Financing future energy capacity, including renewables > Parliamentary Committee launches inquiry and asks for evidence: "A bigger shift in our energy infrastructure to a low cost, low carbon energy system is necessary."

There are questions around nuclear energy in the UK:
Futures Forum: The weakening business case for nuclear energy
Futures Forum: Energy infrastructure @ Hinkely C >>> losing control and paying tithes to Direct Foreign Investors

And in parallel, there is more interest in renewables:
Futures Forum: Getting the government to adopt the Community Energy Manifesto
Futures Forum: Small-scale low-carbon generation reintroduced in the UK
Futures Forum: Climate change: the CPRE and renewable energy in Devon

Meanwhile, a parliamentary inquiry into the future of energy has been launched: 

MPs launch inquiry into government energy policy after nuclear setback

August Graham
Friday 1 March 2019 12:00am

MPs are set to review the government’s plans for Britain’s energy sector after a string of major projects were abandoned by international companies.

The Business, Energy, and Industrial Strategy Committee said it would look into the government’s plans to see if they are fit for purpose.

It will examine if the country needs a new approach to speed up investment into low-carbon, low-cost energy and secure supplies in the long term.

The decision comes after Japanese firms Hitachi and Toshiba pulled out of the Wylfa and Moorside nuclear projects, dealing a serious blow to the government’s plans. The committee also said it will investigate concerns over foreign investors in British nuclear. This comes amid worries about Chinese involvement in major projects.

Committee chair Rachel Reeves said: “In the wake of investment decisions over nuclear plants at sites such as Moorside and Wylfa, a giant hole has developed in UK energy policy. With coal due to go off-line, and the prospects for nuclear looking unclear, the government needs to set out how it will create the right framework to encourage the investment needed to plug the gap.

“In this inquiry, we want to examine the government’s approach to creating the right conditions for investment to deliver the secure energy capacity to meet the nation’s needs. A bigger shift in our energy infrastructure to a low cost, low carbon energy system is necessary.

“As a committee, we will want to consider what more the government needs to do to attract greater investment into financing future energy capacity, including renewables.”

MPs launch inquiry into government energy policy after Hitachi and Toshiba abandon nuclear plants | City A.M.

As the East Devon Watch blog comments:

Owl says: Such a shame that our Local Enterprise Partnership – dominated by people with a vested interest in the nuclear industry – has put all our growth and regional investment eggs in the Hinkley C basket!

“MPs are set to review the government’s plans for Britain’s energy sector after a string of major projects were abandoned by international companies” | East Devon Watch

See also:
Futures Forum: Is the Heart of the SW Local Enterprise Partnership delivering value for money? "Its below average performance - from unlocking investment to falling productivity - surely can only be seen as a failure?"

Here's what the Committee has to say on the future of energy: 

Committee explore finance and investment in UK’s future energy infrastructure

28 February 2019

The Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee has today launched an inquiry to examine the outlook for future investment in energy infrastructure in the UK. The Committee will be looking at whether the Government needs a new approach to bring forward investment to deliver a low carbon, low cost energy system and secure energy supplies for the long term.

Inquiry: Financial energy infrastructure
Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee

Purpose of the inquiry

The Committee’s inquiry is launched in the wake of recent decisions by Hitachi and Toshiba to halt new nuclear projects at Wylfa and Moorside and concerns over how the UK’s ‘nuclear gap’ for low carbon electricity can be filled. The inquiry will examine the challenges to raising finance in clean energy technologies such as renewables and storage. As part of its look at the Government’s approach to attracting investment in energy, it is also likely to look at the potential future financing of nuclear power, and concerns around foreign investors in this technology.

Chair's comments

Rachel Reeves MP, Chair of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee said:

"In the wake of investment decisions over nuclear plants at sites such as Moorside and Wylfa, a giant hole has developed in UK energy policy. With coal due to go off-line, and the prospects for nuclear looking unclear, the Government needs to set out how it will create the right framework to encourage the investment needed to plug the gap. In this inquiry, we want to examine the Government’s approach to creating the right conditions for investment to deliver the secure energy capacity to meet the nation’s needs. A bigger shift in our energy infrastructure to a low cost, low carbon energy system is necessary. As a Committee, we will want to consider what more the Government needs to do to attract greater investment into financing future energy capacity, including renewables."

Send in your views

Evidence is invited on potential investment across the energy sector, including power plants, system flexibility, and heat decarbonisation.

The Committee is inviting written submissions on the following points:

• How do recent investment decisions on nuclear and trends in low carbon investment affect the UK investment outlook for energy infrastructure? Is there a case for changing the Government’s current approach to delivering a low cost, low carbon energy system? How could the ‘nuclear gap’ be filled?
• How attractive is the UK energy sector for investment compared to other countries? Are there particular technologies which are more – or less – attractive to investors under current arrangements?
• How has Government policy improved the UK energy investment environment over the last three years? 
• What types of investor can we expect to finance future UK energy infrastructure? What are their criteria for investment, including on risks and returns? Does it matter if investors for specific technologies are largely from overseas?
• What role should the Government play in providing financial support and sharing risks for new energy infrastructure? Are existing financing mechanisms, notably the Contracts for Difference, fit for purpose? Are there any practical issues, or potential unintended consequences, that could affect the feasibility of implementing alternative support models (such as a Regulated Asset Base)?
• What further steps should the Government take to increase investor confidence in the UK energy sector? 

The deadline for written submissions is 3 April 2019.

Send in your views for the financial energy infrastructure inquiry.

Committee explore finance and investment in UK’s future energy infrastructure - News from Parliament - UK Parliament
.
.
.

Sid Valley Democracy > meeting on Thurs 7th March > how to stand for the Town Council at the upcoming elections

A new group has just been launched to encourage people to come forward to consider standing at the next Town Council elections in May - and there will be a meeting this Thursday evening: 

Sid Valley Democracy

Yesterday at 01:47 · 

Welcome! This informal group has got together to support those interested in standing for Sidmouth Town Council on May 2nd. Take a look at our 'About' page to learn more, contact us via sidvalleydem@gmail.com or come to our meeting on March 7th to hear more.

We'll be posting profiles of those planning to stand very soon!

Welcome! This informal group has got... - Sid Valley Democracy | Facebook

Here's the poster just released, advertising their meet-up this week:

Welcome! This informal group has got... - Sid Valley Democracy | Facebook
.
.
.

Campaign to get social media to counter fake news

We know the power of 'fake news':
Futures Forum: Big data and big lies...

It's also had an effect on national politics in the UK:
Futures Forum: Brexit: and the use of data analytics
Futures Forum: Brexit: and post-fact politics
Futures Forum: Brexit: and bots
Futures Forum: Fake news, the UK general election and local news

And even on local politics:
Futures Forum: Fake news and the general election in Devon
Futures Forum: Debunking fake news in East Devon with 'on-line open-source investigation'
Futures Forum: "The decline of local journalism is a threat to democracy and is fuelling the rise in fake news."

Social media is at the centre of much of this:
Futures Forum: The weaponization of social media
Futures Forum: The age of Social Warming

A new example of 'fake news' on social media has just erupted in France - with a new petition from Avaaz calling on the likes of Facebook to counter this growing trend:

Beaten, bloody, and terrified -- this photo went viral in France as a symbol of police brutality... but it's completely fake! There’s a simple solution to false stories like this: get Facebook to show corrections to *everyone* who has seen fake news. Avaaz is meeting top executives at Facebook this week, so add your name now -- let's make this huge before the meeting!!  Sign the petition Fakebook This shocking photo of a young woman, left beaten and bleeding by police at a protest, went viral on social media in France.    It’s the sort of thing Avaaz might launch an urgent campaign on. But there’s just one problem -- the image has nothing to do with France. It was taken in Madrid, years ago. It’s fake. Untrue. A lie.   And it’s dangerous.  Disinformation like this has the power to turn protests violent, destroy trust in our democracies and make us hate, even kill each other. But there's a simple solution to this threat: distribute corrections to dangerous fake news -- to EVERYONE who has seen it!  Avaaz has pitched the idea to key decision-makers all over the world, and many of them love it. Facebook is sensitive to its public image, and Avaaz staff are meeting top executives there this week -- let's get massive public backing from people everywhere for them to correct the record on fake news! Tell Facebook: Correct the Record! In many countries newspapers are required to issue corrections if they print false information -- why shouldn’t the same rules apply to Facebook and Twitter, who reach many times more people?  This isn’t about censorship -- no content would be taken down or deleted. Instead, the social media companies would make sure people who had been given false information were provided with the full facts so they can make informed decisions.  The Avaaz team has pitched this idea to politicians across the planet, as well as regulators, experts, academics, free speech advocates, and to social media executives at all the major platforms. Most of them see that this could really work, but it's still missing massive public demand to make it happen.  If Facebook moves, others will follow. Sign the petition calling on Facebook to correct the record on fake news, and when this is huge, we’ll deliver our voices direct to Facebook and to lawmakers all over the world:  Tell Facebook: Correct the Record!   Armies of bots and trolls, often bought and paid for by billionaires and governments, thrive on a social media drowning in their lies. They'll fiercely attack our effort. But Avaaz has always stood for the authentic voice of the people, let's make sure that voice gets heard loud and clear, before more lies are spread. With hope and determination, The Avaaz team MORE INFORMATION: Europe’s most hackable election (Politico) https://www.politico.eu/article/europe-most-hackable-election-voter-security-catalonia-european-parliament-disinformation/ Fake news on WhatsApp swayed Brazil’s election. India should be worried (Quartz India) https://qz.com/india/1445013/whatsapp-fake-news-helped-bolsonaro-win-brazil-is-india-next/ EU steps up fight against ‘fake news’ ahead of elections (AP) https://www.apnews.com/1e826f96f0974176b788e89dfe1fde97 Four ways to verify images linked to France’s ‘Yellow Vest’ protests (The Observers) https://observers.france24.com/en/20181129-debunked-videos-yellow-vests-france-protests

Avaaz - The World in Action
.
.
.

Plans for Port Royal: Were Fortfield Hotel developers' funds withheld from enabling a community bid for the Drill Hall?

A fortnight ago, questions were being raised as to the timing of offering developers cash for replacing the Fortfield Hotel with luxury flats:
Futures Forum: Plans for Port Royal: and wondering whether the just-released £300k of developer's cash could have been put towards refurbishing the Drill Hall...

The flats were built over five years ago:
Futures Forum: Fortfield Hotel ... to ... Sanditon apartments

Meanwhile, any opportunity for a community bid for the Drill Hall came ... and went:
Futures Forum: Plans for Port Royal: Drill Hall on the open market to 4th February
Futures Forum: Plans for Port Royal > where are we now with community and commercial bids for the Drill Hall?

It has now transpired that the Fortfield cash could have been put towards a community bid - but that this was not made clear at the time - as reported in the Herald: 

Could tourism pot have been used towards community Drill Hall bid?

PUBLISHED: 07:03 01 March 2019

Clarissa Place

Cathy Gardner outside Sanditon. Ref shs 07 19TI 0237. Picture: Terry Ife

Money from a pot of £300,000 could have been available for a community bid for the Drill Hall, for which three commercial bidders competing.

Councillors have hit out at what they say is a lack of clarity over the use of the cash – part of an agreement when planning permission was given for the site of the former Fortfield Hotel, which burnt down in 2011.

Permission to build the Sanditon development included a contribution of £300,000 towards tourism in the town.

The district council says members have been aware since 2015 that the cash is available, but now two councillors say it was never made clear the cash could have formed part of a bid for the Drill Hall. Independent councillors Matt Booth and Cathy Gardner have become embroiled in exchanges with council chiefs, including CEO Mark Williams, now that bidding has closed for the Drill Hall.

In an email to Mr Williams on February 11, Cllr Gardener denied his claim that councillors were aware that the cash would have been available for a bid.

“Any bid that we might have put forward would have been judged on its merits,” she wrote. “The support that could have been achieved from other organisations with match funding should not be underestimated.”

She added said the money ‘would almost certainly have been a game changer for’ a bid.

Mr Williams replied that councillors knew about the money, but added community bidders ‘wouldn’t have been encouraged’ to factor the cash in a bid as, in his opinion, it would ‘throw doubt on the viability of their schemes’.

The council was asked by the Herald to clarify statements made during the dispute about what advice was given by council officers about the availability of the funds. A spokesman responded that the majority of the £1.5million total had been spent on affordable housing.

The spokesman added: “Focus will now turn to plans for this element and the town council will play a key role in determining how this money can be used to benefit the town.

“At a district level, councillors in Sidmouth have been aware since 2015 that this money is available and will no doubt want to be fully involved in working with Sidmouth Town Council to ensure this money is used to the best advantage of the town and its tourism.”

Could tourism pot have been used towards community Drill Hall bid? | Latest Sidmouth and Ottery News - Sidmouth Herald

See Cllr Cathy Gardner's comments on the 3Rs Facebook page:

Retain Refurbish Reuse is with Suzanne Ellisson and Matt Booth.
14 hrs ·

This is a significant story that is not well explained here. It has emerged over the last couple of weeks that the s106 tourism money could have been released as long ago as 2017. The money is supposed to help compensate the town for the loss of the hotel, the town has had to wait too long to get this money: why? Who decided this and who knew and when did they know?

The CEO of EDDC holds the purse strings and we learnt that he only decided to release it once he was sure that 'there is no community bid for the Drill Hall'. Further emails exposed that he didn't want a community bid to be able to apply for it - thus severely affecting their chances of getting match funding.
The process of applying for s106 funds is run by the town council and should be clear, fair and strict. There was never a guarantee that any community bidders would have secured this money but by holding it back completely the CEO ensured that they could not even compete. It seems that some on the Town Council knew about this a while ago, which means that neither council were acting in the best interests of the town.

I was shocked when this came to light, as was Matt Booth, as we had asked questions about the s106 money in 2015 and Matt had been looking for funding sources. This whole sorry story needs more investigation. I will be pushing for transparency, accountability and democracy, which seem to have been lacking so far.

I'll add here that the news that Rockfish are likely to take on and refurbish the Drill Hall and bring exactly the kind of restaurant that many people wanted is brilliant - we're so pleased the building will be saved!

Retain Refurbish Reuse - Home | Facebook

With further comment from Cllr Matt Booth: 



Retain Refurbish Reuse 

Aileen Hall Liadháin Smith believe us we tried. Since they applied to demolish it in 2011. Have not let up since to save and protect it and campaign for it to be given back to the community for 360 degree use - food & drink using all local produce, music, comedy, theatre, dances etc, community space for member use for those with community shares which could be anything from £1, space for start ups and small businesses, long tables to encourage community interaction rather than single bookings on small tables, and the basement as a new space for young people who can then mix with all members of community upstairs. All was drawn out by leading local architectural designer incl using existing old oak floorboards & original Victorian red brick walls. Terrace round the side of the building so could sit at the back in the evening and catch the sun over the Ham. Strong link to fishing heritage as we raised via EU funded TourFish project between 2011 & 2015 from which came the annual Sea Fest event. And thus it goes on. We had offers of big funding post TourFish plus help to deliver it by Head of Funding at Devon County Council and two leading regeneration consultants. 

But we needed some match funding to access bigger grants, which is difficult to get, and we just found out EDDC withheld £300,000 in S106 Tourism money due to Sidmouth at that time and part of that would have done it. All that aside, it needed energy from a lot more people in the town to get the building and I worked alone on it from 2011 until we we set up 3R's. So, no a restaurant with limited seating and a 9.30 curfew far from ideal, but not bad, and Sidmouth has to accept if they really want something they have to step up and not leave it to others. Sorry. Harsh to say I know but kind of true, as you will soon see when they destroy the Knowle. Better Rockfish there than a load of empty flats tho.. I guess

Retain Refurbish Reuse - Home | Facebook

Further questions about the possible witholding of monies to prevent any community bid will be posed at Sidmouth Town Council on Monday 4th March:

Town Council Meetings - Sidmouth Town Council
.
.
.

Climate change: and the built environment: "Why clients and law-makers need to wake up to climate emergency... and why they should ask architects what to do."

It's all very well to 'blame the architects' when it comes to building unsustainable buildings:
Futures Forum: What can be done to mitigate the huge impact of construction on climate change?

But actually, the fault lies elsewhere:
Futures Forum: Climate change: don't blame the architects
Futures Forum: Climate change: "The built environment is part of the problem, but through the potential of planning, architecture and design, it is also a crucial part of the solution"

As with these comments on the recent article in the Architects' Journal clearly demostrates: 

Why architects need to wake up to the carbon emergency

Readers' Comments:

GORDON GIBB

28 FEBRUARY, 2019 12:29 PM

What Will Hurst fails to acknowledge is that architects are not the decision makers in these matters. It would be different if architecture was only about need. It appears to me that most architecture in London (the local area predominantly represented by the AJ) is about celebration of excess for the benefit of a narcissistic organisation or authority.

We have been told by Sir Michael Latham that the architect should not be the decision maker; it should be the consumer, and by Sir John Egan that the process should not be driven by the architect but by the contractor. Government policy has followed that advice ever since and that has been adopted by the private sector. Now the only thing left with a public face, the rather silly concept of "prettiness", is being put in the hands of an untrained and out-of-date privileged traditionalist with friends from the old school to give him a chance to spout about what he likes to see on a Wednesday.

So why are you telling architects about sustainability? We know about it. We are at the cutting edge of this and know that there is far more in heaven and earth than is dreamed of in your article. The problem exists because no-one is interested in what we say.

Look at the tragedy at Grenfell Tower, as a perfect example of the direct consequence of all that the government has advised. No sandstone there. Existing building reused. Cheapest, lightest materials used. Decisions made by client and contractor alone. Big sums saved on oversight. Big sums saved by the Westminster government by not changing the law and the regulations for England when neighbouring countries had done so, based upon the same knowledge. And the result? Unimaginable human loss, and terrible social and environmental cost. This was followed by further resource waste through the government, who are seriously conflicted, setting up a public enquiry that omits reference to their procurement route and a police action which cannot look at a failure in the law. How sustainable did that turn out to be?

I think it is time for people to stop telling architects what they should know about the subject in which they are extensively trained and start listening to them. It is also time to start appreciating that the terrible problems we have with the lack of sustainability in the construction industry do not lie with architects. The failure is that the process of procurement, taken away from architects in recent years, is led by the ephemeral priorities of the paymaster and the current government, and not the wider and lengthier-impact needs of the user and the environment.


GORDON GIBB

28 FEBRUARY, 2019 12:48 PM

I also find the title of this article "Why architects need to wake up to the carbon emergency" offensive. Do you have any evidence that we are less aware of this issue than we should be? Are you stating, as you appear to be, that we are asleep?


TRIMTRAB

28 FEBRUARY, 2019 1:20 PM

perhaps it would be more accurate to label this "why clients need to wake up..."

CHRIS MEDLAND

28 FEBRUARY, 2019 2:28 PM

why lawmakers need to wake up to climate emergency...and why they should ask architects what to do.... a more fitting title perhaps.

Why architects need to wake up to the carbon emergency | News | Architects Journal
.
.
.

What can be done to mitigate the huge impact of construction on climate change?

The building profession has a lot of responsibility when it comes to reducing carbon emissions:
Futures Forum: Climate change > and getting buildings to 'net zero'
Futures Forum: Climate change: the future of the built environment >>> >>> the buildings of the wealthy will stand, and the rest will be flooded, crushed, or blown away
Futures Forum: Climate change: built environment firms must act now

The latest edition of the Architects' Journal looks at the issues:

Why architects need to wake up to the carbon emergency

28 FEBRUARY, 2019 BY WILL HURST, ELLA JESSEL, RICHARD WAITE

7 COMMENTS

What can you do to mitigate the huge impact of construction on climate change? 

By Will Hurst

Twelve years ago, almost to the week, the AJ published an issue on sustainability and climate change. Looking back at the green-fronted 8 March 2007 issue provides a fascinating insight into how much (and how little) has changed. The issue, which came in the wake of the government’s Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change, featured work by architects who, still today, are among a small handful deeply concerned with carbon emissions and their effect on climate change. There was a retrofit of a 1970s Seifert tower in the City by Simon Sturgis and his practice and cartoons by Ian McKay of BBM Sustainable Design illustrating the principles of eco-design. No less than 20 pages were devoted to the UK Architecture Stand at MIPIM 2007, which had a ‘green design’ theme.

Things must come in twelves, because that, we are told bleakly by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), is how many years we have left in which to limit global warming to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels or face droughts, floods, extreme weather events and poverty for hundreds of millions of people. As the 16-year-old Swedish activist Greta Thunberg told global leaders at Davos last month: ‘Our house is on fire’. If the blaze gets out of control, other parts of the world will be the worst affected. Yet the UK was among those experiencing severe wildfires last summer and one only has to glance at the effects on Europe of the migrant crisis to imagine the consequences of an influx of desperate people on an exponentially bigger scale.

So what has been the response to this metaphorical smoke alarm, ramped up a notch or two by the IPCC report? Some sections of society are beginning to mobilise, such as the thousands of school pupils from the #YouthStrike4Climate movement, who drew attention to the crisis by following Thunberg’s example and going ‘on strike’ around the country this month. But, even faced with climate change-related events such as the extreme devastation caused by Hurricanes Michael and Florence, dramatic data on the extent of melting ice at the earth’s poles and starving polar bears invading towns in the far north of Russia, architects and others in the built environment seem to have lost interest.

Of course, some progress has been made in the past 12 years. New buildings have become more energy-efficient and pioneering architects are exploring radical new ways of using materials. Yet the focus on eco-design we saw over a decade ago has dissipated and, to be frank, so has the AJ’s coverage. At this year’s UK government pavilion at MIPIM, it is hard to find any reference to climate change unless you count a talk about ‘health, wellbeing and happiness’. While the government remains legally committed to the long-term goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 80 per cent below 1990 levels by 2050 under the Climate Change Act 2008, there is an abject lack of joined-up thinking within Whitehall and precious little leadership from ministers, especially given the distraction of Brexit. At a design conference held this month in Birmingham by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG), architect and TV presenter George Clarke was alone in broaching the topic of global warming.

Why architects are key

Architects are only a small part of the global system which got us to this point and it would be wrong to single out the profession or berate them for neglecting this subject. If architects are in denial, then so too are most business sectors and the media for that matter.

But what should give us pause for thought is just how carbon-intensive architecture is and, conversely, what impact for the good architects might make if they began to specialise in this subject and tackle it like social entrepreneurs. This is especially true when construction’s carbon emissions are considered in the round, according to the principles of ‘whole-life carbon’.




The 35-40 per cent of UK carbon emissions said by the Green Construction Board to be caused by the built environment is a significant underestimate, because it refers only to the day-to-day carbon emissions of buildings in use. This is the part of the WLC equation that architects and measuring tools like BREEAM have focused on. The profession has commonly ignored the other part – embodied carbon. This relates to the building’s physical properties and makes up between half and three-quarters of an individual new building’s lifetime carbon emissions. Some of this embodied carbon is expended prior to practical completion – through material sourcing and production, transport and construction – and some afterwards, as a result, for example, of maintenance or replacement of a building’s structure, envelope or environmental systems. 

There seem to be few reliable statistics indicating what proportion of overall UK emissions come from embodied carbon in buildings. However, the government’s Technology Strategy Board (now Innovate UK) has estimated that about 45 per cent of WLC emissions in the UK come from buildings – 27 per cent from domestic buildings and 18 per cent from non-domestic buildings. Comparing that 45 per cent with the Green Construction Board’s figure would suggest that UK construction is responsible for 5-10 per cent of the country’s carbon emissions. 

Awareness of WLC is growing, thanks to publications such as last year’s RIBA report ‘Embodied and whole life carbon assessments for architects’, which builds on work by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) and aims to integrate WLC assessment principles with the RIBA work stages. Yet architects, on the whole, are failing to think deeply about the short and long-term carbon impact of the materials they use and the principles of the circular economy. How many were shocked by the recent Chatham House report on concrete, which highlighted the 8 per cent of global carbon emissions caused by the cement industry? How many were surprised by the row over the sustainability credentials of Foster + Partners’ Stirling Prize-winning Bloomberg HQ, the world’s highest BREEAM-rated major office building, which was nevertheless criticised for its heavyweight construction and high level of embodied carbon?

How green is your building, Mr Foster? 

bloomberg office building by foster + partners wins RIBA stirling prize 2018 on Vimeo 

Examining Foster + Partners’ 2018 Stirling Prize-winning Bloomberg HQ building solely from its operational energy use, the building does extremely well. The £1 billion City of London block is officially the world’s highest BREEAM-ranked office building. A year’s worth of in-use data confirm that it remains a highly efficient scheme, even with 4,000 staff working there. In fact, the BREEAM score for the building increased from 98.5 per cent in the design stage to 99.1 per cent post-construction

However, that is not the full story. As the Stirling jury’s sustainability adviser Simon Sturgis pointed out while touring the building, the amount of embodied carbon in the project is massive, having gobbled up ‘enormous resources used to create it’, aimed primarily at ‘maximising performance’. The structure includes 9,000 tonnes of sandstone transported from Derbyshire.

Sturgis wrote in the AJ: ‘[This] building is extraordinary, and indeed a sustainability laboratory; however, in my view it is not a truly sustainable building itself nor is it a model to others for the future.’

Perhaps if the building stands for 200 years – and it is certainly tough enough and flexible enough to last – then this initial environmental outlay may be seen more favourably.

Yet a whole-life carbon assessment would struggle to look beyond the huge volumes of non-renewable materials used.

The opportunity to grasp

At this point, it would be easy to feel overwhelmed and question what impact architectural practices, already marginalised in the wider construction industry, can do about this enormous and systemic challenge. Part of the answer is to point out that there is a new role for architects here if they choose to grasp it. The decision-makers may have been slow to act but they can hear that smoke alarm and it is only going to get louder.

Even now, leading clients are looking to adopt WLC principles because they rightly see them as going hand-in-hand with cutting cost and reducing risk down the line. Developers such as Landsec and British Land and infrastructure companies such as Anglian Water are interested in low-carbon materials and the re-use and recycle agenda because they see it as akin to value engineering. They are increasingly concerned with a far more efficient lifetime use of resources and the need to avoid buildings becoming obsolescent.

While some in the industry might see fabric-dominated emissions as the responsibility of the services engineer, this is rightly the territory of the architect, who should be able to make the argument for low carbon construction materials on business grounds, including cost. Think of Amin Taha last month telling the AJ that the use of stone at his project 15 Clerkenwell Close not only reduced the embodied carbon of the overall superstructure by 90 per cent compared with steel or concrete but also cost about a quarter of the price.

But, in order to make the most of the opportunities, architects will need to take the initiative. They will need to bring their problem-solving and creative skills to bear. They will need to better understand materials, help to redefine what ‘good’ architecture looks like and successfully make the case that ultra-low WLC buildings are simply better buildings. They will have to prioritise the retrofit and re-use agenda and oppose demolition unless the case for it is unanswerable. Above all, they will need to get out of the habit of following and start to lead.

Of course, the profession can only be a part of the solution. It is not going to save the planet on its own in the next decade. Clearly, we urgently need to see innovative and progressive new ways of regulating and taxing carbon introduced to keep global warming below 1.5°C. But architects need to stop waiting for government to act and ask themselves what being a professional means. Concern for others and for the environment is embedded in both the ARB and RIBA codes of professional conduct and here we are staring at a humanitarian and environmental emergency. We do not have another 12 years to waste.

Understanding whole-life carbon: the basics

Whole-life carbon includes both embodied carbon and operational (in-use) carbon. 

Embodied carbon

Embodied carbon is the carbon dioxide created by a building: during the manufacture and transport of material; during its construction; through maintenance to its fabric; and by its eventual demolition. For most schemes, this starts with the emissions from the extraction of the raw materials, processing in a factory, and taking them to site. Embodied carbon further includes the upkeep or replacement of a building’s structure, envelope and environmental systems over time. An element of embodied carbon is also accounted for by demolition and disposal of materials at the end of a building’s life. 

Operational carbon

This is the carbon dioxide emitted from a building’s energy use: heating, cooling, lighting and equipment operation.

Who is doing what to tackle carbon emissions in construction?

London Energy Transformation Initiative (LETI)

LETI was launched in 2017 by environmental engineers Elementa Consulting. It is a voluntary network of more than 250 built environment professionals (including more than a dozen architectural practices), who have collaborated to develop proposals to revise London’s energy policy. It believes that, by 2020, the industry needs to have developed a definition for what ‘operating at net zero’ means, with defined, measurable targets and a design approach. It estimates five years to sense check, refine and validate the approach to ensure that by 2025, all the buildings that are being designed operate at net zero. LETI’s overall ambition is for all new buildings to achieve net zero by 2030. leti.london

UK Green Building Council (UKGBC)

The UKGBC has launched a task force to unravel the debated definition of ‘zero carbon’, now reframed as ‘net zero’. Four architects are among the industry heavyweights that make up the 35-strong group with a consultation currently under way until 1 March. The taskforce has recommended principles in five topic areas: disclosure; energy efficiency; renewables; offsets; and whole-life carbon. Recommendations, due in April, will be accompanied by potential policy levers at national and local level. The initiative is in response to a global campaign led by the World Green Building Council (WGBC), which is calling for all new buildings to be net zero carbon in operation by 2030, and all existing buildings to achieve this standard by 2050. www.ukgbc.org

American Institute of Architects (AIA)

In December the AIA penned an open letter to US president Donald Trump, imploring him to address climate change. It follows his decision to withdraw the US from the Paris agreement in 2017 and his recent rejection of a major report on how climate change will impact the economy. The AIA asked architects to sign its call to action; has helped set the federal 2030 net zero energy goals; and updated its code of ethics to address sustainability issues directly. It has also signed up to Architecture 2030, a voluntary disclosure initiative in the USA, which tracks operational energy use and has developed a building standard for new construction resulting in net zero-carbon buildings. www.aia.org

The Committee on Climate Change (CCC)

Last October, the UK government instructed the CCC to advise on whether the UK should set a target for net zero emissions. The watchdog will report back in May but last week published a hard-hitting report, which argued that the UK’s housing stock is ‘unfit’ for tackling climate change. www.theccc.org.uk

The RIBA

The RIBA responded to the IPCC report by pointing to its alignment with the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals, which, according to the institute, sit ‘at the heart of everything we do’. Its newly established Ethics and Sustainable Development Commission recently made a series of recommendations, including drawing up a ‘comprehensive plan’ to drive the advancement of sustainable architecture. The RIBA’s Sustainable Futures Group is also updating its Plan of Work, set to be published in the autumn, which will help project teams aim for meaningful sustainable outcomes in the brief, manage their delivery and undertake analysis up to three years after handover. www.architecture.com

Why architects need to wake up to the carbon emergency | News | Architects Journal
.
.
.

Climate change: "Politicians needed to shape and bend the financial system to invest in a green economy."

Following on from the climate strike last week:
Futures Forum: School Strike for Climate Action > letter from a Devon dad

The County and District Councils have been rather lacklustre:
Futures Forum: Climate change > County Council declares 'climate emergency' but fails to commit to becoming carbon neutral by 2030
Futures Forum: Climate change: District Council prefers to wait and see...

The response from Parliament has not been any better: 

MPs debate climate after school strike – but only a handful turn up

Government benches mostly empty for debate inspired by schoolchildren’s climate strike

Sandra Laville

Thu 28 Feb 2019 

A handful of MPs debate climate change in the House of Commons. Photograph: parliamentlive.tv

In the week that the UK experienced its hottest ever winter day, just a handful of government MPs attended a debate on climate change in parliament on Thursday.

Layla Moran, the Liberal Democrat MP for Oxford West and Abingdon, said she had secured the discussion after being inspired by the thousands of UK schoolchildren who went on strike over climate change this month and wanted to thank them for forcing MPs into action.

Moran said climate change had not been debated in the main chamber of the House of Commons for two years. She spoke, however, to a chamber where the seats were predominantly empty. At points, as few as 10 MPs sat on government benches, although the opposition side was more occupied. The lacklustre response to the debate from the government was in stark contrast to the condemnation by Downing Street to the thousands of children involved in the strike for climate change, calling it “truancy”.

Mary Creagh, chair of the environmental audit committee, said politicians needed to shape and bend the financial system to invest in a green economy.

“To achieve net zero [carbon emissions] we have to reduce our emissions rapidly and at scale in every area of our economy and our lives,” she said.

Zac Goldsmith, Conservative MP for Richmond Park and North Kingston, said last year’s UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report – detailing the difference between meeting a 1.5C rise above pre-industrial levels compared with 2C – gave the most alarming picture yet of the impact of climate change.

He said: “If you look at the trends, we are not heading for that apocalyptic 2 degree rise, we are heading something that looks more like 3 degrees, the consequences of which we cannot possibly estimate.”

In light of that, he said “the idea of children missing a few hours of geometry or PE to wake our political system up is somehow the wrong thing to do just seems … absurd”.

Caroline Lucas, the Green MP for Brighton Pavilion, who secured the debate with Moran, said long-term climate targets had to be amended to net zero. She said even after all of the international conferences and pledges, the Earth was still set to warm by 3-4C.

“Time is quickly running out to limit warming even to the 1.5 or 2 degree aspirations of the IPCC. We face a climate emergency … It calls for unprecedented boldness of vision and a new way of thinking.”

MPs debate climate after school strike – but only a handful turn up | Politics | The Guardian
.
.
.