Why climate change focus is on buildings - Scotsman, 10 August 2009
This article was published in the Scotsman last week. Comments (both for and against) are most welcome!
The response of some Scotsman letter writers can be read here:
***
Focus: Why climate change focus is on buildings
Published Date: 10 August 2009
By Chas Booth
IS the Scottish Government right to force you to do something which not only cuts your fuel bills and tackles fuel poverty, but could also save lives?
The Climate Change (Scotland) Act provides Scottish Ministers with powers to require building owners to undertake improvements to the energy efficiency of those buildings, which will deliver the cheaper bills and decreased fuel poverty. It is essential that ministers make use of those powers sooner rather than later, and certainly within the next few years, if the twin scourges of climate change and fuel poverty are to be tackled.
Why pick on those who own buildings? Why not start with the big polluters, such as power stations or airports? The answer is two-fold. First, buildings are one of the big polluters: the structures in which we live and work are associated with 49 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions, according to UK government figures.
Secondly, other large emitters, such as the electricity-generating sector, are already required to reduce emissions through the European emissions trading scheme. Even international flights are to be covered by the new Scottish Climate Change Act – so why should those who own buildings get off Scot free? After all, with a target of a 42 per cent reduction in emissions by 2020, all sections of society must play their part.
But surely building owners can be encouraged to make such investment – it is, after all, in their own interest since it delivers lower fuel bills. Compulsion is surely far too draconian, and represents an unacceptable infringement on the Scotsman's home – his castle?
Not so: John Stuart Mill, in his seminal work On Liberty, published in 1859 and still regarded as the definitive text on the subject, set out what are universally agreed to be the acceptable limits of state interference with an individual's liberty: "As soon as any part of a person's conduct affects prejudicially the interests of others, society has jurisdiction over it."
We know that emissions from our homes, schools and offices are already contributing to climate change, which is increasing the severity and frequency of extreme weather events, which in turn are killing people. One recent international development agency study put the number of sub-Saharan deaths from climate change at 182 million by the end of this century if emissions continue unabated. If the death of millions of our fellow human beings does not constitute a prejudicial affect on the interests of others, I don't know what does.
Despite this, ministers have refused to use their powers of compulsion. Perhaps they imagine that voluntary measures, incentives and fiscal encouragement will achieve all the desired pollution cuts. Certainly incentives are vitally important and will increase take-up of energy efficiency measures, but they will never achieve all the required uptake on their own. Take, for example, the best way yet discovered to encourage home-owners to install loft and cavity insulation: give it away for free.
The "Warm Zone" in Kirklees, West Yorkshire, is regarded as an exemplar of how to cut emissions from our homes. The scheme has meant knocking on doors and offering free insulation measures for the past two and a half years. During that time, energy advisers have knocked on 115,000 doors, yet insulation has been installed in only 25,300 homes: around a 22 per cent uptake. The remaining 78 per cent either didn't answer the door, were not prepared to accept the "hassle" of having free insulation installed, or live in homes that apparently aren't suitable for these more cost-effective measures.
However, in order to meet the new Scottish climate pollution target, we will need to achieve close to a 100 per cent uptake rate, and not only of the cheaper measures such as insulating lofts: solid wall insulation, which is more costly, and many other measures including solar panels and heat pumps, must also be installed. If we can't achieve 100 per cent coverage by giving the stuff away for free, then surely compulsion is the only way forward?
But requiring building owners to undertake energy efficiency improvements cannot be done if access to information and finance is still poor. There is no sense in requiring improvements if the cash to carry them out is not available. Such an approach could well lead to mass flouting of the law.
Yet looking to mainland Europe could provide the answer to this challenge: in Germany, homeowners can apply for an energy-efficiency loan at very low (subsidised) interest rates. The scheme has been running since 2004 and has reduced emissions from German homes by 16 million tonnes of carbon, while generating or safeguarding more than 300,000 jobs.
Requiring building owners to undertake improvements, while making a generous energy-efficiency finance scheme available to those owners and expanding the area-based Home Insulation Scheme announced by the government last month, will help cut emissions, tackle fuel poverty and support jobs in hard-hit construction.
Ministers cannot hit their new targets without using these new powers of compulsion, so the question is: do they simply want the headlines from setting ambitious targets, or do they actually want to deliver on those targets too?
● Chas Booth is Senior Press & Parliamentary Officer with the Association for the Conservation of Energy (ACE) and a Greener Leith committee member.
The response of some Scotsman letter writers can be read here:
***
Focus: Why climate change focus is on buildings
Published Date: 10 August 2009
By Chas Booth
IS the Scottish Government right to force you to do something which not only cuts your fuel bills and tackles fuel poverty, but could also save lives?
The Climate Change (Scotland) Act provides Scottish Ministers with powers to require building owners to undertake improvements to the energy efficiency of those buildings, which will deliver the cheaper bills and decreased fuel poverty. It is essential that ministers make use of those powers sooner rather than later, and certainly within the next few years, if the twin scourges of climate change and fuel poverty are to be tackled.
Why pick on those who own buildings? Why not start with the big polluters, such as power stations or airports? The answer is two-fold. First, buildings are one of the big polluters: the structures in which we live and work are associated with 49 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions, according to UK government figures.
Secondly, other large emitters, such as the electricity-generating sector, are already required to reduce emissions through the European emissions trading scheme. Even international flights are to be covered by the new Scottish Climate Change Act – so why should those who own buildings get off Scot free? After all, with a target of a 42 per cent reduction in emissions by 2020, all sections of society must play their part.
But surely building owners can be encouraged to make such investment – it is, after all, in their own interest since it delivers lower fuel bills. Compulsion is surely far too draconian, and represents an unacceptable infringement on the Scotsman's home – his castle?
Not so: John Stuart Mill, in his seminal work On Liberty, published in 1859 and still regarded as the definitive text on the subject, set out what are universally agreed to be the acceptable limits of state interference with an individual's liberty: "As soon as any part of a person's conduct affects prejudicially the interests of others, society has jurisdiction over it."
We know that emissions from our homes, schools and offices are already contributing to climate change, which is increasing the severity and frequency of extreme weather events, which in turn are killing people. One recent international development agency study put the number of sub-Saharan deaths from climate change at 182 million by the end of this century if emissions continue unabated. If the death of millions of our fellow human beings does not constitute a prejudicial affect on the interests of others, I don't know what does.
Despite this, ministers have refused to use their powers of compulsion. Perhaps they imagine that voluntary measures, incentives and fiscal encouragement will achieve all the desired pollution cuts. Certainly incentives are vitally important and will increase take-up of energy efficiency measures, but they will never achieve all the required uptake on their own. Take, for example, the best way yet discovered to encourage home-owners to install loft and cavity insulation: give it away for free.
The "Warm Zone" in Kirklees, West Yorkshire, is regarded as an exemplar of how to cut emissions from our homes. The scheme has meant knocking on doors and offering free insulation measures for the past two and a half years. During that time, energy advisers have knocked on 115,000 doors, yet insulation has been installed in only 25,300 homes: around a 22 per cent uptake. The remaining 78 per cent either didn't answer the door, were not prepared to accept the "hassle" of having free insulation installed, or live in homes that apparently aren't suitable for these more cost-effective measures.
However, in order to meet the new Scottish climate pollution target, we will need to achieve close to a 100 per cent uptake rate, and not only of the cheaper measures such as insulating lofts: solid wall insulation, which is more costly, and many other measures including solar panels and heat pumps, must also be installed. If we can't achieve 100 per cent coverage by giving the stuff away for free, then surely compulsion is the only way forward?
But requiring building owners to undertake energy efficiency improvements cannot be done if access to information and finance is still poor. There is no sense in requiring improvements if the cash to carry them out is not available. Such an approach could well lead to mass flouting of the law.
Yet looking to mainland Europe could provide the answer to this challenge: in Germany, homeowners can apply for an energy-efficiency loan at very low (subsidised) interest rates. The scheme has been running since 2004 and has reduced emissions from German homes by 16 million tonnes of carbon, while generating or safeguarding more than 300,000 jobs.
Requiring building owners to undertake improvements, while making a generous energy-efficiency finance scheme available to those owners and expanding the area-based Home Insulation Scheme announced by the government last month, will help cut emissions, tackle fuel poverty and support jobs in hard-hit construction.
Ministers cannot hit their new targets without using these new powers of compulsion, so the question is: do they simply want the headlines from setting ambitious targets, or do they actually want to deliver on those targets too?
● Chas Booth is Senior Press & Parliamentary Officer with the Association for the Conservation of Energy (ACE) and a Greener Leith committee member.
Add a Comment
Leithers blog...
© 2010 Created by Greener Leith
Powered by 
.
You need to be a member of The Greener Leith Social to add comments!
Join The Greener Leith Social