So Barack Obama is going to spend over £600bn on an 'economic stimulus' for the US economy, which will include a 'green revolution'.
He's already announced these plans:
How much of a revolution is this really, given the scale of the USA? I don't know the figures, but it might be worth looking into. A quick Google search suggests there are about 100 million homes (160 million households) in the US. So 2.5m homes 'weatherized' (yuk, ugly word) is 2.5% of the housing stock. Doesn't sound quite so grand. And I guess we are only talking about improving weathertightness and some insulation... Similar scrutiny should probably be put onto the other pledges (Obama is only a politician, after all).
Could we ever see a 'green revolution' in the UK? Nothing gives me this hope right now. Government has some of the right instincts, but not enough public support to force through the changes we need right now, so they won't take the risk. Tinkering with newbuild is just not sufficient - and even that has been mismanaged, so that designers, housebuilders and contractors are trying to work with incomplete technical guidance and contradictory software tools. No wonder it's easier to slap on some eco bling than design and build really robust, future proof housing. It's just more lipstick on a pig, to coin another Obama saying.
LibLob:Tinkering with newbuild is just not sufficient - and even that has been mismanaged, so that designers, housebuilders and contractors are trying to work with incomplete technical guidance and contradictory software tools.
With the house building market in trouble - the time has surely never been better to push through some tougher weatherizing legislation for new-build? House builders are desperate for anything to help get the market moving again, so so why not make them build greener houses as a quid pro quo?
LibLob:It's just more lipstick on a pig, to coin another Obama saying.
Was that not Sarah Palin? And wasn't it a pit bull? Lovely woman.
I agree that most housebuilders are driven primarily by regulation - IMHO nothing would have changed on energy efficiency since the 80s had we not seen dramatic steps to force up standards via Part L and, latterly, the Code for Sustainable Homes.
But the Government has set out its timeline for future changes and the housebuilding industry is starting to get its head around this. I have sympathies for the housebuilders - they're working without the best advice, tools, skills or materials. They are vulnerable to any snake oil salesman who promises to help them reach Code level 4 without having to grapple with the real complexities of sustainable development or business re-engineering. In a highly conservative culture of risk adverse short-term thinking, this can't be any surprise.
I'm not sure it would be either fair or wise to try and force the theoretical standards (eg. Building Regs or Code levels) any higher in exchange for, say, a promise to buy up more empty stock to ease cash flow. Forcing housebuilders to run before they can walk will result in widespread building failures which will do us no favours at all. What might be more intelligent would be a serious commitment by Government to invest in fast-track sustainability (re)training and funding for housebuilders to use this down-time to prepare for the upturn when it comes. Those that take this up might then be rewarded - eg. priority acess to develop EP land or frameworks for social housing projects maybe?
And in the meantime, my point is still that the newbuild sector in the UK is taking all the flack while the real problem is the existing stock. It's the big, fat, carbon-spewing elephant in the room.
If Obama, Brown and co really want to save the world, then they need to get their heads around a weatherization programme for 75% of the housing stock, not 2.5%.
Sorry if previous message sounded too downbeat. Cynicism is a destructive thing, and I don't want to talk down any efforts at all to tackle carbon emissions and climate change. It's just a personal frustration because I don't have the answers either! All I can hope for from this recession is the emergence of:
Oh, and motherhood and apple pie, a hot summer this year, lower taxes, world peace and promotion for Yeovil FC.
LibLob: What might be more intelligent would be a serious commitment by Government to invest in fast-track sustainability (re)training and funding for housebuilders to use this down-time to prepare for the upturn when it comes.
What might be more intelligent would be a serious commitment by Government to invest in fast-track sustainability (re)training and funding for housebuilders to use this down-time to prepare for the upturn when it comes.
An excellent idea. There seems to have been very little sympathy for the poor old house builder during the past year - even though this was a booming industry that employed thousands.
The Government did announce a retraining pot back in the autumn to retrain workers - but I think that was for people who had already been made redundant. A better idea surely would be to keep them in employment - but perhaps go down to a three or four day week, with the remainder being used for training in, eg. more sustainable building methods. I think there may have been another big company who proposed this sort of thing - possibly one of the carmakers?
The problem that seems to escape everyone is that by laying off so many people we are in danger of losing a whole generation of skilled workers who may never return to the industry, leaving the country with a big skills gap for when the economy starts growing again. A far better idea would surely be to keep them working, and ideally learning new skills for green economy.
LibLob:A vigorous refurbishment programme for the existing stock, informed by intelligent sustainability experts who also know how to engage with the General Public, and championed by celebrities and young people passionate about transforming our homes and workplaces from the inside out.
Alas it's true that a bit of celeb championing goes a long way.
News emerged yesterday of Gordon Brown's plans to tackle energy inefficiency of Britain's current housing stock, which accounts for 27% of the country's carbon emmissions. In March, the Retrofit for the Future challenge will launch - a competition run by the Technology Strategy Board aimed at giving companies the chance of a share of a £10m pot to come up with new technologies to improve the energy performance of existing buildings.
This does appear to be a step in the right direction, but is it enough? £10m might seem like a hefty chunk of cash (which indeed it is when compared with the average bank balance!), but I imagine this initiative will take a considerable length of time to run it's course. In the mean time, skilled workers are ending up in line at the job centre.
House Martin:The problem that seems to escape everyone is that by laying off so many people we are in danger of losing a whole generation of skilled workers who may never return to the industry, leaving the country with a big skills gap for when the economy starts growing again. A far better idea would surely be to keep them working, and ideally learning new skills for green economy.
This idea has a great deal of merit. Couple it with the Retrofit for the Future campaign and we start to get somewhere.
The main problem with politics is we're thrown numbers like £10m because without scratching the surface they make good soundbites. Gordon is resolutely trying to spend his way out of this economic nightmare. But unless there is a vast amount of wisdom and research to go with it, I fear there will be a time in the not too distant future when we will be lamenting decisions to throw cash around in the wrong way.
LibLob:a hot summer this year,
Just seen an interesting article in today's Guardian (24 Feb 09) on this topic - just FYI!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/feb/24/obama-environment-economic-rescue
Interesting read, thanks LibLob.
While the 13% of the total recovery package falls short of Nick Stern's 20% ideal, I can't help but be quite impressed.
Mainly because my expectations of the US to make this level of green conscious effort were terribly low, but credit where credit is due.