The second part of the Zero-Carbon Homes article we have been reading here at BuilderScrap, looks at what the measures for these homes actually mean.

02 / What do these measures mean?
Measure
Energy efficiency
Carbon compliance
(the minimum level of reduction in CO2 emissions that must be achieved on site and/or through direct connection of low/zero carbon heat
Allowable solutions
(a range of options for dealing with the residual CO2 emissions not tackled by on-site renewable energy generation and/or direct connection to low/zero-carbon heat)
Achieved how?
Improved insulation, low-energy lighting, high efficiency pumps, fans
Limited application of renewable energy and/or connection to district heating to achieve a minimum level of reduction in CO2 emissions
Any or all of the following …
• On-site renewable energy generation
• Installation of energy efficient appliances/building control systems
• Exports of low-carbon or renewable heat (or cooling) to surrounding developments
• S106 planning obligations towards allowable solutions
• Retrofitting of existing buildings in the locality
• Investments in LZC energy infrastructure (benefits of ownership transferred to homebuyer)
• Offsite renewable electricity connected via direct physical connection
• Any other measures announced by government

These measures can work towards achieving sustainable construction of zero carbon homes.  The third part of this article looks at the issues involved – coming soon!

More from the BuilderScrap.com office, this post focuses on the legislation that hinders sustainability in business operations.

Q: We would be grateful for information from you on specific pieces of legislation which are impeding your ability to be more sustainable in your business operations.

1. Many respondents favoured better and simpler regulation. A number of respondents highlighted the importance of more effective planning and Building Control (and enforcement) system to help to deliver change, achieve clarity, ensure compliance and lead to improved standards.

2. A number of respondents considered the UK waste regime to be too complex (particularly for SMEs) and that there needed to be greater clarity in the definition of waste and current licensing, recycling and reuse issues.

3. Some respondents felt there was a positive role for regulation to frame and drive up standards, while creating a period of certainty during which industry could adapt its processes and products to the new standards. Some said that regulation should be complemented by other initiatives such as financial incentives to encourage innovation.

4. Some respondents said the Strategy was an opportunity to develop mechanisms to change things for the better. Many contributors from the industry, institutions and trade bodies were committed to this change. They looked to Government leadership to set a framework for change to which individuals and businesses could commit.

Some more information from the Draft Strategy for Sustainable Construction. The purpose of the paper is to gain respondents views on the outlined proposals using qualitative data.

Q: Is target 5.2 stretching, achievable and realistic? If not, then please propose an alternative. Which organisations should be responsible for this target?

Target 5.2 proposed that 20% of all projects with a value in excess of £1 million should have used the Design Quality Indicators and Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM) or equivalents and achieve an excellent rating, by the end of 2008.

1. There was a broad range of responses and no clear consensus on this proposed target. Some felt the target was insufficiently challenging; others felt it was unachievable.

2. Several questioned whether the target was appropriate, with a number saying it was very difficult for rural buildings to attain an “Excellent” BREEAM rating. Others questioned how the BREEAM target might be measured since the assessment was confidential between the client and the assessor. Others commented that BREEAM did not assess social
issues. There were questions about how the 20% of projects would be identified and whether a “blanket” £1m threshold was appropriate for all types of construction projects.

Some Extracts from the Draft Strategy for Sustainable Construction. BuilderScrap analyses responses to the consultation on the draft Strategy for Sustainable Construction. The aim of the consultation was to gather views on the draft Strategy. Responses were received and comments analysed against each of the questions in the consultation document. This extract reflects the views of the respondents.

Question: What other measures should Government be doing to support the construction industry to become more sustainable
this could cover any aspect of the industry and/or any aspect of its supply chains?

1) There was a variety of ideas put forward by respondents to this open question but there were few detailed suggestions. The measures suggested can be approximately grouped under the following headings:

• Fiscal controls 24%
• Regulation 25%
• Coordination of Government initiatives, including procurement 20 %
• Technical standards and benchmarking 25%
• Target Setting 20%
• Training and communication 10%

2). Suggestions in respect of fiscal measures included: direct taxation and tax relief and incentives; reduced interest rates for sustainable projects; the removal of VAT on sustainable products and materials and on Zero Carbon developments and refurbishments; and tax incentives for zero net waste construction sites. Some advocated more focus on existing
buildings and more emphasis on energy efficiency grants and loan guarantees.

3). A proportion of respondents considered that the effective use and enforcement of minimum performance standards, direct regulation (e.g.Building Regulations) and other mandatory initiatives, was essential to create a level playing field. Regulation should not only remove the need for some fiscal incentives and provide confidence for the construction industry to invest in new technologies, but also drive the right behaviours through industry in a timely fashion.

4). Specific measures proposed included:

• Improve the waste management systems in the UK. A working definition of waste or a national framework for risk assessment was important to measure waste minimisation.
• Bring the development of basements within the remit of Permitted
• Ensure post-completion performance measurement and effective application of the polluter pays principle.
• Require post-occupancy evaluation of projects, with a feedback mechanism so that future projects could learn from previous experience.
• Make the Code for Sustainable Homes (and Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM) or equivalent) mandatory in April 2008 to secure sustainable measures in larger developments.
• Make the Considerate Constructors Schemes a mandatory requirement.
• Introduce a Code for Sustainable Buildings – covering the non-domestic building stock.
• Make geotechnical ground investigations mandatory for all new developments, including a requirement for those investigations to be managed by competent personnel.

5). The consistency of regulatory enforcement was a strong theme.

6). Some suggested that it was important for Government to take a coordinated and consistent approach to sustainable construction, not only across Government departments but also across national boundaries (i.e. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland).

7). Others indicated that there was an overlap between the requirements of Town Planning and Building Regulations which should be addressed.

8). There were suggestions for the appointment of a high profile “champion” to drive the integration and collaboration agenda; for a senior advisory group of Government officials to provide guidance on best practice and on the definition of a “statutory consultee” for planning applications.

9). Some suggested that the development of long term targets would give product manufacturers the incentive to invest in new products and new processes. The more Government could provide clarity as to its long-term investment programmes and strategies, including Business Resource Efficiency and Waste (BREW), the clearer the signal to industry to create
efficient supply chains.

10). Other views were that Government procurement should take greater account of the `whole life’ value of the built environment; the importance of local supply chains in reducing transportation emissions and creating more sustainable local communities and the adoption of integrated teams. Those involved in public sector procurement needed the right skills to
deliver this agenda.

11). Suggestions also included that there should be greater standardisation of contracts, processes and designs. Investment programmes in schools, health and transport provided the opportunity for the public sector to set an example. Government should encourage the use of standardised schemes and benchmarks to assess the sustainability and quality of the built environment (e.g. Design Quality Indicators (DQI), BREEAM and Building for Life). The assessment of overall sustainability performance was complex and Government should make (freely) available a single simple source of detailed information and guidance with standardised definitions and metrics, to enable meaningful comparisons between products and processes. More – possibly a significant advertising campaign – was needed to be put in hand to help clients act as informed customers on sustainable construction. There should be significant advertising campaigns for sustainable construction to promote
sustainability to the people making the ‘decision to purchase’.

The third part of the National Federation of Builders article about sustainability, UK construction and the current economic situation, is all about training and skills.  Have a read, and let us here at BuilderScrap know what you think.
The construction industry is facing a skills shortage on two fronts.  Firstly, the industry is losing workers – 109,000 in 2008 through redundancies as the industry suffered its worst decline in 30 years.  With demand falling and over-capacity, there is an increased likelihood of further job losses.  As the industry loses these skills and as those workers retrain for other industries, it will become more difficult to restore those skills when the market recovers, reducing the industry’s ability to build for the economic upturn and meet the long term demands of the infrastructure building programme.  Secondly, there is a shortage of apprentices, with 3,500 apprentices losing their jobs in the six months to March 2009.  Of those 3,500 only 700 have found new employment.  There is hope that the outward flow of so many apprentices will be stemmed by the National Apprenticeship Service which aims to help the industry meet the governments target of doubling the number of construction apprentices to 14,000 by 2012, or by the Apprentice Matching Service (AMS) from Construction skills which find alternative placements for those who have been made redundant before the end of their training.  The government’s targets, set in more stable economic times were designed to stretch the industry.  For many members, the current harsh economic reality makes taking on apprentices unrealistic this year.  However, it is still possible to train your existing workforce at no net cost, using the levy and grant system of Construction Skills. Making sure your skills are up to date puts you in the best competitive position for the upturn, when it comes.

The second part of the In Site article we have been reading at BuilderScrap, is all about the waste generated by the construction industry.  Have a read and let us know what you think.

Waste

The construction industry generates 120m tonnes of waste each year.  That is three times as much as all households in the UK.   Of this 120m tonnes, 20m tonnes goes straight to landfill without any reuse or salvage.  In April 2008, the standard rate of landfill tax was £32 per tonne.  The rate will rise by £8 every April until at least 2010-2011.  As this tax rises year on year, wasting less and reusing or recycling more will become more attractive financially.
The NFB has worked with WRAP (Waste & Resources Action Programme) to produce guidance for small and medium sized contractors called “reducing your construction waste” .  This is one of the deliverables from the government’s strategy for sustainable construction”.  The guidance leaflet and complementary poster both simply and clearly lay out the benefits of the waste hierarchy of reduce, reuse, recycle and dispose.  The leaflet has three case studies one of which belongs to NFB member Cawrey Ltd from Leicester.  The case studies illustrate how those companies have made significant cost savings through small changes.

This week in the BuilderScrap office, we have been reading an interesting article in the National Federation of Builders excellent magazine, InSite.  The article discusses the issue of sustainability in these troubled economic times.  The first part follows here:

At this years Ecobuild conference and exhibition, the housing minister Margaret Beckett laid out some of the challenges facing her department and the industry in relation to climate change, zero carbon and planning communities.
The minister recognised the importance of balancing aspiration and ambitious target setting while not making unreasonable or unrealistic demands of the house building or construction industries.  New build and existing stock each present a different set of challenges.  Outside the decisions taken on a unit level, judgement has to be used on whether the technologies and techniques being used are appropriate for the location – how do homes being built fit into the development and the surrounding environment?
The pot of gold at the end of this particular rainbow is that proper planning and  investment in sustainable construction can help create jobs, cut costs, reduce carbon emissions and reduce waste.  However, this is still a niche market where fixed costs remain high because we have not yet begun to realise economies of scale, where there is still relatively little that is definitive because the industry is still learning about what works, and where whole life costs are not always taken into consideration.
The construction industry adapts and innovates to meet challenges; it always has.  But this time, the challenges are different.  The elephant in the room that is impossible to ignore is the credit crunch.  How can the industry continue to build responsibly and sustain itself while keeping control of costs?

Obviously, we feel that BuilderScrap can play a huge part in helping to lower costs, whilst being sustainable in the construction industry.  As supporters of the project, the NFB also believe this.  Watch out for the second part of this article, coming soon!

Here at the BuilderScrap office, we recently came across this interesting article on the How Stuff Works website about green building and sustainable construction.

Maybe Kermit the frog was wrong: It could be easy being green — at least when it comes to buildings.

“Green building” and “sustainable development” are the hottest terms in construction right now, but what do they mean, exactly? According to the USA Environmental Protection Agency Web site, green building is “the practice of creating healthier and more resource-efficient models of construction, renovation, operation, maintenanc­e and demolition” [source: EPA]. Proponents say that green building is not only environmentally friendly, but also healthier and more cost-efficient. So what is sustainable development? The United Nations Environment Program defines it as development that ensures our use of resources and the environment but doesn’t restrict their use by future generations.

For corporations, schools and hospitals, “green building” can entail anything from using waterless urinals to creating electricity. But homeowners who’d like to go green often don’t have the big bucks that businesses do. There’s a lot to consider, and the costs can make quite a difference in a home’s budget. Homeowners can save cash by installing new energy-efficient light bulbs, but how “green” is it and how much “green” can it save? And who says what’s green and what isn’t?

 In this article, we’ll give you some tips on making your home more environmentally friendly (maybe you can start by recycling your gray water), and we’ll learn about current legislation and how other countries are going green.

Watch out for the next part of this article – all about green building materials - coming soon

The tenth and final sustainability myth from Lemonick is:

Myth 10: Once you understand the concept, living sustainably is a breeze to figure out.
All too often, a choice that seems sustainable turns out on closer examination to be problematic. Probably the best current example is the rush to produce ethanol for fuel from corn. Corn is a renewable resource—you can harvest it and grow more, roughly indefinitely. So replacing gasoline with corn ethanol seems like a great idea. Until you do a thorough analysis, that is, and see how energy-intensive the cultivation and harvesting of corn and its conversion into ethanol really are.

One might get a bit more energy out of the ethanol than was sunk into making it, which could still make ethanol more sustainable than gasoline in principle, but that’s not the end of the problem. Diverting corn to make ethanol means less corn is left to feed livestock and people, which drives up the cost of food. That consequence leads to turning formerly fallow land—including, in some cases, rain forest in places such as Brazil—into farmland, which in turn releases lots of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Eventually, over many decades, the energy benefit from burning ethanol would make up for that forest loss. But by then, climate change would have progressed so far that it might not help.

You cannot really declare any practice “sustainable” until you have done a complete life-cycle analysis of its environmental costs. Even then, technology and public policy keep evolving, and that evolution can lead to unforeseen and unintended consequences. The admirable goal of living sustainably requires plenty of thought on an ongoing basis.

What do you think?  Let us know here at BuilderScrap

Another theory Michael Lemonick discusses is the relationship between the ever growing population and environmental issues.  This isn’t exactly a myth, as Lemonick says, but we here at BuilderScrap agree that it represents a false solution.

Myth 9: Sustainability is ultimately a population problem.
This is not a myth, but it represents a false solution. Every environmental problem is ultimately a population problem. If the world’s population were only 100 million people, we would be hard-pressed to generate enough waste to overwhelm nature’s cleanup systems. We could dump all our trash in a landfill in some remote area, and nobody would notice.

Population experts agree that the best way to limit population is to educate women and raise the standard of living generally in developing countries. But that strategy cannot possibly happen quickly enough to put a dent in the population on any useful timescale. The U.N. projects that the planet will have to sustain another 2.6 billion people by 2050. But even at the current population level of 6.5 billion, we’re using up resources at an unsustainable rate. There is no way to reduce the population significantly without trampling egregiously on individual rights (as China has done with its one-child policy), encouraging mass suicide or worse. None of those proposals seems preferable to focusing directly on less wasteful use of resources.

Let us know your opinion!