The Tyndall Centre warns that UK has emitted a quarter of its carbon ration to 2050 in the last 5 years! So we are not yet doing enough to cut CO2 emissions — even though we are at the easy ‘top end’ of the curve. So any suggestion to relax future carbon targets for new development would seem to have no place in policy.

But Pareto’s Principle warns us against absolute targets: it anticipates that 20% effort achieves 80% of a goal but the last 20% of the goal demands 80% more effort. This debate considers whether the Principle might be a kick-start to UK’s stalling carbon cutting trajectory. It references current housing policy.

At the moment policy standards aspire to an absolute target of zero carbon new homes by 2016. But if costs follow Pareto – with 80% improvements readily afforded but the last 20% a stretch too far – then might funding the last step be better redirected towards older, less efficient, dwellings?

This debate was chaired by Paul King Chief, Executive of The UK Green Building Council. The motion to apply Pareto’s Principle to reformat housing policy was proposed by Paddy Conaghan and opposed by Chris Twinn.

Proposing the motion - Paper 1 (pdf)

Paddy Conaghan, Hoare Lea

Opposing the motion - Paper 2 (pdf)

Chris Twinn, Arup

The need to re-define comfort in buildings

Current expectations and standards of comfort are almost certainly unsustainable and new methods and ideas will be required if there is to be any prospect of a significantly lower carbon society. Adopting moretechnically efficient solutions of heating and cooling buildings to current standards is insufficient. This debate arises from a recent Building Research & Information special issue that challenges our concept of what comfort is.

Instead of being a “scientifically determined”, monotonous temperature that must be maintained throughout the year, it argues that comfort is a socially-negotiable notion and there fore contains a larger degree of flexibility. Unfortunately, over the past 50 years most people’s expectations for a comfortable indoor temperature have narrowed to a small temperature range. In the context of the existing building stock, increasing the range of acceptable indoor temperatures (to more closely follow outdoor temperatures) would significantly reduce energy demands as well as create other positive benefits.

This presents a series of challenges for policy makers and the construction industry:

• a policy debate to contemplate the scale and nature of the challenge

• rethinking current standards, the provision of comfort and thinking about comfort

• expending inhabitants’ expectations and creating a demand

• identifying successful design and management approaches for building occupants to tolerate and appreciate a wider temperature range (and thus avoid rejection or revenge effects)

• altering market conditions - especially the valuation of buildings

The debate was chaired by David Strong, Chief Executive of Inbuilt.

Paper 1 - Comfort in a Lower Carbon Society (pdf)

Richard Lorch, Editor, Building research & Information

Paper 2 - Making good enough better than just right (pdf)

Dr Bill Bordass, Usable Buildings Trust

Paper 3 - Comfort : Sustainability (pdf)

Philip Parnell, Drivers Jonas and RICS Sustainability Working Group

Paper 4 - A personal view from CLG (pdf)

Prof. Michael Kelly, Chief Scientific Advisor, CLG

Debate invite

What can we do between now and then – a built environment perspective ?

The need for dramatic carbon cuts is coming. Kyoto has 50 months to run and there is no replacement yet in place. Copenhagen in 15 months’ time will becrucial in this schedule for agreeing a new framework, new targets and an acceptable form of burden sharing.

And this December the UK’s new Committee on Climate Change will publish its first report and may recommend tougher new UK targets. What can we do? The 2006 Stern Review was based on a limit of 550ppm CO2 eq; now Stern in 2008* is calling for 450ppm. Jim Hansen calls for 350ppmv but at 380ppmv we have already overshot. A recent Guardian article quotes a New Economics Foundation study which gives the world 100 months to reverse the buildup of CO2.

What should the UK be doing? Given the trajectories of developing countries, especially China, Stern (2008) calls for 80-90% reductions in CO2 in developed countries by 2050 (500 months); this implies a step-change in action compared with the 60% reduction currently embodied in the Climate Change Bill. It means radical decarbonisation of the power, fuel, industry and transport sectors. But, unless these sectors could achieve 100% decarbonisation, much more fundamental changes will be required in the built environment, to compensate for shortfalls elsewhere . If the UK(the second largest emitter in the EU) is to be credible in the lead-up to Copenhagen, then it will need to show that these changes are feasible: this debate is about asking what should be our plan for demonstrating this ?

Speakers:

Prof Peter Guthrie (University of Cambridge)

Chris Beauman (European Bank of Reconstruction).

Notes

What is the built environment’s carbon ration plan for the UK?

This is the last in a series of three linked debates. In the first debate we looked at what is needed to achieve a zero-carbon home. Then we considered how binding national carbon reduction targets could be made up of a series of sector reduction targets that were intentionally designed to achieve only 80% of what is possible.

In this debate, we look to extend that logic and ask: in a future world where we have only 20% of our present fossil fuels, what do we spend them on?

What is the built environment’s view of the parts of the economy that we will not be able to supply with renewable energy quickly enough, or fully enough, that warrant us reserving our meagre oil ration to keep going?

Will it mean some sectors going to the wall and, if so, what is the plan for living without them?

Speaker 1: Charlie Leadbeater

The Pareto principle warns us against absolute targets: 20% effort will take us 80% of the way there. The achieving the remaining 20% results in diminishing returns. Does any of this help us with climate change? Maybe?

We have a number of climate change targets to achieve. They are mostly domestic but with time they will become increasingly international. We can imagine that the amount of wriggle room we currently enjoy will begin to dry up, so that these become targets that we need to achieve. How does Pareto help?

Within the national targets will be sector targets, some of which may be easier/cheaper (investment cost vs opportunity cost) than others to achieve. Stark choices will be involved and the answer is likely to be utilitarian.

This debate is all about identifying the low hanging fruit in the built environment and asking is there enough and if not what do we do? Where do we put the balance of our effort and what are the implications in terms of our expectations of how the system performs?

Speaker 1: Chris Huhne

But do we have the skills?

This debate was proposed by Richard Lorch, editor of the referee-ed journal BRI (Building Research and Information) and arises from an article by Banfill and Peacock of Heriot-Watt University in the recent BRI issue on ‘Climate Change: National Building Stocks’.

Zero carbon homes

Among other issues, they discuss the ‘admirable aspiration’ of delivering zero-carbon homes by 2016 but argue for radical action since:

” … In short, the proposals would require wholesale change to the current practices, supply chain and methodologies used in the volume house construction industry. Wholesale change in construction practice is not without precedent and in the past has been driven by, for example, the changing availability of materials, but the speed of change required in this case would be unprecedented.” (p 434)

The authors conclude:

” … as it reaches for sustainability, the UK runs a real risk of falling over.”

Debating these issues in refereed journals is helpful and John Callcutt has reported that it should be do-able. However the Edge is not convinced that the industry has the skills to meet the present regulations, let alone the emerging aspirations and tomorrow’s regulations for greater quality at zero carbon and in much greater numbers.

The Edge is concerned that our training is inadequate whether as client, designer or constructor.

House Builder: Joe Isle

Director of Strategic Development, Taylor Wimpey

Researcher: Prof. Phil Banfill

Heriot-Watt University

Designer: Andy von Bradsky

Chairman of PRP Architects