting advice on how to improve your image, getting help on securing finance or making sure your VAT payments are up to scratch are all areas this new club will benefit builders.

Club Helps Builders Keep On Top Of New VAT Rules

An example of how the club is already helping builders is with the new rules on VAT that are being introduced by HM Revenue & Custom (HMRC) from 1 April 2010.

The new legislation means that from the new financial year, some businesses will have to file their VAT returns online and pay any VAT due electronically.

The new rules will apply firstly to businesses that are VAT registered and have a turnover of more than £100,000 and secondly to all businesses that are newly registering for VAT, whatever their turnover.

It means any builders that fall into these categories will have to make sure they fully understand how to comply with the new legislation.

Fortunately Builderbusiness Club members can get hold of what has been labelled as the best accounting software package on the market for builders with added benefits exclusive to the club.

Called Construction Industry Accounts (CIA) it’s an accounting software package designed to handle the new 2007 CIS Scheme, Invoices & Job Costing, Retentions, Applications (Stage Payments) and Certifications

It also helps builders file their VAT returns quickly and makes electronic payments by using the VAT Online service.

Developed specifically for the building industry this fully integrated software package means that only one entry is needed to update all relevant areas. So when it comes to submitting VAT returns or paying VAT, because everything is available at the click of a button it will make the process infinitely easier.

Adrian added: “Construction Industry Accounts is an absolute godsend for those who are looking to keep a close grip on their accounts, want to know how much they are going to make on a job and want to keep up-to-date on their VAT.

“Anyone wanting to make their lives easier in April need to start planning now how they are going to ensure they don’t give HMRC a reason to come knocking. It also links directly to HBXL’s EstimatorXpress estimating software so once an estimate has been produced the revenue and profit generated is automatically updated onto CIA.

“To be able to offer this through Builderbusiness Club is just one example of how it is going to help members mange their business more effectively, generate more profits and ultimately come out of the recession stronger.

“Our mission is to provide a dependable and trusted resource for both builders’ projects and business. Working with the FMB and many other trusted names, we think Builderbusiness Club is great news the building industry.”

Builderbusiness Club member offer – when you buy CIA accounting software £1950 ex VAT, members will also get a FREE copy for their accountant plus four hours online training (worth £220 ex VAT)!

In addition, as well as a free copy and training members will also get a free PAYE payment model worth £699 and is available until February 2010.

CIA is available through HBXL which acts as a re-seller of the software.

To sign up to Builderbusiness Club visit www.builderbusiness.co.uk

To find out more about CIA visit www.hbxl.co.uk/accounts

Here at BuilderScrap.com we’re not all about Builders Supplies. This post looks at our recycling habits, so ditch those plastic bags!

As well as asking about people’s current behaviours and their willingness to act, the survey also covered how often people undertook these behaviours (ranging between always and never) as shown in Figure 9. As discussed in the previously, the vast majority (91%) of respondents said they were recycling items rather than throwing them away. Just over half (56%) of all respondents said they “always” did this, 30% said they did this “very” or “quite often”, and 7% said they only did this sometimes.

Most respondents (84%) reported that they were already taking their own shopping bags. When respondents were asked how often they took their own shopping bags when shopping, over half of respondents said they always did this (56%), while a further 20% said they did this very or quite often.
Three quarters (76%) of respondents said they reused items like plastic bottles, tubs, jars, envelopes or paper, although the frequency of reuse varied considerably. Just over a quarter (28%) of respondents said they always reused these items, around a third (33%) said they reused them very or quite often but a quarter (24%) said they only did this sometimes or occasionally. Similar proportions of respondents reported that they never took their own shopping bag when shopping (10%) and never reused items like plastic bottles, tubs, jars, envelopes or paper (13%).

Note

In the UK, there have been two voluntary carrier bag objectives: (i) WRAP introduced a target to reduce the environmental impact of carrier bags by 25% by the end of 2008, based on a 2006 baseline. (ii) In December 2008, the Government and leading supermarkets agreed to a 50% reduction in the number of carrier bags being given out to customers by May 2009.

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.

Here at BuilderScrap.com we look out for our Building contractors uk, Todays post looks at a number of purchasing behaviours. This study assesses using the stages of the change response scale . The results from these questions are presented in Table 15.

For each of the three behaviours covered, respondents were most likely to be at the pre-contemplation stage (between 30% and 42% of respondents) where they had either not heard of them or thought about them. In addition, for each of these behaviours at least one in ten respondents said they had rejected the behaviour. That said, there were still significant proportions who had adopted these behaviours: around a third (30%) said they were not buying things because they had too much packaging and intended to keep this up, and one in five respondents said they were buying wood and wood products from certified sustainable sources and buying peat free compost and intended to keep this up (21% and 19% respectively).

I’m sure we all know about recycling. Now let us see how much the general public know about Energy Saving! Here at BuilderScrap.com we want encourage Interdependence and the merits of both.

Respondents to the Defra survey who had bought an appliance in the last twelve months were asked if they had looked for the Energy Saving Recommended logo on it. This logo was developed by the Energy Saving Trust to help consumers identify the most energy efficient products available. Respondents who had bought more than one appliance in the last twelve months were asked this question in relation to one of these which was selected randomly. In the 420 purchases covered by the survey, the purchaser claimed to have looked for the logo in 71% of these, while in 24% the purchaser had not. In the remaining 5% of purchases the respondent did not know whether they had looked for the logo. A tracker survey carried out by the Energy Saving Trust in August 2007 showed that the logo had been looked for in 60% of purchases, showing an increase in the proportion of purchasers reporting that they are looking for the logo.

Respondents who had bought an appliance in the last twelve months were also asked whether the appliance they bought had the Energy Saving Recommended logo on it. In the 420 purchases covered by the survey, 72% of appliances were claimed to carry the logo (1% higher than the 71% of purchasers who had looked for the logo). The results suggest that most purchasers who reported that they had looked for the logo thought that it was on the appliance they bought. The tracker survey in August 2007 showed that the logo was said to be present on 62% of appliances purchased. It is possible that there is some confusion between the EU (A-G) label 8, which was not asked about, and the Energy Saving Recommended label, which only covers the most energy efficient products.

Not sure about you guys think but I’m sure any salesmen worth his salt would have pointed this logo out. The Government could do more to let people know about this label and what it actually means.

Todays BuilderScrap.com post revisits the Recycling around the world series BBC reporter Jeremy Bowen discusses Italy.

Waste disposal regulations in Italy vary from district to district. In Rome, the rules were toughened earlier this month. People who do not separate their rubbish can be fined up to 619 euros if they have a recycling bin within 500 metres of their front door.

Romans often claim that it is hard to find a bin and even harder to find one that is not full. The city council has ordered 2,500 new bins. They are colour-coded green for household waste, white for paper and blue for plastic.

The streets of the historic centre of Rome have almost no recycling bins yet. The streets are cleaned very efficiently, by vehicles that drive over waste and suck it up like enormous self-propelled vacuum cleaners.

In southern Italy local politicians claim that the waste management industry is controlled by organised crime. Last year the European Commission said it was taking action against Italy, for 28 breaches of EU laws on the environment. It said that Italy was denying its citizens the same quality of life enjoyed by people in other EU countries.

When I moved here five months ago I asked the caretaker of my building whether I should separate my family’s rubbish. He laughed and looked incredulous. “Are you joking?” he said. “This is Rome.”