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.

As anybody who’s watched the television adverts about climate change knows travel, transport and in-particular car ownership are hot topics.

BuilderScrap.com are continuing to post about the current Defra report on attitudes to environmental issues. As part of the survey, respondents were presented with three statements about travel and transport. Respondents were asked how strongly they agreed or disagreed with each of these. The findings are summarised in Figure 12 and Table 33.

About half (49%) agreed that they would only travel on a bus if they had no choice with 21% strongly agreeing with this. Just over one third (37%) disagreed with the statement.

Nearly half (44%) of respondents agreed that ‘people who fly should bear the cost of the environmental damage that air travel causes’, with less than one third (27%) disagreeing with this.

In contrast, over half (55%) of respondents disagreed with the statement “for the sake of the environment car users should pay higher taxes” (including just over one quarter, 28%, who strongly disagreed).

The results from the current survey are broadly consistent with those from the 2007 Defra survey, with a small increase in the proportion of respondents who agreed that ‘I would only travel by bus if I had no other choice’ (up by 3%).

This post acts as an indicator to how the average person perceives environmental change. It’s not just Construction but also food production that contributes to climate change.

More than half (57%) agreed with the statement that “food production contributes to climate change”, while 12% disagreed with this. However about one third either did not know (10%) or said they neither agreed nor disagreed with the statement (22%). Unlike the measures in the previous section, agreement with this statement was not linked to the amount of uneaten food the respondent generally ended up throwing away. Those who agreed that food production contributes to climate change were no more likely to throw away uneaten food than those who disagreed with this statement.

Respondents were also asked what they would do if they had a better understanding of the environmental impacts of how food is produced. Half (50%) said that they would be willing to make changes to the food they buy to reduce the impact on the environment. Slightly fewer than one quarter (23%) of respondents said they would still buy the food they usually buy, even if they were better informed. One quarter (24%) said they had already made changes to the food that they buy to reduce their impact on the environment, with nearly one in ten (9%) saying they were keen to do more.

Lets look at the priority people feel the Government should place on the environment compared with other issues. All respondents were asked to say what they thought were the most important issues the Government should be dealing with. This question was asked unprompted – respondents‟ spontaneous answers were coded to a list of options which were not seen by the respondent. Respondents were able to give as many answers as they liked. Table 5 below summarises responses to the question compared with responses from the 2007 Defra survey.

Perceptions of governement issues

The economy was the most frequently mentioned issue for this question with more than half (57%) of all respondents selecting this as an important issue for the Government. The proportion of respondents mentioning this as an important issue had increased very considerably from 8% in 2007. This was followed by unemployment, mentioned by 37% of respondents (up from 9% in 2007) and then the “Environment / Pollution‟, mentioned by 35% of all respondents (up from 20% in 2007).

Overall this makes the “Environment / Pollution‟ the third most frequently cited response to the question (it was the fourth in 2007), with more respondents mentioning this as an important issue for the Government than crime. It is also worth noting that the proportion of people who mentioned at least one issue related to the environment (including public transport) as being important had increased from 26% in 2007 to 41% in 2009.
It should be noted that while relatively few respondents mentioned global warming / climate change, or energy use / fuel efficiency / alternative fuels, it is probable that many respondents were thinking about these issues when they said the environment / pollution. As this question was unprompted, it is not possible to say what specific aspect of the environment respondents were thinking about.

None of the three responses given most frequently in 2007 were in the top three responses in 2009 – in 2007 they were crime (mentioned by 49% of respondents and now down to 32% in 2009), health / social services (46% down to 26% in 2009), and education (35% down to 24% in 2009).

Here at BuilderScrap.com we meet people who work for Builders Merchants and in Construction all the time…. It’s time for our own quick poll.

At BuilderScrap.com we wish our Builders Exchange site got the coverage it deserved.

Check out this post on persuading others… environmentally speaking!

The survey also included three statements to measure the extent to which respondents discussed environmental issues with people they knew, and encouraged other people to be environmentally-friendly (see Figure 4). For the first statement (“I’ve suggested improvements at my workplace/the place where I study to make it more environmentally friendly‟), analysis is limited to respondents who were working or studying at the time of the survey.

Builders Exchanges are great for recycling

Nearly half (45%) of respondents who were working or studying agreed that “I‟ve suggested improvements at my workplace/the place where I study to make it more environmentally friendly‟. A similar proportion (43%) of all respondents agreed that “I try to persuade people I know to be more environmentally friendly‟. More than one third (37%) agreed with the statement “I often talk to friends and family about the things they can do to help the environment‟, although for this statement a similar proportion (36%) disagreed. For each of the three statements around a quarter of respondents said they neither agreed nor disagreed.

In the 2007 Defra survey respondents were asked to indicate which, if any, of these three statements applied to them. In essence this is similar to expressing (any) level of agreement with the statements as presented in Figure 4. There has been an increase in the proportion of respondents who agreed with “I often talk to friends and family about the things they can do to help the environment‟ from 31% in 2007 to 37% in 2009. The results suggest a significant increase in those claiming that they try to persuade other people to be more environmentally friendly. In 2007 20% of respondents selected the statement “I try to persuade people I know to be more environmentally friendly‟ whereas in the current survey, 43% of respondents agreed with this. Similarly, in 2007 15% selected the statement “I‟ve suggested improvements at my workplace/the place where I study to make it more environmentally friendly‟, while 29% of all respondents in the current survey agreed with this (the equivalent of 45% of those who were working or studying).

Beliefs and attitudes towards the environment

More from the BuilderScrap.com team on environmental beliefs and attitudes. We love these posts!

Respondents were presented with a large number of belief and attitude statements and asked to indicate how strongly they agreed or disagreed with each of these (on a five-point scale ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree). This section presents findings from responses to these statements, covering a range of beliefs about environmental issues as well as some motivations and barriers to further environmental behaviour, grouped together under three broad themes:

• Reported barriers and motivations – what motivates people to be environmentally-friendly and what are the barriers preventing people from being environmentally-friendly?

• Ecological world-view – what are people‟s views on the environment at a global level / on the way we use the Earth‟s resources?

• Persuading others – to what extent do people discuss environmental issues and try to persuade others to be environmentally-friendly?

Reported barriers and motivations

The survey included 17 statements related to what motivates people to be environmentally-friendly and what barriers prevent people from being environmentally-friendly. Table 2 provides a comparison of the proportion of respondents who agreed and disagreed with each statement between 2007 and 2009. Comparisons are available for all but two of the statements which were new in the 2009 survey

Attitudes

Agreement was highest for the following statements (which were expressed in a broadly positive way towards the environment) – more than half of all respondents agreed with each of these:

It really disappoints me when I see big offices and public buildings with their lights on when the building is empty (83% agreed, with 60% agreeing strongly)

• If government did more to tackle climate change, I‟d do more too (58% agreed, with 17% agreeing strongly)
• If business did more to tackle climate change, I would too (58% agreed, with 23% agreeing strongly)
• I sometimes feel guilty about doing things that harm the environment (55% agreed, with 13% agreeing strongly)
• I need more information on what I could do to be more environmentally friendly (55% agreed, with 13% agreeing strongly)

In contrast more than half of all respondents disagreed with each of the following statements (which were expressed in a broadly negative way towards the environment):

• It would embarrass me if my friends thought my lifestyle was purposefully environmentally friendly (74% disagreed, with 45% strongly disagreeing)
• It’s not worth me doing things to help the environment if others don’t do the same (65% disagreed, with 29% strongly disagreeing)
• The effects of climate change are too far in the future to really worry me (64% disagreed, with 30% strongly disagreeing)
• It’s only worth doing environmentally-friendly things if they save you money (61% disagreed, with 25% strongly disagreeing)
• It’s not worth Britain trying to combat climate change, because other countries will just cancel out what we do (55% disagreed, with 26% strongly disagreeing)
• I find it hard to change my habits to be more environmentally-friendly (54% disagreed, with 19% strongly disagreeing)
• Being green is an alternative lifestyle it’s not for the majority (51% disagreed, with 21% strongly disagreeing)’ve

We wonder if the respondents have ever heard of other phrases like recycling or Builders Exchange!

Here at BuilderScrap.com we’ve been looking at some interesting information from Defra. This is an older press release from April, but we think is still relevant… Low carbon economy.   The Secretary of State for Environment Hilary Benn today welcomed the measures in the 2009 Budget which encourage investment in low carbon jobs and energy generation using organic waste.

The Chancellor announced additional funding of £10 million for anaerobic digestion and waste infrastructure and a continued increase of £8 per tonne per year to the standard rate of landfill tax up to 2013. These measures will encourage investment in sustainable waste management and will enable over 850,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent savings to be made each year, which will help towards achieving the Government’s carbon budget.

Following the Budget statement Hilary Benn said:

“The Government is committed to reducing the amount of waste sent to landfill and finding alternative sources of energy. The £10 million for food waste reprocessing will play a vital role in providing alternative energy, diverting a further 316,000 tonnes of food waste from landfill and reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

“In the UK we produce over 100 million tonnes of organic material every year that, through anaerobic digestion, could be used to create enough energy to heat and power over two million homes.

“And it’s not only the environment that will benefit. Increasing our anaerobic digestion capability will also stimulate a greener economy by creating skilled jobs in construction, collection and reprocessing of organic waste.”

Anaerobic digestion is the process of breaking down organic material such as food waste and farm manures and slurries to create heat and power and transport fuel.

In February Defra announced the UK’s goal to become a world leader in this innovative technology. Businesses ranging from the energy sector, water, retail and agriculture support this goal and a task group is working on a programme to implement the plans of Government and industry. The £10 million funding package announced in the budget today is in addition to the £10 million already earmarked in 2008 to build demonstration plants. From April 1 2009 Government has doubled the level of support for anaerobic digestion through the Renewable Obligation.

An increase in the UK’s anaerobic digestion capability will also help to deliver landfill targets. This was bolstered in the Budget that will continue the increase in Landfill Tax in increments of eight pounds a year up to 2013.

Mr Benn continued:

“The Landfill Tax has really helped to reduce the amount of waste sent to landfill and encouraging businesses and local authorities to move towards a more sustainable approach to handling waste. In the last year alone efforts by local authorities have reduced their landfill from 18 million tonnes in 2006 to 15 tonnes in 2008, and by encouraging greater recycling, carbon emissions have fallen by 11 million tonnes– the same as taking 3.6 million cars off the road overnight.”

Notes

1. ‘Anaerobic Digestion – Shared Goals’ sets shared national ambitions for anaerobic digestion, both nationally and within individual sectors.  The document and the list of organisations which have endorsed it so far are available at: www.defra.gov.uk/environment/waste/ad/government.htm

2. Anaerobic digestion breaks down organic matter, such as animal manure and food waste, to produce biogas which can be used as a renewable energy source for heat and power, and as a transport fuel.  It produces a nutrient-rich digestate which can be used as fertiliser, and importantly it keeps organic waste out of landfill, which cuts greenhouse gas emissions.

3. Electricity from anaerobic digestion is eligible for support in the form of ROCs (Renewable Obligation Certificates).  On 1 April 2009, the Government introduced differentiated support levels for different renewables technologies (known as “banding”).  Anaerobic digestion is among the technologies that receive additional support in the form of multiple ROCs.  Anaerobic digestion now receives 2 ROCs/MWh (Renewable Obligation Certificates per Megawatt hour).

4. In-Vessel Composting (IVC) is a process that breaks down organic matter to produce a compost while contained in a closed environment. Food Waste is subject to the Animal By-Products Regulations that require composting to take place in closed containers or buildings with no access by vermin, and meet stringent requirements for temperature and pasteurisation to kill disease causing organisms. All food waste must be processed by IVC or AD facilities.

5. Landfill targets set by the European Union are:

* By 2010 to reduce the amount of Biodegradable Municipal Waste (BMW) going to landfill to 75% of that produced in 1995.
* By 2013 to reduce the amount of BMW going to landfill to 50% of that produced in 1995.
* By 2020 to reduce the amount of BMW going to landfill to 35% of that produced in 1995.

6. The £10 million additional funding for anaerobic digestion projects is expected to deliver around 178,500 tonnes per year in CO2 savings.

7. Increases in Landfill Tax up to 2013 are expected to deliver around 700,000 tonnes per year in CO2 savings.

BuilderScrap.com looks again at climate change.

Q: What targets could industry specifically sign up to, to increase the positive impact they can have on climate change through their activities?

1. About 20% of respondents suggested industry could consider some form of energy reduction targets. Respondents also suggested that industry should be interested in the development and use of innovative products; measuring their carbon footprints; driving good practice through supply chains; procurement practices taking account of carbon emissions; consideration of Whole Life Costing in design specification; training; and signing up to development of specialist skills.

2. Almost 10% of respondents suggested that product suppliers (especially in the renewables sector) should produce verified data to support the claims made against their products. There were also suggestions of carbon league tables to name and shame.

Yet again we find ourselves here at BuilderScrap.com delving deeper into the draft for sustainable construction. Today’s question focuses on the construction industries reaction to climate change, and the respondents varying opinions.

Q: Are there other actions that the Government should be taking to help the construction industry rise to the challenge of climate change?

1. Although a wide variety of suggestions were offered by respondents to this question, the vast majority (about 75%) were concentrated around just 10 themes.

2. Many respondents said that the existing stock of buildings (mostly domestic, but there were also some references to non-domestic buildings) needed to be improved, though there were few suggestions as to how this should be accomplished. The focus was on improving energy efficient performance of these buildings, rather than on adaptation.

3. Approximately 7% of responses urged the establishment of climate change adaptation targets.

4. Respondents urged the promotion of specific technologies, e.g. the generation of energy from renewable sources; use of particular products, sometimes with higher thermal mass; or innovations to make building more adaptable to future climate change.

5. Some respondents thought more information should be provided by Government on these issues. A number sought clearer definitions by Government, e.g. on Zero Carbon and carbon neutrality. Some suggested fiscal incentives.

6. Some responses urged improvements in compliance software; improvements in tools such as BREEAM; and recommended defining a standard for carbon counting.

7. Other areas which attracted comments were: a need to address embodied energy in carbon footprints; a need to focus on non-domestic buildings; tightening the planning system; sponsoring more research; and infrastructure considerations.

IMPACT OF SUSTAINABLE ENERGY AND CLIMATE CHANGE REGULATION…  A WARNING!

Here at BuilderScrap we think it’s possible, if not probable, that plant and equipment will need to be replaced even where it is not beyond economic repair, as a result of the new regulations. Service charge provisions in leases will not generally allow a landlord to recover the cost of works which amount to improvement. As with the Asbestos Regulations, it may be possible for the landlord to recover the cost of compliance through service charge provisions or the statutory compliance clauses.

In an FRI lease, the provisions will have an effect upon terminal dilapidation claims where plant and equipment must be replaced rather than repaired. There will be no obligation upon a tenant to fund the cost of replacement of any item that is not in disrepair and therefore serious concentration upon statutory compliance clauses and service charge clauses will be necessary.

The testing of equipment is bound to lead to conflicts over liability for failure in design and construction, leading to claims against Architects, Project Managers and Contractors. Standard warranties will need to be reviewed.

Reputation is all important. Investors have already announced they may boycott companies that fail to meet socially responsible standards in energy efficiency. Directors reporting duties are becoming increasingly focussed towards environmental issues. Companies providing services to the public sector are often already required as part of the tendering process to demonstrate carbon neutral status.

The Property Industry will not be able to ignore this particular bundle of red tape. In time, it will have an effect on the bottom line if it is not addressed seriously and quickly.

Why not try and source materials free of charge on our website http://builderscrap.com