Tag Archives: Carbon reduction

Apr 2 2010

Milking it in Lincolnshire!

As a regular viewer of Countryfile, it was interesting at the weekend to see the proposals for a new super-farm in Nocton, Licolnshire.


An estimated 8100 Holstein Friesian cows will roam on 21,000 acres of land and be tended by 85 employees & 1 full-time vet. The farm is likely to produce 250,000 litres of milk daily. That’s a lot!

There are two schools of thought. Supporters point to milk being produced locally and not being imported. Locals are worried about traffic increases & pollution from the manure. It does also look like a battery farm – even though the cattle will be allowed some time outside to graze…

On the one hand the supporters and promoters have a point, it is much better for us to produce our own milk (with it’s associated quality controls) than to import. It also must be more sustainable than transporting from abroad – but therein lies a problem. Is it actually more sustainable? With such large amounts of milk Nocton residents are going to be awash. At the last count there were 650 of them – so a whopping 384 litres each – every day. Even if they give some to their neighbouring villages they are going to be quite calcium rich.

The serious point is that this is not terribly sustainable – as the milk will need to be transported long distances. It is acknowledged that many local farms are struggling. Supermarkets might have a part to play here – the local shop can’t compete any more – and as a society we like convenience. But if we really want to protest we know how to do so – vote with our feet.

I am not entirely convinced that bigger is always better. I happen to think that the animals will be fine – and looked after in accordance with good practice. The slurry can be captured to create methane for burning – so being potentially sustainable. But the traffic movement in this small village could be a major problem – and the distance the milk travels seems to have been overlooked?

The public meeting planned for a few weeks ago was cancelled due to the threat of animal rights campaigners – so the public airing hasn’t taken place.

It will be interesting to follow this particular project. I don’t envy the Planning Authority – (under ref 09/1040/FUL if you want to look it up!) will need to make a decision based on Planning grounds – not emotive feelings of the protestors or supporters!

Mar 29 2010

Sustainability in buildings – pricing and demand

I was back at Nottingham Trent University last week – in the newly opened Business Centre in the Newton Building. I blogged about our look around earlier in the year.

Castle College - low carbon building


The subject area was whether there is any difference in the value of sustainable buildings against non-sustainable buildings!

Of course the biggest issue was the definition of a sustainable building – there are so many standards and benchmarks that a consistent measure is difficult to establish. IPD have set out a new index – IPSI, but this quite new and has really no significant data to help.

The current reality is that in the property industry no-one pays more rent for sustainable buildings. As rent and capital value are inexorably linked, whether or not a building is sustainable is not yet affecting property value. But this might change. As energy prices increase occupiers are likely to look at costs carefully. The introduction of Energy Performance Certificates might also start to impact on the market.

Sustainability is about a mix of energy efficiency, climate control, waste, water management, adaptability and pollution. It is now suggested that sustainability has three pillars – social, economic and environment. Ensuring that each of these is protected or improved equals a sustainable building.

I was interested to learn that some research had suggested that occupiers look at a menu before choosing a building, the order was:

1. Location
2. Availability
3. Build quality
4. Running costs
5. Architecture
6. Sustainability

My view is that this reflects the real commercial market. Price will also be a factor! You can debate the order, but it was interesting to see where sustainability featured.

The other issue is that we concentrate on new buildings. Breeam assessments in the UK can be obtained for new buildings – but are not compulsory. They are really a marketing tool – and a measure of a buildings position in the spectrum of sustainable construction. But the building stock in the UK comprises many old buildings and sometimes we overlook them. They can be sustainable when the alternative is demolition and new building (with the associated energy required). We have lots of under-itilised space in the UK – and as I blogged a couple of days ago – we are now starting to take these buildings apart to avoid empty rates.

We really do need to stop and consider what we are doing with our buildings. We need a clear position statement on climate change and very clear labelling of some of the technologies involved – some of the payback period information is just unhelpful and confusing. The University of East Anglia haven’t helped either – fudging the figures.

Long life – loose fit is the buzzword for buildings moving forward. Sustainable and flexible. If we get this half-right we will be doing well!

UPDATE 31.3.10

This morning there is news on the BBC that the The Commons Science and Technology Committee have decided that the data used at UEA was not flawed. If you read the report they have not exactly cleared the matter up! For once, could someone give a straight answer?

Mar 10 2010

Urban farming – the way forward?

Seeing Countryfile last weekend reminded me of a scheme I had seen a few years ago for my ideal home-from-home, New York.

The WAC scheme for New York


A New York architectural firm, Work Architecture Company, produced some brilliant ideas for an urban farm and apartment building as part of an ideas competition for a block in the city. The site was visible from all sides, and the architects decided to bring the farm back to the city, though in this case stretch it vertically. The designers – Dan Wood and Amale Andraos were interested in urban farming and ways to cut food miles.

It was Mark Twain who said, “Buy land, they’re not making it anymore”. You can see the attraction of vertical farming. Especially in New York – where they are very used to high-rise. We are less inclined to go here in Nottingham!

As much as Central Park in New York is considered a green lung for the overcrowded city, imagine the benefit these vertical lungs could provide? But they also provide much more – local produce for the local area. This is real green living. Cutting down the miles food travels is an important part of getting the CO2 emissions down. Of course the location of the plants adjacent the living city means that the air is cleaner.

I love the thought that it can also be a piece of art – and provide shelter below, for cafes and the like – no doubt serving food grown above!

Sadly it didn’t get built – but what a great idea. Playing golf between the 10th and 12th floors would be stunning! It would bring a whole new meaning to the expression “fore”!

There is a great video showing a French take on the idea – la tour vivante, the living tower. Imagine working in an office overlooking the forest of trees. Or having your apartment with a similar view? The only thing would be they would need to quieten those wind turbines!

Some of this architecture and ideas would be fantastic here. The only issue, I suspect, will be cost?

Mar 9 2010

They’re off! Cannes here they come…

Jon Collins (leader of Nottingham City Council) and Nigel Turpin (Head of Urban Design) today set off for Cannes – from Nottingham. The sun was shining and a small crowd had gathered. Raleigh were on hand to offer the technical help you need for such a trek.

But this is green travel at its finest – on bikes. I have blogged about this before, but I make no apologies for plugging this again.

Only 1700 km to go then!


Jon and Nigel left the Market Square with a small contingent of helpers to get them to the County boundary – including Mark Hobson from Mabers, John McCay & Helen Andrews from Rizk McCay and a few others!

They were seen off by Team Nottingham – mostly dressed in pink!

Also accompanying them was Nottingham-born Olympic and World Cycling medallist Bryan Steel – a few looked a bit worried at the prospect of Bryan setting the pace!

The main Cycle to Cannes event runs from London and starts on Thursday – but these hardy souls have decided that even the train fare to London is too much! They are cycling today and tomorrow to London. The fun then starts as they tackle the remaining 1500 km ride – hoping to arrive an the Croissette next Tuesday around 2.30pm.

The route is anticipated to be:

Stage 1: London – Folkestone 119km
Stage 2: Calais – Reims 320.9km
Stage 3: Reims – Dijon 316.5km
Stage 4: Dijon – Chanas 275.4km
Stage 5: Chanas – Aix en Provence 301.0km
Stage 6: Aix en Provence – Cannes 176.4km

They are raising money for Charity – and you can donate here. This is for a fantastic cause – Maggies in Nottingham!

I wish them both well (and the other 83 brave (?) riders). This is no mean feat. And when I am on the plane on Sunday heading for the South of France I shall be thinking about them – and not complaining about the lack of legroom…

UPDATE 10.3.10

Jon Collins reaches London


Jon & Nigel’s progress can be found on Nottingham City Councils MIPIM blog – link is on the right of my site!

Mar 9 2010

Teaching Sustainability?

A couple of years ago I gave some advice to Castle College in Nottingham about a potential new teaching Centre.

Smartlife Centre Hamburg

The idea was to add to an existing teaching set of courses. The College had (and still have) popular courses in building – bricklaying, plastering, plumbing etc.

As the College were becoming involved in new builds at Highfields Science Park and the main Centre in Chilwell we started to think about how the College could learn from these real life projects. The College always make sure that any building contracts have an ability for their own students to see progress formally during the build.

We also started to see in increase in the use of new technology for carbon reduction. We were being encouraged to look at Photo-Voltaic cells, Ground Source Heat Pumps, high levels of insulation, double and triple glazing, rainwater harvesting, biomass boilers and the like. But what was evident was that although these new technologies were being specified by Architects, the operatives fitting them were often struggling. Or you had to employ specialist sub-contactors (some of whom travelled miles thus negating some of the green credentials?).

We went to see two Smartlife centres -one in Malmo, the other in Hamburg. These centres were way ahead of the UK – and were brilliant showcases for some of the technology.

I was delighted to see that a Centre in the UK has been opened. It has been built by Wolseley – the worlds largest heating and plumbing supplier. It is known as the Sustainable Building Centre. It is a showcase for around 170 products – with information on a total of 7,000 – all under one roof.

Like the Genesis Project in Taunton, the centre uses the technology in it’s own construction. But there is a subtle difference. I visited Taunton and we saw quite specialised construction – including rammed earth and straw bales. This hasn’t found its way in to the Wolseley centre – it isn’t scalable enough to be distributed.

So, although the centre is pushing new technology – it is with a very close eye on commerciality. And for this reason, I think it an excellent project. Sometimes, I think we fall too easily for the green technology on the basis that it sounds sexy. The reality is that some of it is not really commercially viable – payback times can sometimes go beyond the life of the building!

In a recent report to Government the easiest and cheapest way of achieving a substantial CO2 reduction was highlighted as turning down room thermostats by 1 deg C. This is estimated to reduce, in the UK, emissions by 5.5 million tonnes of CO2 annually!

Sadly, the LSC funding for College schemes like the Sustainable Building Project pretty much dried up before we were able to get a centre built in Nottingham. Maybe one day someone will realise we need this sort of centre – for future builders!

Feb 25 2010

CRC – just the start?

The Government have a target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions – 80% by 2050. The Carbon Reduction Commitment is the stick and carrot.

Large and small buildings to be caught by the CRC?


The new regulations are expected to start in April 2010 and apply to around 4,000 UK businesses who use 6,000 mega watts of electricity – or crudely who spend £500,000 or more on electricity each year. Also, anyone with a half hourly meter fitted since 2008 will be caught.

Organisations caught may have to measure their carbon footprint – and publish it. There may be a league table. They will also have to produce reports showing how they intend reducing their footprint.

But the big stick comes in two parts – firstly if you don’t play by the rules the Environment Agency will have the power to issue fines. And then you may have to buy carbon credits to cover emissions. The charge is currently estimated at around £12 per tonne of CO2. The scheme will be known as cap and trade – savings you make will be rewarded with some cash-back. Mid table folks will get their cash back – those at the bottom will be funding prizes for those at the top!

Ed Milliband, Minister for Energy & Climate Change, issued a statement last month suggesting that, despite the downturn in the economy the targets are to remain, suggesting,

“Government will not rely on the reduction in emissions brought about by the economic downturn to meet its climate targets. To reinforce this, any over-achievement in the first carbon budget due to the recession will not be carried forward to allow for higher emissions in the future. The recession will not deflect the Government’s efforts to cut emissions and move to a low carbon economy. We will not let up on the fight against climate change, instead we must redouble our efforts at home and internationally so the UK emerges from the global downturn building on the opportunities and benefits a low carbon future will bring.”

Despite this high-profile soundbite, I am not sure that the all of the large users have fully grasped the requirements. There is even more confusion over the CRC than there was with Energy Performance Certificates (EPCs) which have been in place for over a year now and still aren’t fully understood!

But perhaps there is an inevitability here? It surely won’t be long before the threshold is lowered to include SME’s? And they definitely aren’t ready!

UPDATE – CARBON FOOTPRINT STORY

On Radio 4 at lunchtime today (In Costing The Earth – Greening Fido) it was suggested that the carbon footprint of a large dog in the UK is greater than a 4×4. I had blogged about pets before. I am sure I heard the man on the Radio suggest we should eat our dogs? No thanks. And then he said if you have a dog then you should go vegetarian if the dog eats meat. This truly is the tail wagging the dog!

Feb 22 2010

Cars and compromises?

Most people who know me realise that my current car is quite important to me. It is my ‘mid-life’ crisis car and goes fast and drinks petrol at an astonishing rate. Last week the £78 petrol bill was consumed in just 168 miles. Short journeys might be fast – but they are expensive. This ignores the tax – which is £604 per month as a benefit in kind.

Nissan GTR - dream car, nightmare tax


I have also ignored the green credentials of the car – which are around zero. Or just below.

Sadly the car is reaching the end of its (leased) life and I need to contemplate a replacement. This is not easy!

I am very lucky in that I can choose pretty much any car within reason.

Performance is important – but super-cars tend to have very high CO2 emissions and thus attract lots of tax for The Treasury. Low carbon emission cars tend to have performance times measured in minutes not seconds! Maybe except the Tesla – but you need a second mortgage for that.

Yesterday I started looking around. I visited a number of dealerships.

I carry some prejudices – good and bad. Nottingham Audi have been superb over the last three years – the staff are friendly and helpful. Nottingham BMW (same ownership) were appalling during the ownership of my last car. Mercedes I similarly struggle with – the level of arrogance in the main dealership is palpable – my wife has an A Class and we now have it serviced privately by the excellent MBNottingham.

Image is quite important in my business but the Jaguar leaves me feeling I need a pipe and smoking jacket – maybe this is unfair. But a Porsche definitely places you in a certain category – especially as the golf clubs need to occupy the front seat!

Which leaves a limited number of cars in reality. We found ourselves at Lexus. I had a Lexus IS200 sport back in 1999 – and loved it. I think I might surprise all of my colleagues (and some of my family) by actually looking at a Hybrid – but the RX450h does offer quite a lot. The level of luxury is high. But the emissions are low resulting in a tax bill monthly of around £260 – a massive £340 saving on what I pay now! But if I am honest the real attractions to this car are the ‘toys’ – Mark Levinson sound system, keyless entry, air suspension and very cool lighting….

And the compromise? Performance. Audi 0-60 = 4.6 secs; Lexus 7.8 secs. So, I will have to find an extra 3 seconds from somewhere!

I don’t have to make the decision immediately – but it looks like I may become a reluctant tree-hugger yet. Or will I?

Feb 21 2010

Business Rate Supplements – another stealth tax?

A new Act of Parliament has slipped onto the Stature Book in recent weeks.

Trolley-car - not at all like the trams we have


The Business Rate Supplements Act 2009 gives county councils, unitary authorities and the GLA a discretionary power to levy a supplement on the national business rate.

Levying authorities will be able to retain the revenue raised from the supplement and use it to invest in additional projects aimed at promoting the economic development of their local area.

This particular tax affects Nottingham as it effectively gives the Council the right to impose the Workplace Parking Levy – which is not exactly popular. The Nottingham and Derby Chamber of Commerce have been running a campaign against it for 10 years! The
tax will apply to businesses in the Nottingham are who have more than 10 parking spaces. It is estimated that only 15% of businesses will pay. It is expected to be in place by April 2012 and cost around £1 per day initially.

Already there are moves afoot to avoid the charge. Boots – with their massive base in Beeston have vowed to move their spaces outside the City boundary. The company’s headquarters straddle both city and county boundaries. There are around 4,500 parking spaces on-site, 3,000 of which are in the city boundary, and 1,500 beyond it. At £250 per space per year the burden is £750,000 pa. By 2015 the charge could be £1.5m. Even for a large company this is ‘bottom line’ bad news!

I accept that we need to resolve transport issues for the future – we do have to try to reduce our reliance on the motor car. My firm have just completed a travel survey for the City Council. The results were not surprising. All of our staff rely 100% on the motor car to get to work. Part of the issue we face is that we spend a lot of time out of the office (surveyors tend not to be chained to a desk). But more importantly, public transport links to NG2 are not exactly convenient – with most people needing to take 2 buses. The tram would help as the next phase runs to NG2 – provided you live somewhere on the line already (none of our staff do).

On the other hand – now is not the time to place more tax burden on business. It’s not exactly easy running a business in the current financial climate. Tax is an easy solution – but not necessarily the right one. Public transport still has some way to go as I discovered on my second tram trip last week. In order for people to embrace it you have to make it easy, convenient, affordable, clean and comfortable. The tram may offer some of these features – but it certainly doesn’t offer them all!

So even with the taxation of business to fund the tram will it change our travel behaviour? Only time will tell….

Jan 27 2010

Will electric ever be cool – in transportation?

I spent a freezing cold day in Hull last week; actually it was colder in the warehouse I was surveying than outside! I was parked in one of the darkest and dirtiest car parks I have been in for some time. It was not a ‘Park Mark‘ place by any stretch of the imagination!

Plug your car in here after 3pm


When I came back to my car, I realised that I had parked in a space reserved for those vehicles that need plugging in. I was lucky as it was only 2.00pm… I was also relieved to see my car was intact – although I could only check this when I got outside in the daylight.

I am not a great fan of these electric ‘vehicles’ – the only decent one is a Tesla and that’s a bit beyond my means! It costs a cool £86,940 – speeds to 60mph in 3.9 secs and has a range of 244 miles (better than my little car most of the time!)

By the end of 2010 it will be joined by such contenders as the Nissan Leaf, Coda sedan, and the Think City. But we are talking 100, 90 and 110 miles respectively before you need to find a plug (or a set of AAA batteries). The Think Car seems to have had an accident in the design department. Perhaps they were at lunch when they got around to that part? Or was it a winning design competition at a Junior school?

There’s an interesting article in the Guardian about the state of play of the electric car market here

So, we have some ways to go yet. But then last week there was an announcement by NASA which suggest to me that I might be thinking about electric after all… As the saying goes – I want one of those!

And for the weekend I would like an ICON A5 – if thats OK? And the price – around the same as a Tesla! Now that really is cool. I wonder if they will let me land on the Trent?

Jan 25 2010

The Himalayan Glaciers will be gone sooner or later?

It seems once again that the green movement has over-exaggerated claims about Global Warming.

Lake Imja Tsho courtesy of the UNEP


The supposedly respected WWF have been relying on a ‘report’ which suggested that the Himalayan Glaciers would be gone by 2035! Now they have issued an apology – buried on their web site in the press release section (not on their front page). They do have information on the Copenhagen Conference and a statement, “What we have after two years of negotiation is a half-baked text of unclear substance”. Pretty much like the half baked unclear data they trotted out to frighten us?

If you do a little digging around it seems that this prediction was a mathematical schoolboy error. A Glacier had been measured over 121 years and the rate of loss had been divided by 21 not 121… An ‘F’ in maths then?

My real frustration about this is that there clearly had been a loss, but the corrupt data (for that is what it is) does nothing for the cause. I blogged before about some of the, frankly, crackpot, ideas being promulgated – details here.

Before Christmas the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit was also caught with its pants down when it seems that some of their data in projecting hockey stick ‘growth’ in global warming might not have actually been based on real figures.

Some of this misinformation started with Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth – it is well established that much of the headline grabbing data was simply not true. For a list have a look here.

I think we need some real information. And we need it to be capable of being robustly tested. If we can (could?) put a man on the moon this should be relatively easy? It doesn’t need political tweaking or spinning. It needs to be right. Then people might actually take notice?

UPDATE 26 January 2010 – this may be older news than I thought?

UPDATE 24 February 2010

It seems that the data we have been relying on from our own esteemed Met Office might have a few little errors. So they are going to revisit the numbers. Seems we need all of this data to read the same – that the planet is warming up. Read the PR here. Not sure I can fully comprehend what they are getting at. Written in great ‘spin-speak!

Another own goal?