Affordable Environmentalism, a Discussion Piece by G.P.Humphry
Is Zero Carbon Achievable? The British Government has declared that all new homes should be zero carbon from 2016 onwards. By this they mean that such homes should have zero net CO2 emissions from energy use. And the energy must be generated on site. Buying in renewable energy won’t count. It appears that homes will be able to import some energy at certain times (e.g. during the winter) but only if they export an equivalent amount at other times (e.g. the summer).
Whether this goal is achievable is another matter. It is true that the UK has already built one allegedly carbon neutral house and one might therefore conclude that there would be no problem building more. Unfortunately, on closer examination, the claims made for the supposedly carbon neutral house appear questionable. The house incorporates a wood chip boiler, which is counted as carbon neutral because wood absorbs as much CO2 while it is growing as is released when it is burnt. In addition wood chips may be obtained from recycled and waste wood so they should not strain our wood supplies. However wood chips can only be counted as carbon neutral if no carbon emissions are emitted in its transportation. Moreover if all new homes had wood chip boilers we would soon run out of waste wood and would need to start using new wood. And there is no way to ensure homeowners would buy sustainable wood.
Thus the Governments target could create a perverse incentive to deforestation. Houses could burn waste paper and cardboard and dead leaves and wood but houses with small or no gardens would find it hard to achieve energy self sufficiency. Self sufficiency might be possible for stand alone dwellings but not for high rise buildings. These have less roof space per resident, limiting solar generating capacity and usually little or no garden space.
Changing the Rules. As noted, houses will not be able to count as carbon neutral simply because they buy in renewable energy. This is understandable as in the short run purchasing renewable from existing suppliers would simply divert such energy from other potential customers. Moreover it would be very difficult to lock customers into renewable suppliers. However originally it looked as if the Government would allow developers to offset some carbon emissions by building new renewable generating capacity offsite. This would have ensured that new homes did not divert renewable energy supplies from others. Moreover, assuming a cap on the offset, such a rule would not have let builders off the energy efficiency hook. And since macrogeneration is much more efficient than microgeneration the costs of the new homes would have been kept down. However the rules were then changed to allow only offsite renewables connected to a development by private wire. Finally it was decided that all offsite renewables would be barred. In the case of wind turbines even onsite turbines won’t count if they supply more than one building. This rule does not apply to communal biomass boilers, a bizarre form of discrimination given that wind turbines are inherently carbon neutral while biomass boilers are not.
The Price. The Government’s Code for Sustainable Homes (CSH) has six levels. Level 6, which requires zero carbon homes, will be mandatory after 2016. At Wimpey’s development at Milton Keynes the construction costs of level 3 homes are running at more than double those of conventional dwellings. Meanwhile at the self build company Potton level 6 designs are being offered at almost two and a half times the cost of level 3 models. This does not necessarily mean that level 6 homes will cost five times as much as conventional houses. The first buildings at each level inevitably cost more. Architects must design new plans and builders must learn new techniques. In Germany “passive houses”, roughly equivalent to level 3 or 4 dwellings are said to cost just 7% more than traditional homes. However the big costs come when one attempts to reach levels 5 and 6 of the code as this requires expensive microgeneration such as solar panelling. Even on the most optimistic scenario level 6 homes are likely to be expensive under current rules.
A large increase in building costs will make it very difficult to achieve the increase in the supply of affordable housing desired by the Government or to accommodate the substantial increase in the UK population predicted for the coming decades. Poor people will find it harder to find even rented accommodation let alone get on the property ladder.
If new buildings cost more, fewer will be built. Thus the rule changes will mean fewer carbon neutral homes and thus a smaller cut in C02 emissions than would have occurred under the original rules.
There is also the question of the elderly to be considered. In a typical UK winter 20-30,000 people die of the cold, predominantly the elderly. Energy efficient homes will need less heating but old people will still need warmer homes than others. If new homes cannot buy in power it will be very hard to heat them to a high enough standard to prevent the elderly freezing to death except by buying in significant amounts of (perhaps unsustainable) wood.
Divining the Logic. The only argument I have seen advanced for the Government’s rule change is that if developers were allowed to offset by investing in new renewable capacity they would cherry pick the best sites for wind turbines. When the national grid came to build turbines it would be left with the less good sites raising the cost of power for everyone else. The argument does not stack up. If developers were limited to turbines connected to estates by private wire they would build them near the new housing developments. And they would be unlikely to locate new settlements in the North West of Scotland simply because this is the best area for wind turbines. If it was permitted to locate offsetting capacity anywhere and to sell the power generated to the national grid then it would indeed be possible to cherry pick the best sites but in that case the beneficiaries would be the customers of the national grid.
Apart from the argument just considered the only conceivable case to be made for the rule changes would be from the perspective of a green fundamentalism that regards offsetting as simply another word for cheating. This attitude appears quite widespread amongst environmentalists. When it comes to offsetting even the normally pragmatic George Monbiot appears to side with the extremists. In his informative book ‘Heat’ he compares offsetting to pushing food around one’s plate to create the impression one has eaten it. He states that “in order to deliver a carbon cut of the size I have discussed, everyone will have to limit their emissions, either today or, in the poorer nations, in the future. There is no choice to be made about whether to abstain from flying and help poorer people buy better lightbulbs.” All of which might be true but such arguments have no bearing on the case for allowing developers to build wind turbines to offset limited CO2 emissions from new homes. Allowing such offsetting would make it easier to cut the UK’s carbon emissions by reducing the cost of carbon neutral homes and allowing us to build more of them. If developers were allowed to build offsetting capacity anywhere it would also allow faster conversion of the national grid to wind power. Moreover cheaper homes would ensure that carbon neutrality was not achieved at the expense of the poor.
The Government is currently consulting on the implementation of its code for sustainable homes. It is possible that it may return to the original rules allowing limited offsetting. Environmentalists are understandably suspicious of complaints from business about the cost of going green. However on this issue rational environmentalists should be joining with builders and developers in calling for a rethink.
Whether this goal is achievable is another matter. It is true that the UK has already built one allegedly carbon neutral house and one might therefore conclude that there would be no problem building more. Unfortunately, on closer examination, the claims made for the supposedly carbon neutral house appear questionable. The house incorporates a wood chip boiler, which is counted as carbon neutral because wood absorbs as much CO2 while it is growing as is released when it is burnt. In addition wood chips may be obtained from recycled and waste wood so they should not strain our wood supplies. However wood chips can only be counted as carbon neutral if no carbon emissions are emitted in its transportation. Moreover if all new homes had wood chip boilers we would soon run out of waste wood and would need to start using new wood. And there is no way to ensure homeowners would buy sustainable wood.
Thus the Governments target could create a perverse incentive to deforestation. Houses could burn waste paper and cardboard and dead leaves and wood but houses with small or no gardens would find it hard to achieve energy self sufficiency. Self sufficiency might be possible for stand alone dwellings but not for high rise buildings. These have less roof space per resident, limiting solar generating capacity and usually little or no garden space.
Changing the Rules. As noted, houses will not be able to count as carbon neutral simply because they buy in renewable energy. This is understandable as in the short run purchasing renewable from existing suppliers would simply divert such energy from other potential customers. Moreover it would be very difficult to lock customers into renewable suppliers. However originally it looked as if the Government would allow developers to offset some carbon emissions by building new renewable generating capacity offsite. This would have ensured that new homes did not divert renewable energy supplies from others. Moreover, assuming a cap on the offset, such a rule would not have let builders off the energy efficiency hook. And since macrogeneration is much more efficient than microgeneration the costs of the new homes would have been kept down. However the rules were then changed to allow only offsite renewables connected to a development by private wire. Finally it was decided that all offsite renewables would be barred. In the case of wind turbines even onsite turbines won’t count if they supply more than one building. This rule does not apply to communal biomass boilers, a bizarre form of discrimination given that wind turbines are inherently carbon neutral while biomass boilers are not.
The Price. The Government’s Code for Sustainable Homes (CSH) has six levels. Level 6, which requires zero carbon homes, will be mandatory after 2016. At Wimpey’s development at Milton Keynes the construction costs of level 3 homes are running at more than double those of conventional dwellings. Meanwhile at the self build company Potton level 6 designs are being offered at almost two and a half times the cost of level 3 models. This does not necessarily mean that level 6 homes will cost five times as much as conventional houses. The first buildings at each level inevitably cost more. Architects must design new plans and builders must learn new techniques. In Germany “passive houses”, roughly equivalent to level 3 or 4 dwellings are said to cost just 7% more than traditional homes. However the big costs come when one attempts to reach levels 5 and 6 of the code as this requires expensive microgeneration such as solar panelling. Even on the most optimistic scenario level 6 homes are likely to be expensive under current rules.
A large increase in building costs will make it very difficult to achieve the increase in the supply of affordable housing desired by the Government or to accommodate the substantial increase in the UK population predicted for the coming decades. Poor people will find it harder to find even rented accommodation let alone get on the property ladder.
If new buildings cost more, fewer will be built. Thus the rule changes will mean fewer carbon neutral homes and thus a smaller cut in C02 emissions than would have occurred under the original rules.
There is also the question of the elderly to be considered. In a typical UK winter 20-30,000 people die of the cold, predominantly the elderly. Energy efficient homes will need less heating but old people will still need warmer homes than others. If new homes cannot buy in power it will be very hard to heat them to a high enough standard to prevent the elderly freezing to death except by buying in significant amounts of (perhaps unsustainable) wood.
Divining the Logic. The only argument I have seen advanced for the Government’s rule change is that if developers were allowed to offset by investing in new renewable capacity they would cherry pick the best sites for wind turbines. When the national grid came to build turbines it would be left with the less good sites raising the cost of power for everyone else. The argument does not stack up. If developers were limited to turbines connected to estates by private wire they would build them near the new housing developments. And they would be unlikely to locate new settlements in the North West of Scotland simply because this is the best area for wind turbines. If it was permitted to locate offsetting capacity anywhere and to sell the power generated to the national grid then it would indeed be possible to cherry pick the best sites but in that case the beneficiaries would be the customers of the national grid.
Apart from the argument just considered the only conceivable case to be made for the rule changes would be from the perspective of a green fundamentalism that regards offsetting as simply another word for cheating. This attitude appears quite widespread amongst environmentalists. When it comes to offsetting even the normally pragmatic George Monbiot appears to side with the extremists. In his informative book ‘Heat’ he compares offsetting to pushing food around one’s plate to create the impression one has eaten it. He states that “in order to deliver a carbon cut of the size I have discussed, everyone will have to limit their emissions, either today or, in the poorer nations, in the future. There is no choice to be made about whether to abstain from flying and help poorer people buy better lightbulbs.” All of which might be true but such arguments have no bearing on the case for allowing developers to build wind turbines to offset limited CO2 emissions from new homes. Allowing such offsetting would make it easier to cut the UK’s carbon emissions by reducing the cost of carbon neutral homes and allowing us to build more of them. If developers were allowed to build offsetting capacity anywhere it would also allow faster conversion of the national grid to wind power. Moreover cheaper homes would ensure that carbon neutrality was not achieved at the expense of the poor.
The Government is currently consulting on the implementation of its code for sustainable homes. It is possible that it may return to the original rules allowing limited offsetting. Environmentalists are understandably suspicious of complaints from business about the cost of going green. However on this issue rational environmentalists should be joining with builders and developers in calling for a rethink.