Reading Building Magazine in my local library yesterday, the 4/2/11 edition, there was a summary of a discussion on the government target of achieving carbon zero by 2016, or level 6 in the Code for Sustainable Homes. An issue with this is that the extra cost involved in achieving this level currently is too high to allow it to be the mainstream option.
H+H's Cliff Fudge says, "...We're finding that cost reducing is about taking the waste out of the building process..." and this would reduce the cost however in order to make this the mainstream want in society, (which is the ultimate cost factor,) the lifestyle wants and perception of carbon zero must be also altered in the mainstream.
Due to the way the levels 1-6 are determined - including not only the "...embodied carbon but also emissions from occupants..." activities as well as fabric losses, if mainstream lifestyle and therefore the 'occupants' activities' were also a government target to reduce to carbon zero, then this approach would seem natural and not a battle against the economy and society wants. Also we would be well on our way to becoming a sustainable community.
Later, Fudge says, "...If you are only allowed to build a low-carbon home it has to be at the same price as a second hand home, or you cannot sell it." Highlighting the fact that even if by 2016 all our new housing is carbon zero, the majority of housing stock still will not be, still will suit the lifestyle needs of the citizens and still therefore will, in the mainstream, seem the norm. Doesn't this mean that if we are truly to make a difference, the government must also try to alter existing stock such that the fabric losses and occupants' activities of all our citizens are taken into account?
Another element to the problem is summed up towards the end of the article:
"...However, it is not until 2020 that the organization predicts people will start to choose a home based on its energy performance. "I'm not sure I agree the choice will be on energy performance alone because I think in 2020 there will be a shortage of houses," says Oliver. "However it does show that there is a disconnection between when people will start to place a value on a low-carbon home and when builders are being asked to build them."..."
Question Series...from above...
Government target carbon zero by 2016 - but level 6 depends on occupants activity
- can we have carbon zero citizen lifestyle and wants by 2016?
Should the government input targets for exsiting housing stock as well as new builds for carbon-zero.
As most of our communities that will exist in 2016 have already been built.
Is it possible to change existing stock into carbon zero in terms of energy use, fabric losses and losses due to occupant activity?
