Green Building Forum - Renewable Insulation Wed, 10 Jun 2026 11:55:26 +0100 https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/ Lussumo Vanilla 1.0.3 Renewable Insulation https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=17218&Focus=292166#Comment_292166 https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=17218&Focus=292166#Comment_292166 Tue, 05 Oct 2021 17:52:40 +0100 Jonti Posted By: WillInAberdeenSimon, thanks for the link, but unfortunately a common fallacy is stated as fact in the first paragraph. The overwhelming source of economic growth in modern economies comes not from consuming more natural resources. But from using more/better human resources (labour, skills, knowledge, intellect) and capital resources (infrastructure, organisations, social structures).



Yet it is not a common fallacy just because you keep restating it is. Beyond saying it can you back this up with some hard evidence.

Are we really using less resources to support our life styles as you state? I do not think that is the case. We might not be using some resources as much but over all I very much doubt the total global use of resources is down compared to 30, 40, 50 years ago.]]> Renewable Insulation https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=17218&Focus=292170#Comment_292170 https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=17218&Focus=292170#Comment_292170 Tue, 05 Oct 2021 22:43:05 +0100 WillInAberdeen
UK Gross Value Added 2019, that was derived from natural resources:
Agriculture, forestry, fishing: 7
Mining, quarrying, oil: 11
Water supply: 12

UK Gross Value Added 2019, that was not derived from natural resources:
Distribution, hotels, restaurants: 134
Business and Financial services 338
Government and public services 219
Total services 792

Units are ‰ of total UK economy

https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/grossdomesticproductgdp/datasets/uksecondestimateofgdpdatatables]]> Renewable Insulation https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=17218&Focus=292175#Comment_292175 https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=17218&Focus=292175#Comment_292175 Wed, 06 Oct 2021 10:29:21 +0100 SimonD Posted By: fostertomIt's not just an optional belief - it's hardwired into the present money system.

But it is an optional belief that has caused "growth" to be hardwired into the financial systems of the world. It's a human constructed system where the belief underpins the construction of the system.

If we look at the drivers of growth over the past say 150 years or so, that growth is mainly driven by energy - i.e. the use of fossils fuel due to their energy density - not as many would suggest labour and capital, which actually only form a small part of the the whole equation.

It seems rather bizarre to me that given how we now need to completely revise our energy dependency, whether that is replacing and or reducing energy sources and use, we seem to think that we can just carry on with the same economic systems without some sort of fundamental review.


Posted By: WillInAberdeenunfortunately a common fallacy is stated as fact in the first paragraph. The overwhelming source of economic growth in modern economies comes not from consuming more natural resources. But from using more/better human resources (labour, skills, knowledge, intellect) and capital resources (infrastructure, organisations, social structures).

We can become a wealthier society by increasing our human resources (eg by research and education) or capital resources (eg fibre broadband or social networks or healthcare services) without needing to deplete more natural resources.


I concede that the statement in the first paragraph may be at one extreme of the spectrum of opinions :wink: but a fallacy it isn't. That view comes from the other end of the spectrum where many believers in the dream of decoupling lie :bigsmile:

Whilst there are several well developed countries like the US, UK and Germany, that have in recent decades demonstrated relative decoupling, we are nowhere near knowing or understanding how or if we can achieve absolute decoupling. There are several very major problems here. One is that growth is exponential, which means that if we're going to achieve the necessary decoupling the reduction of resource use is also going to have to reduce exponentially, and within current systems, that is very unlikely to happen. Another major problem that hasn't even begun to be tackled yet is that as we decouple, for example through digitisation, then the marginal cost of those products reduces. There are many questions as to how,if this part of our economic system expands to the extent it needs to, this will impact on growth. This impact has already been seen in many areas of tech.

The idea of absolute decoupling may have been adopted by many of the global economic umbrella organisations but I suspect that this adoption comes more from a lack of alternative ideas and a fear of actually tackling the dogma of growth. At the moment I would put decoupling in the same box as large scale carbon capture technology - not an impossibility but work in progress that may or may not yield fruit.

As Kate Raworth says in her book, Doughnut Economics, perhaps we need to turn the approach to growth around. Instead of (I paraphrase) growth whether or not we thrive, we can learn to thrive whether there is economic growth or not.

Posted By: WillInAberdeenThat's not to say there aren't many/obvious examples of overconsumption of natural resources that we must urgently tackle, otherwise we wouldn't be on GBF. But we will be able to tackle them using better human and social resources and still become better off than we were,


I agree wholeheartedly that we need to resolve overconsumption and we need to better use human/social reqources and capital to to this, rather than 'energy.' But unfortunately, it would require a serious turnaround in both economic, political policy because at present there is much more of a move towards automation instead of human resource. This potentially causes problems in the very sphere we need solutions. To reference Kate Raworth and her book again, she interestingly talks about how this could be done by retrofitting instead of building new building for energy conservation. According to her view this would create a lot of jobs, and would require less energy and resource use than trying to build new.

From the perspective of wealth, I agree there needs to be more distribution of wealth around the world, but I also wonder how we best measure wealth and that perhaps with where developed countries are, we need a more comprehensive view on that one. One that isn't largely reliant on money and possession terms.

Posted By: WillInAberdeenUK Gross Value Added 2019, that was derived from natural resources:
Agriculture, forestry, fishing: 7
Mining, quarrying, oil: 11
Water supply: 12

UK Gross Value Added 2019, that was not derived from natural resources:
Distribution, hotels, restaurants: 134
Business and Financial services 338
Government and public services 219
Total services 792


Hmmm.. Interesting taxonomy :wink: I do love the fact that distribution, for example, is not derived from natural resource....hotel and restaurants, none there either, as their activity has nothing to do with resources like food, nor the subsequent waste. Is there no manufacturing or natural gas? :wink:

Sorry, cheeky :bigsmile:]]> Renewable Insulation https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=17218&Focus=292179#Comment_292179 https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=17218&Focus=292179#Comment_292179 Wed, 06 Oct 2021 13:06:37 +0100 WillInAberdeen
You can look up the other sectors, eg Manufacturing: 99
(Again, that's not double counting the natural resources consumed by digging up the raw materials - rather it's the wealth created from human resources and infrastructure who turn the materials into something useful)]]> Renewable Insulation https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=17218&Focus=292182#Comment_292182 https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=17218&Focus=292182#Comment_292182 Wed, 06 Oct 2021 18:32:29 +0100 fostertom Posted By: SimonDit is an optional belief that has caused "growth" to be hardwired into the financial systems of the worldIt's been that way, in Europe, since the 1300s, when Arabic mathematicians advised Kings and Princes on how to reverse the growing independent prosperity of peasants-become-traders incl issuing their own promisory notes. If royalty would outlaw the latter and 'own' all the money, keep it in short supply and as it were rent it out for use (i.e. charge interest on it) then they'd have a tidy regular income, growth and prosperity would revert to sluggish but they'd get more of it (nearly all the 'cream'), and the new 'free' class would struggle. So its roots run deep, and suit the owners of money; the character of capitalism was set. It won't be easily changed.]]> Renewable Insulation https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=17218&Focus=292185#Comment_292185 https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=17218&Focus=292185#Comment_292185 Thu, 07 Oct 2021 09:32:52 +0100 SimonD Posted By: fostertomIt's been that way, in Europe, since the 1300s, So its roots run deep, and suit the owners of money; the character of capitalism was set. It won't be easily changed.

Indeed, it is entrenched almost to the extent that many don't even notice to question it. Classical Chinese thought dating back 2000 years views growth as a natural component of any complex system. However, the fundamental difference with the classical Chinese view - and possibly the origins of growth in western contexts? - actually understands and explicitly states that growth is never a constant (contrary to our current growth models and policies) but rather it oscillates like any natural systems does, sometimes there is strong growth, sometimes there is almost none and sometimes it's negative or even catastrophic. The problem with the modern entrenched approach is that it aims to produce growth whatever the wider environmental circumstances, which any common sense would tell us, nonsense and a fallacy. :wink:

This is something some leading 'different' thinkers in economics are beginning to understand, but yes, just as with our energy transformation, this one is also going to be a bit of a climb :bigsmile:]]> Renewable Insulation https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=17218&Focus=292186#Comment_292186 https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=17218&Focus=292186#Comment_292186 Thu, 07 Oct 2021 10:56:51 +0100 fostertom https://www.amazon.co.uk/s?k=web+of+meaning&ref=nb_sb_noss_1 goes deep into what the world needs to 'get'.]]> Renewable Insulation https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=17218&Focus=292187#Comment_292187 https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=17218&Focus=292187#Comment_292187 Thu, 07 Oct 2021 11:26:13 +0100 SimonD Posted By: fostertomSpot on, the Confucian understanding - it's why east Asians especially the vast Chinese section of it, do feel disconcertingly 'from another planet', to westerners. But they're right. Fantastic new bookhttps://www.amazon.co.uk/s?k=web+of+meaning&ref=nb_sb_noss_1" rel="nofollow" >https://www.amazon.co.uk/s?k=web+of+meaning&ref=nb_sb_noss_1goes deep into what the world needs to 'get'.

Interesting link, thanks. I was just looking for a new audio book to listen to! Seems similar but different to my work where in my Master's project I imported and integrated areas of systemic classical Chinese thought into western Psychological Coaching in order to contribute to approaches in human development and learning in organisations. That's been the basis of my work ever since. I teach Tai Chi Chuan too :bigsmile:]]> Renewable Insulation https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=17218&Focus=292188#Comment_292188 https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=17218&Focus=292188#Comment_292188 Thu, 07 Oct 2021 13:37:59 +0100 fostertom Renewable Insulation https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=17218&Focus=292189#Comment_292189 https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=17218&Focus=292189#Comment_292189 Thu, 07 Oct 2021 16:54:18 +0100 Peter_in_Hungary Posted By: SimonDHowever, the fundamental difference with the classical Chinese view - and possibly the origins of growth in western contexts? - actually understands and explicitly states that growth is never a constant (contrary to our current growth models and policies) but rather it oscillates like any natural systems does, sometimes there is strong growth, sometimes there is almost none and sometimes it's negative or even catastrophic.
Hmm - sounds like the UK housing market]]> Renewable Insulation https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=17218&Focus=292190#Comment_292190 https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=17218&Focus=292190#Comment_292190 Thu, 07 Oct 2021 17:17:54 +0100 fostertom Renewable Insulation https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=17218&Focus=292193#Comment_292193 https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=17218&Focus=292193#Comment_292193 Fri, 08 Oct 2021 09:19:51 +0100 SimonD Posted By: fostertomWow - when's your book comning out?!

Haha, thanks, maybe I'll get the time once I've finished building my house! That has been a lesson in chaos - can't believe the construction industry actually manages to function. :bigsmile:]]> Renewable Insulation https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=17218&Focus=292194#Comment_292194 https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=17218&Focus=292194#Comment_292194 Fri, 08 Oct 2021 09:21:31 +0100 SimonD Posted By: Peter_in_Hungary
Hmm - sounds like the UK housing market

Possibly couldn't be a better example :bigsmile:]]> Renewable Insulation https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=17218&Focus=292255#Comment_292255 https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=17218&Focus=292255#Comment_292255 Sun, 10 Oct 2021 22:10:19 +0100 Jonti Posted By: WillInAberdeenJonti, I dug you out data last couple of times you asserted things without data (previous page), and here's some more examples, but surely you can dig this out yourself?

UK Gross Value Added 2019, that was derived from natural resources:
Agriculture, forestry, fishing: 7
Mining, quarrying, oil: 11
Water supply: 12

UK Gross Value Added 2019, that was not derived from natural resources:
Distribution, hotels, restaurants: 134
Business and Financial services 338
Government and public services 219
Total services 792

Units are ‰ of total UK economy

https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/grossdomesticproductgdp/datasets/uksecondestimateofgdpdatatables" rel="nofollow" >https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/grossdomesticproductgdp/datasets/uksecondestimateofgdpdatatables

I had a quick look but could not find the links on the previous page. A comparison of the electricity market shows that overall consumption has dropped since 1970 but a closer look shows it is because the amount used by manufacturing and other heavy industry has been offshored. Actual household use has almost doubled which is what I suspect has happened in general.

I do not think it is either ethically correct nor honest to just look at what is used in the UK. I also think you have to look at the resources used in all manufacturing for good which end up in the UK market as in the end the usage is caused by demand in the UK. This is something I have stated in other posts.]]> Renewable Insulation https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=17218&Focus=292256#Comment_292256 https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=17218&Focus=292256#Comment_292256 Mon, 11 Oct 2021 07:23:58 +0100 jms452
Super sustainable
Conductivity of 0.024W/m.K
Can't buy it yet afaik

https://www.biohm.co.uk/mycelium]]> Renewable Insulation https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=17218&Focus=292260#Comment_292260 https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=17218&Focus=292260#Comment_292260 Mon, 11 Oct 2021 10:13:22 +0100 djh Posted By: jms452It's very nascent but any thoughts on mycelium insulation?

Super sustainable
Conductivity of 0.024W/m.K
Can't buy it yet afaik

https://www.biohm.co.uk/mycelium
Hmm, web site with more style than substance. No reference I found to the test that established the claimed conductivity in particular. Not much in the way of facts at all. I wish them every success but at the moment I'd have to say it's not one for widows and orphans (are we still allowed to use expressions like that?)]]> Renewable Insulation https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=17218&Focus=292598#Comment_292598 https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=17218&Focus=292598#Comment_292598 Tue, 26 Oct 2021 14:13:19 +0100 GarethC