Green deal for housing must put homeowners first

Ben Ross, July 26th 2010, Built environment

The last couple of years have seen huge interest in tackling the energy use and carbon emissions of the UK’s existing housing stock, and it’s been a real pleasure to be a part of that movement. I’ve met some amazing people from the public, private and NGO sectors but few more inspirational than the homeowners who are leading the way.

Since 2009 we’ve been working with pioneers living in a variety of properties with a shared passion to reduce the energy and resource consumption of their homes. Refit West is part of Forum for the Future’s work to make Bristol and the West of England the most sustainable city-region in the UK [http://www.forumforthefuture.org/projects/sustainable-bristol-city-region], and we want to develop a practical model for ‘whole house’ energy efficiency refurbishment which can be rolled out across the country.

Our approach begins and ends with the homeowner: providing information on the most appropriate and cost-effective options for their property; designing solutions to meet their needs; ensuring suppliers give them quality and value for their money; and making capital finance available at terms that benefit them as owners. It’s all about empowering and supporting individuals as they make decisions and commission work on their homes. Never assume these are just houses we’re talking about – we are extremely emotionally attached to our housing stock.

The information currently available to homeowners is at best complex and at worst contradictory. The homeowners we are working with in Refit West, have committed their time to making sense of it and to take action that will disrupt their homes and lives for a period of time, but this is enough to put many off refurbishing their homes. We’ve helped these pioneers overcome many of the common barriers and it’s significant that, while some of the solutions and ‘whole house packages’ are becoming clearer, no two customer journeys have been the same. We need to learn from the experience of these few in order to stand a chance of building a scheme that delivers for the many. Our homes generate a quarter of the UK’s carbon footprint and making them more energy efficient is one of the most cost-effective ways to cut carbon. Our homeowners’ experience helps to explain why, despite numerous national and local initiatives, residential carbon emissions have only fallen by 6% since 1990. We desperately need to move from making 3% cuts each decade to 3% a year to meet our national carbon targets. The Committee on Climate Change wants the built environment to be near zero carbon by 2050. 

Home energy efficiency is rightly seen as a political priority across all parties, and the forthcoming Energy Bill promises to provide the structures for long-term carbon reduction. But will it really deliver? Will it champion and support those pioneers and early adopters who are crucial in developing and building support for mass programmes that can refurbish a million homes a year? Or will it simply create another market opportunity for large commercial interests to cherry pick the easiest works at the expense of a long-term strategic approach?

The answer is being written in Whitehall right now. I believe achieving the carbon reductions required from our 27 million homes will take a cross-departmental approach to make your head spin...DECC, HCA, BIS, Defra, the devolved administrations of  Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and significantly the Treasury. It’s great to see two parties working on this together but will we see the coalition work right across government to deliver on our national objectives and in our collective interest?

Read more

BSF bites the dust

Lorna Pelly, July 15th 2010, Built environment

Agreed: our national debt is horrendous, public spending has to be scaled back and we have to accept some significant changes. But was scrapping Building Schools for the Future a step too far?

BSF was a Labour government initiative set up to help finance the rebuild or revamp of schools. Only 180 projects have been completed and though 231 are due to start this year, these numbers are dwarfed by the 1,100 schools that had registered interest, or were engaged in a bid process, which have now been axed.

Much of the criticism of BSF centred on the over-bureaucratic bidding process that took too long and cost too much – but presumably that was a problem that could have been fixed. Thinking about the outcomes, I can’t remember ever hearing anyone criticise the intent of BSF. The eco-towns were strongly contested, plans for new housing are always controversial, and the Olympic site is under constant scrutiny, but giving children great schools to learn and play in is hard to argue against. A kid with a smart, new class-room will always be a happy customer. And in terms of seeing value for the investment, there were no risks about the property market or estimated occupancy rates, so those school improvements would all have been used to maximum effect.

To Marisa Popper, a technology teacher at Judgemeadow Community College in Leicester, one of the schools that were rebuilt in the first phase of BSF (http://www.partnershipsforschools.org.uk/), the advantages are obvious: 

 “The whole environment is wonderful. Being able to see and feel outdoors shining through to the corridors and classrooms really opens the space as well as the mind. It's lovely for the students to learn and grow up here. It's now calm and you can almost feel the students’ contentment. I enjoy every lesson I teach; the possibilities now seem endless”.

Now into its fifth year of delivery, BSF had developed a sense of maturity in recent months, with designers and contractors now far more experienced in working with the sector. As a public sector client, BSF’s expectations for sustainable design credentials were at the leading edge. And in terms of impacts, the connection that was being made between sustainable design and a better learning environment was critical. It will be interesting to see the educational performance results of those schools in a few years: if only we had a few more of them!

Of course the building sector is going to suffer from this decision, with many architect firms and contractors having bet heavily on the continuation of the BSF programme. But think also about the hundreds of school assemblies that have taken place in the last week where teachers have had to tell their pupils ‘sorry, you won’t be getting the new science block and playground we promised you’.

The social and community value that this programme was starting to deliver was in tune with the values of the new green deal that the coalition government has been selling so strongly, so it makes me wonder how much of a whole-life, full value assessment was made when they decided to scrap BSF. My hunch is that it was a purely financial decision. The way these improvements had begun to build social capital amongst teachers, children and parents seems to have been overlooked, which makes the decision all the more worrying.  

The end of the BSF programme leaves a big question mark around the future of school improvements that Michael Gove really needs to address. To remove this programme entirely was a bold move, but it needs to be replaced by something – albeit at a reduced scale. To tell a child they are not getting a new class-room is one thing, but to then tell them the temporary Portakabin on the football pitch will now be their permanent classroom seems too unfair.

Read more

Australian Sustainable Cities Index

Matthew Trigg, June 15th 2010, Cities, Built environment

As a citizen of the UK and Australia I have long been aware of the similarities between our two countries across numerous environmental, political and social issues, including the impact the rapid expansion of cities is having on natural ecosystems.

In the lead up to the next Federal Government election (expected before the end of 2010), the Australian Conservation Foundation saw a need to highlight the lack of action towards creating more sustainable cities. This became part of our broader campaign to reinvigorate environmental debate in Australia. For example, many Australians are feeling particularly deflated about climate change, with the Federal Government’s proposed Emissions Trading Scheme first diluted and finally scrapped, and no clear long-term policies from the Opposition.

So in November last year all of our national campaigners flew into Melbourne from our six different offices around Australia to collaborate and generate ideas about how we can move the debate forward in each of our campaigns areas. Central to this was the idea of ranking our largest cities to determine which is the most sustainable and in doing so to highlight those areas where Federal, State, Territory and Local Governments need to take action.

Already aware of the excellent Sustainable Cities Index from Forum for the Future, I saw this as a great place to start. It didn’t take long at all to get everyone on board, but at that time no one had any idea just how big it would become!

Launched on 15 June, the ACF (Australian) Sustainable Cities Index ranks our 20 largest cities on 15 different indicators, determining for the first time our most and least sustainable cities. Darwin, our northern most capital and Australia’s ‘gateway to Asia’, has come out as our most sustainable city. Perth, capital of Western Australia and home to Australia’s resources boom, has come out as comparatively the least sustainable city in 2010.

That said, no city has done well across all of the indicators. There is a long way to go before any Australian city can be held up as a champion of sustainable urban development.

While we based our method on the Forum for the Future Index, we had to discard, adapt or replace many of the indicators to suit the unique Australian context and respond to the quantity and quality of data available. Our 15 indicators were:

Air Quality
Ecological Footprint
Green Building
Water
Biodiversity
Health
Density
Subjective Wellbeing
Transport
Employment
Climate Change (policy)
Public Participation
Education
Household Repayments
Food Production

In the face of developing social and cultural challenges, we see cities as central to the work of creating a healthy and sustainable future for all Australians. The ACF Sustainable Cities Index encourages healthy competition, stimulates meaningful discussion and suggests new ways of thinking about how our cities can be not only sustainable, but move toward environmentally positive outcomes.

Thanks to the team at Forum for the Future we have been able to work from a solid base to create something that has been extremely well received publicly and politically.


Matthew Trigg is Smart Cities Project Coordinator at the Australian Conservation Foundation

Read more

Smarter refurbishment is a must for the NHS

Anna Warrington, April 27th 2010, Built environment, Public Sector

Read more

What's in store for city-dwellers in 2040?

Ivana Gazibara, April 26th 2010, Cities, Built environment, Futures, General, Transport

Imagine a world where each morning, you and your family hop in your self-driving hydrogen vehicle. You program your destination into the digital journey planner, and settle into an onboard breakfast around the table, as your h-pod gets you to where you need to go. After dropping the kids off at school, you leave the h-pod to refuel at the local energy hub while you work in the neighbourhood smartoffice, using avatars to connect with colleagues in a virtual conference room. 

Sounds futuristic?  Welcome to Sustainable Urban Mobility: 2040.

In partnership with Vodafone, FIA Foundation and EMBARQ, the Sustainable Urban Mobility: 2040 (SUM2040) project aims to help key constituencies in global cities – including government planners, urban designers, businesses and civil society groups - find long-term, sustainable urban mobility solutions. It does this  by exploring coherent, plausible scenarios of the world 30 years from now.  By mobility, we mean transport but also the other means of access to goods and services people need in daily lives that may act as a substitute for physical movement – from ICT, to different ways of urban design.

We’re now halfway through the project and at a point where we’ve done extensive research and consulted a wide range of experts and the insights that have come out have been fascinating. Before the scenarios for mobility in 2040 are written and published, I wanted to share some top-line thoughts about how your city might look in the future.

People-friendly cities:  The concept of cities designed for people, not cars, will grow.  What does this mean in practice? Urban design focused on developing local neighbourhoods as opposed to more urban sprawl, for a start. People will increasingly choose to live, work and play in the same area.  The local street will undergo a renaissance, with small shops popping up again, more footpaths, more green space, and efficient, 24-hour use of community infrastructure, such as the local school doubling as a community centre after hours.   

Mobility-on-demand:  When people do venture out of their neighbourhood, they will probably be able to connect much more smoothly and quickly between different modes of transport. They’ll check air quality or traffic conditions on their mobile, laptop or using public access touch screens before setting out. Far fewer people will need to own vehicles – they’ll be able to rent cars, electric scooters, bicycles and other modes at mobile rental hubs that can easily be shifted around the city in response to changes in demand.

The changing shape of the office:  In the 20th century, we got stuck in traffic jams every morning while commuting to head office. Experts expect this to change. We are already seeing more home working and video conferencing. This trend will grow and fundamentally change the way office spaces look and feel. Companies will likely build smaller, decentralised working centres. They may even use existing neighbourhood infrastructure – from the local coffee shop to the community centre – for flexible working arrangements. 

The wired automobile:  The car itself will be transformed.  Manufacturers are already thinking about how to incorporate ICT into vehicles, and odds are that over the next 30 years we will see this trend become much more mainstream.  Expect, more information and entertainment; automated navigation that supersedes bad driving for optimized safety; and cars that are able to communicate with other vehicles on the road.

Inclusive mobility:  Thirty years on, we will still have significant low-income populations, for which tailored mobility solutions will be designed, enabling a greater degree of access to goods and services and more employment opportunities.  The mobile phone penetration in the developing world has already shown us the potential of ICT to enhance mobility for the poor, by providing an affordable, quick way to connect to the market by phone rather than on foot, and by allowing delivery of previously inaccessible services such as banking.

Partnerships redefined:  As the sustainability challenges facing cities grow, and traditional ways of operating become more and more difficult, we will increasingly form hybrid value chains - business models where commercial partnerships are established between businesses and citizen sector organizations (e.g. NGOs) in order to transform markets and meet critical human needs. Government, business and civil society will likely be working together in much more creative, collaborative ways than ever before.  This could include handing over areas of governance to local NGOs and outsourcing operations to local businesses.  Nothing we haven’t seen before – but odds are we’ll be seeing more of it in the future.  

Needless to say, this will not play out across the board. We are exploring different pathways for these trends and the corresponding societal responses through our scenarios. These will be shared shortly our workshops in Mumbai and Istanbul this June, and published in the autumn. We will be sharing updates as we go along, so stay tuned for more!

http://www.forumforthefuture.org/projects/sustainable-urban-mobility

Read more

Education, Education, Education

Jonathon Porritt, March 31st 2010, Built environment, Forum founders, General

Here’s a bit of vintage Blair for you: 

“Sustainable development will not just be a subject in the classroom: it will be in its bricks and mortar and the way the school uses and even generates its own power. Our students won’t just be told about sustainable development, they will see and work within a school that is a living, learning place in which to explore what a sustainable lifestyle means”.

Having delivered himself of these eloquent words, Tony Blair sat back and got on with other things, presumably on the assumption that the Department for Children, Schools and Families would get together with Treasury and just ‘make it happen’. DCSF delivered on its side of the deal in terms of its ‘Sustainable Schools’ initiative, which is one of the best things the Labour Government has done. But from the point of view of our educational estate, Treasury and DCSF then spent the next decade scrapping over what could or couldn’t be done, from a sustainability perspective, through Building Schools for the Future, PFI and other capital programmes.

Net outcome ten years on: pretty poor. Some brilliant (even ‘iconic’) examples of best practice on both new build and refurbishments; a somewhat larger number of projects that might be described as ‘good, but nothing special’, and a much, much larger number of projects that fall so far short of what could have been done as to make Tony Blair’s words ring very hollow indeed.

It’s hard to exaggerate the scale of this missed opportunity – from an educational as well as a sustainability point of view. Here’s a very different kind of quote from an Ofsted Report last year:

“In the sample schools, ‘hands-on activities’ in a range of locations contributed to improvements in standards, achievement, motivation, personal development and behaviour”.

What’s being referred to here is what is known as ‘Learning Outside the Classroom’. Not just in terms of school visits and field trips, but in terms of the use of School Grounds designed specifically to promote good learning and excellent social interaction. In other words, proof positive of the kind of educational outcome that can be achieved by designing schools to the highest sustainability standards.

During the election period, I’d like to see those words embossed in gold and hung over the desk of the Secretary of State at DCSF – in preparation for the next holder of that Office.  They would remind him/her that schools that are well-designed, zero-carbon, super-efficient, bio-diverse and just great places to be, make a massive contribution to learning, motivation and even behaviour.

What kind of money value should we put on that as taxpayers? I only ask because Treasury puts a zero value on it. It really couldn’t care less about the huge societal benefits that flow from that kind of educational uplift.

Indeed, Treasury is so utterly dysfunctional that it still hasn’t settled on a standard way of accounting for the reduced operating costs of super-efficient, very low-carbon schools over the life-time of any new or even refurbished school.

Time after time, as a direct result of this failure, the blindingly obvious case for spending more up front on capital costs (anywhere between 10% and 15%, depending on particular circumstances) is ignored – or eroded away as the inevitable cost-cutting kicks in during the design and construction phase for both new build and refurbishments.

The sums involved here (in terms of capital programmes for the educational estate) are staggering: at least £45 billion over a ten-year period. Knowing what we now know about future energy costs and the likely cost of carbon, it’s criminally irresponsible not to be spending every one of those pounds as sustainably as possible in order to protect the interests of future taxpayers.

A worthy case, perhaps, for the Taxpayers’ Alliance – if they weren’t so ideologically predisposed against anything progressive, let alone sustainable.

One of the organisations that has been tracking this story close-up has been Learning Through Landscapes (LTL). LTL was set up 20 years ago, to get Head Teachers, the Department, Local Education Authorities and Ofsted to focus in on the importance of school grounds, both from a recreational and an educational point of view. During that time it’s advised and supported hundreds of schools, lobbied a stream of Ministers, and helped make life better, on the ground, for countless kids passing through those improved premises.

It’s achieved a huge amount – as became very clear at its 20th Anniversary Conference in London last week. But it could have achieved so much more if it hadn’t come up against the Treasury’s reality-defying short-termism.

Read more

The war of words over home-produced electricity feed-in tariffs could cost dearly

Jonathon Porritt, March 18th 2010, Built environment, Climate change

On March 2nd, Guardian columnist George Monbiot launched an extraordinary attack on feed-in tariffs and on solar photovoltaics (PV) in particular. Even for George, who has honed his invective skills to a fine point over the years, his language was remarkably intemperate: “pricey conceit… great green rip-off… scam… comically inefficient… squandering the public’s money… perfectly useless…  a swindle… blinded by sentiment” etc, etc.

A lot of this seemed to be aimed, very personally, at Jeremy Leggett, Executive Chairman of Solarcentury. For years, Jeremy has been flying the flag for the UK solar industry and for the benefits for introducing the kind of feed-in tariffs that have transformed the renewable energy scene in many other countries.

Within a couple of days, Jeremy had mounted a robust defence of PV, feed-in tariffs and the importance of maintaining a long-term perspective. Citing 13 examples of inaccuracy, misrepresentation and hyperbole (reinforced by a further 12 points following up on a response from George), he has set out to set the record straight.

Over the weekend I spent a happy hour reading through this four-phase battle, point by point. It matters. There’s a lot resting on the success of these feed-in tariffs, and that in turn depends on trust on the part of the general public. A George Monbiot polemic is purpose-built to undermine that trust.

I really admire George. He’s a brilliant campaigning journalist, and a deep, persistent thorn in the side of today’s political and business elites. I often end up reading his Guardian articles metaphorically punching the air at the blows that he’s landed – on my behalf, as it were. This week’s article on biodiversity here in the UK is hugely impactful.

But I’m sorry to say, on this occasion, that he’s way out of line. Jeremy Leggett’s detailed refutation of so much of what he was claiming in the original article demonstrates just how poor George’s initial research was, and how (on this occasion, at least) his love of adopting deliberately controversialist positions simply overwhelmed basic journalistic standards.

This too is a serious matter. As one or two bloggers have already pointed out, if he’s got it this badly wrong on feed-in tariffs, what’s to say he hasn’t got it equally wrong on other critical issues?

One of the talking points for me was that George declined on a number of occasions to meet with Jeremy and talk all this through – despite knowing full well the impact his article would have. More than anything else, this reveals a streak of know-it-all arrogance that has always been there in George, but which he usually keeps under control.

But rather than take my word, why don’t you check it out for yourself on the Guardian and Jeremy’s own websites. If nothing else, it will help you get your head around the complexities of feed-in tariffs.

George Monbiot's article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/mar/01/solar-panel-feed-in-tariff

Jeremy Leggett's response: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2010/mar/09/george-monbiot-bet-solar-pv or http://www.jeremyleggett.net/solar-revolution/

George Monbiot has responded to this blog on Jonathon's personal site, read what he says here.

Read more

Transforming our cities from grey to green

Martin Hunt, March 11th 2010, Built environment

It was great to see the launch of the Integrated Habitats Design Competition last week – a competition that seeks out inspiring and innovative designers who emphasise the value of biodiversity and nature in our built surroundings. A competition that places significant weight on nature contributing to healthy, low-energy, high-quality environments will hopefully help the spread and uptake of best practice in greening our cities.

Integrated design and a greater focus on green infrastructure is not just the domain of planners, the owners of allotments or the managers of our very important inner city parks. Access to high quality green space, the provision of native trees for solar shading, designing building solutions to support threatened species, or the application of sustainable drainage systems do not just help conserve or enhance local ecology - they are also vital to our health and wellbeing (and happiness). They are also vital for the long-term resilience of urban areas in the face of over-heating or flooding associated with climate change. Convinced of this, I’m very happy to support and endorse this new design competition and look forward to evaluating the submissions with my fellow judges during the summer!

The competition was launched at Ecobuild last week (see Jonathon Porritt’s blog), and it was great to see this event really gathering momentum, and size. For me, Ecobuild highlighted the need for our designers and builders to put nature before technological fixes. I was privy to discussions and debates around biomimicry, the provision of food growing space in schools, and planning for more trees in our cities. But I was also impressed by the drive and enthusiasm of the many professionals trying to deliver more sustainable homes, schools, hospitals, offices, and other forms of infrastructure. There were literally hundreds of suppliers showing off their latest green products – from natural paints and SMART meters, to micro-CHP units and recycled benches.

Please visit www.ihdc.org.uk for further information on the Integrated Habitats Design Competition. The competition is supported by CIRIA and organised by Dusty Gedge, the UK’s leading living roofs expert, Gary Grant, one of the UK’s leading ecologists, and RESET, the sustainable design training charity. Judges and endorsers come a wide range of backgrounds, including government agencies, professional institutions and NGOs.

Participants have until 30th June to enter and finalists will exhibit at the Building Centre in central London for five weeks over September, during which time the final awards will be presented at the World Green Roof Congress on the 15th September.

Read more

Are we failing to see the wood for the gadgets?

Martin Hunt, March 10th 2010, Built environment, General

I’ve recently found myself questioning whether we are becoming over-reliant on technological fixes to the sustainability challenges we face today. Are we in danger of falling for ‘techno-wash’ as a way of avoiding some more fundamental (and maybe more painful) decisions about the way we live our lives? Does technology sometimes obscure the bigger picture?

Did you see the story about one of the government’s new flagship schools pulling the plug on interactive whiteboards and other wireless components, and reverting to pen and paper? Teachers wanted to avoid wasting time when systems failed to function properly, and losing the attention of pupils.

How about this recent post on our website? It made me laugh. Apparently iPhone users can now download an app to show them whether they should stop using said app, and pocket their iPhone. The so-called ASBO app displays 'anti-social behaviour' statistics for the user's current location. My knee-jerk reaction was to assume the reason for the app was to simply tell users to “get off the thing, be sociable and actually talk to your mates”. And I know I wasn’t alone in that reaction.

Get off your Luddite high horse I hear you cry. Ok, I’ll admit to being a bit of a technophobe. I’m frequently in deep and murky waters when trying to talk about apps or Twitter and feel a killjoy when I question whether the latest fashionable gadget really does makes life a lot easier or much more pleasurable.  Don’t get me wrong, there are fantastic benefits to most of our advances in technology, be that the wheel, windmill or the worldwide web. I just become a bit irrational or disconcerted about our reliance on shiny technology sometimes.

But this is a really important issue as we seek to develop a low carbon economy and society. For example, the Zero Carbon Hub’s report rightly suggests that a lot more needs to be done to market zero carbon homes. It highlights the fact that while consumers are happy to take a risk on the next cool gadget, they won’t take a punt on a zero carbon home because it is perceived to be too futuristic, hi-tech and experimental. When you consider the money involved, that’s not a surprise – the appetite for fashionable, innovative technology will obviously take the consumer only so far.

Of course in years to come, I’ve no doubt that the highly fashionable iPhone or a super duper variation will be integral to remotely managing the heating in your home, rotating your roof top renewables, or altering the tints in your windows! And I acknowledge we will not be able to deliver a truly zero carbon home that is fit for our expectations without the help of technology.

It’s all very well to try and paint a positive vision of a low-carbon future, replete with whizz bang applications (sorry, apps) and smart technology, but there is a danger that we can turn some people off (not literally) by placing too much emphasis on high-tech solutions. Indeed, from my work with building design professionals and their clients, I know that technology can be a distraction from low-tech, passive solutions that can have a bigger overall impact.

The old adage of avoid, reduce, then replace (fossil fuel sources on energy) continues to serve us well. Being clever about building form and orientation, and concentrating on the fabric of our buildings must come before the signing of cheques for ground source heat pumps or micro-wind turbines. And it is certainly time we stop hearing about buildings that have photovoltaic arrays or solar panels on north-facing roofs!

So, here’s a plea – don’t forget the simple, low-tech decisions we can all take which deliver greater benefits than that shiny item that sits on your roof, in your office or in your pocket. Technology has its place in making our world more sustainable, but our collective understanding of what our priorities should be and the changes in behaviour which will flow from that should have much more of a lasting legacy.

Martin Hunt is Head of Built Environment at Forum for the Future

Read more

No more niches – we need sustainable innovation at scale

Jonathon Porritt, March 9th 2010, Built environment, Forum founders

It’s the scale of it all that is sometimes daunting. On energy, for instance, we have to transition from around 90% dependency on fossil fuels to around 90% on renewables – allowing a little bit of residual space for cleaner and super-efficient fossil fuels (aviation, amongst other things, where technological substitution is always going to be limited). If we had two hundred years to make all that happen, it would be fine. But we don’t. Between 2025 and 2050 is seen by most scientists as the outer time limit available to us.

Which will require an unprecedented level of innovation in every sector of the economy. And that means getting scale in all those sectors to get the right drivers in place to make the innovation happen. From niche to mainstream. Easy! But scale means different things in different sectors.

I spent a day last week at Ecobuild  - ‘the biggest event in the world for sustainable design, construction and the built environment’. That absolutely wasn’t a claim that could have been made at the first Ecobuild, five years ago, which attracted no more than 1000 visitors. This year, there were more than 50,000 people there. Earls Court was flush with exhibitors, from some of the biggest companies in the UK to distinctly ‘alternative’ start-ups taking a massive gamble on enough people falling for their particular ‘breakthrough innovation’. There were countless meetings and debates going on the whole time, and the kind of buzz that one doesn’t always associate with events of this kind.

For the politicians who’d dropped in, and wandered around looking a bit bemused, it all said one thing: no more niches. This was about scale. New orders. Expanding markets. Innovation (in the construction industry!). And even, dare one say it, new jobs.

I won’t be churlish by pointing out that this supply-chain journey (from niche to huge, scaled opportunity) could have been stimulated by the political system many years ago – as it was in Germany, Scandinavia and so on.  At least we’ve got there now, and it’s exciting.

The UK Green Building Council has been a central part of that journey, and is now providing the kind of leadership (across this complex industry and beyond) that the politicians need in order to stay in touch with the developments on the ground.  The UK Green Building Council launched its new Green Building Manifesto at Ecobuild  – and it’s well worth a look. 

Read more