I see the ultimate goal has to be low energy consumption homes (sourced from renewables) and built using sustainable cradle-to-grave materials.

I would think the biggest environmental issues to tackle first would be energy consumption. During a buildings lifetime this far outweighs the embodied energy of the building materials. For new buildings this can be easily implemented by building regulations and planning permissions prioritised for low-energy homes. The difficulty comes with old homes.

My main interest (as I and most other people in the country live in them) is the existing stock. My belief is that rather than go for gold (or passivhaus) level renovation (which incedentally is either very hard/expensive or impossible/prohibitively costly) we still need to start very simply.

1.Most houses still have very poor loft insulation, it would be simple to make this mandatory on sale/purchase. So where structurally possible the part L minimum should be applied accross the board. where not structurally possible the best next level should be applied. As a footnote most insulation (as noted many times in these discusions) in installed very, very badly - I remain flabbergasted at the houses near me, built since part L came into forc, where the recent snow was melting off the roofs and as they were being built the cellotex used as cavity insulation had 20-40mm gaps between panels with sawn remnants shoved in round doors & windows.

2. Solar water. Again this should be just installed on all properties with roofs with suitable aspects using simple retrofit technology to existing water cylinders or funkier versions for those that wanted top pay for it.

Both the above should be assisted with small grants ( say £100 - 250 for 'normal' loft insulation and £300+ for solar both with options for a bit more grant where neccesary) which are readily available properly monitored and administered by goverment funded local officials (new member(s) of staff in each building inspector team until completed).

Once these two projects have been completed or are substantially underway THEN we get on with underfloor insulation/airtightness/ground source heat pumps etc etc.

Whilst neither of the above will satisfy the deep green/straw baler (myself included) they are achievable and practical and will begin a process of really sorting out the basics.

Hello Niggle

Simple answer to you first question is I have no accurate idea how much of the household energy deficit would be remedied. Very hard to calculate given the differing levels of insulation (from none/not effective to nearly part L). My contention is that we have to start by getting the simple/easy things right at a national scale before we get too worked up about more sexy stuff. Using the standard figures often cited (up to 30% heat lost through uninsulated roof/up to 60% saving in DHW energy cost with solar) one could assume that around 20% of the average houses CO2 budget could be cut (could be wildy off but happy to be shot down by someone with a calculator & time).

Your second point is actually rather more difficult. The main problem with energy savings (at least at a household level) is that the savings made on energy tend to be spent on other things (which in general cost energy) resulting in either no or a diminished overall reduction in CO2/energy use. I am actually relying on increased energy cost to get the majority into the energy-cost habit as I do not think anything else will work as efficiently as people having to pay more to heat and light their homes to reducing energy usage. I suspect also that taxes would need to be raised to pay for the programme (might as well get this one out early in the thread!) which may mitigate for the 'more cash for stuff' syndrome.

I think to do the relatively simple things first is the best idea. Cultural change takes a very long time and needs strong drivers like massive increase in fuel prices (in this instance).

The problem with 'sustainability' that it has become an overused weasel word applied to almost anything to make it sound like a good idea/give it a current edge. In fact there is a general lack of concensus as to what is or isn't 'sustainable' its relationship to 'desirable' and 'necessary' in political terms. In any case I suspect that there is sustainabilty fatigue and what is needed is to stop talking and just get on with it.

In terms of this thread title on this forum the first thing that comes to mind (other than removing land from agriculture/wildlife) when one thinks of the impact of housing is the energy used to build, heat and light them. My own personal interest is the state of the existing stock of housing (and by this I mean most that is being built now and for the next few years - cos if anything better than 10% of them actually meet part L in a real life test I'll eat my gardening trousers) and getting it into better order.

House builders (generally) are busineses, they don't care about houses they care about the bottom line. They will not and actually can not justyfy anything which negatively affects that bottom line unless they are forced to by outside influences. I suspect you would find that many house builders are very much aware of lower carbon/environmental impact practices and features, they are also aware of how much more they cost. The general public (me and you included) do not generally make properly informed decisions (even when we think we do we are are at the mercy of the quality of the information available) and we certainly do not follow regulations. We generally have to be me made to do things (or led by the nose) only a few have the conviction to do things of their own accord.

Goverments are supposed to be good at setting regulations and targets, it is their job, wether they are good regulations and targets is another matter entirely.

It is after all just a word (a noun in fact) which can be justifiably applied to many things.

s.

No one thing to do both cost saving, energy saving and for comfort is to do draft proofing. Next air leakage sealing, third insulate!

Cavity walls cool houses as they are drafty

Suspended wooden floors cool houses as the ventilation under them is from outside.

Suspended concrete floors do the same.

Wooden joisted first floors cool both the ground floor ceiling and the first floor boards as the void is drafty from outside.

The problem is even the easiest improvements are the hard to persuade people to act on. Things can make pure economic sense and still not get done. For example my local council offers a £100 grant (via British Gas) for cavity wall insulation taking the typical price down to £150. I would imagine this would payback in 2 years, and nobody I have mentioned this to is interested. Business would go crazy for Returns on Investment at this amount.

Taxation seems like the way to start the improvements. Draw up a list of what is feasible with any particular building type. Levy a variable VAT rate on fuel, depending on the grade of energy efficiency. As nobody likes paying tax, it might well kick-start the general improvements in CO2 performance.

Posted By: jamesingram
Perhap legistration forcing goverment/councils/housing associations to upgraded there stock is a start

Just to say that the Welsh Assembley has done exactly this via the introduction of the Welsh Quality Housing Standard.

The Standard is here http://new.wales.gov.uk/desh/publications/housing/whqslaguide/guide?lang=en and although it was implemented before the introduction of Part L1b it is that document which now enforces the energy efficiency upgrades.

There has been a lot of money made available to carry out projects via envelope schemes such as these http://fat.glam.ac.uk/cerea/projects/ The Hendreforgan scheme involved external insulation, new windows, boilers, loft insulation etc.

Just go for Tradable Energy Quotas (TEQs)
http://www.teqs.net/

Currently you have to be rich to green up your old house.

Tony in order to follow the advice you regularly supply on this forum on my house I would need to spend over £50 k(doing nearly all the work myself - at least double it for using traders):

1. Tear house apart internally in order to draught proof/insulate.
2. insulate aoutside walls to a minimum of 100mm Kingspan down to 1m below ground level (using some as yet undisclosed means to deal with the DPC) render etc.
3. Replace roof (to allow for super insulation and to provide extra overhang for work in 2.
4. Replace all widows in order to insulate all widow reveals etc.
5. re finish internally (plaster walls, ceilings, replace floors)
6. Decorate.

I'm not saying your advice is bad at all, just flippin' expensive.

The rich will always be anle to afford to do more things. The problem with the TEQ system is that it will not address those who cannot afford to use less energy.

S.

I agree sticks work way better than carrots at a gross scale, but you have to be sure there is something of a level playing field & not legislate people into fuel poverty (however green the intention).

I be happy to sell my surplus TEQ to the rich, it means they can fund my carbon reducting actions

As long the set quotas are annually reduced across the board ( 5% per/y as suggest in ZCB) the end result
will be a year on year deduction ,with the wealthy funding the plebs.
Think I could be paid to grow my own veg.

Yes, only the wealthy will be able to afford luxury polluting items , but isnt that the case already
Power down , then power up with renewables as in ZCB

skywalker/guyc , I think my carrot is your stick , it s just a case of marketing
Give people tax benefit for positve action , take tax from those who act negatively

Lots of people I talk to feel constantly dictated to by the state and this is creating a backlash against
what to us may seem like commonsense positive action on climate change
I guess the goverment need to sell the benefits, rather than just seem to be adding another tax
Semantics , cup half full and all that stuff.

cheers Jim

Amen brother