Debate #27 - Notes
Debate 27 - Notes
Comment about lights on in the room: on the basis of the chandelier there is £2k saving in 5 years for £200 unit of bulbs
Not helpful to set up narrative that permits confusion with stabilisation of concentration and stabilisation of emissions.
Talked about a 2°C rise in temperature – the average global temperature has already risen by 1°C therefore only 1°C left to go
The comment was made that the UK RCP report was ‘broadly consistent with contraction and convergence (C&C)’. It was ‘not broadly consistent with C&C, it was C&C. The UK target of 60% was the product of C&C analysis. Defra reconverted RCP report into ’something to do with C&C’. However, If 60% was right then, it is wrong now.
In the past 50% of emissions have been retained in the atmosphere. Not any more, not for last 2 years. 100% being retained. The situation is much worse.
Does it help to change the narrative if you are not helping them understand what is happening? Where is it going with concentrations? It is not an approach that can knock down C&C
The call is for ‘framework-based markets’ not ‘market-based frameworks’. The cake is much smaller than we have been led to believe.
Stabilisation and concentration: they are different issues. On a trajectory you have got to reduce it. Logic then takes you towards technological fixes
On question of degrees, it is about the starting point. A more sophisticated debate is needed – one that will explore the likely effects of policy
Frameworks -does the narrative understanding alter this? Wimpy throw away low energy light bulbs. Need to equalise the price. Empowering with knowledge and strong economic lever.
Concentrations on target. We are on the Titanic. Is it about allocating the bailing? We are not going to overshoot the targets. Radically increase what we are doing. Need paradigm shift. Need to change hearts and minds. UK approach is neglecting this. Environment has to be aspirational rather than worthy. More support for this
We should stop deceiving ourselves. We are not on course to finding a solution. We are being misled by climate scientists. There is no margin. C&C and DTQ are the only things we can do as a means of slowing down our decline.
Efficiency: false god and cranking down is a destructive way of looking at it. £200bn to change every UK house. We could do it. We are not going to do it. What about no more air con, deep plan buildings, tower blocks, flying.
Studies in what people understand about climate change - people would never give up a car or do without a flight. There are things we can do but can’t say it like it is- we need to dumb down the argument and come up with small steps that people can take.
Importance of budget and thus DTQs. Energy has been so cheap we have not had to think about it. The construction industry never understood how to build houses to minimise energy. Budgets make people become carbon literate.
Using percentages as a driver. A percentage change is a result of an action. To change the way things are done. Small incremental changes have big effects on achieving a target -e.g. electronics industry.
Energy is an infrastructure issue. The better the infrastructure the less fuel needed for the services. We are changing the story. The language is not the language of barrels of oil but the physical assets that deliver the services. This starts with the buildings that use less fuel. It will need to become an investment and employment exercise. We did it before in 1968 changing town gas to North Sea gas. Political courage is required. If we were seriously worried about the climate that is the sort of model we should use.
Can we put targets (taking things away from people) with a vision of the future where we can show that it would be better? Building is one of the industries where we could do this.
We need to be able to play in time and in tune. The big good news is that we are not trying to hit you with the climate tax but trying to give you the climate dividend - to reward you with under consumption (there are a majority of under consumers).
Isolationist approach is not going to work. Residential carbon impact is going down. In reality energy demand is going up. Hidden by dash for gas. Impressed that .GLA going for 10% renewables. New large prestige buildings should have renewable within - aspirational and stimulating the supply chain.
Who do you listen to? EU emissions trading scheme. Two kinds of business , one sees doom and gloom the other sees opportunities. Difficult to sell the idea that we are doomed.
80% might be easier than 60%. Need aspirational stretching strategies. Don’t want PV on crap buildings. There are ways of joining this up but need to be realistic.
PPS7 is a missed opportunity. Has driven rich clients forward asking for low energy buildings.
80% jumping across the crevice, 60% is falling down.
Not only the technology that needs to change. Visibility has to be more than tokenism
City-level intervention (Check out Google for Solar Cities 2006 Conference in Oxford) Change at city level.
Sunk cost in chandelier. How to change from oil boiler and miss the sunk cost and thus sunk costs in the carbon economy?
It in not necessarily about sunk costs – people will happily throw away old cathode ray TVs for a new flat screen TVs.
Is it not time to say enough for airport infrastructure? Look at how we move to work, commuting and local involvement
We need to use every route, change the paradigm and use legislation. We could do zero carbon but the customer is not asking for it.
Air flights
People don’t kill themselves when told about terminal illness they try to make the best of what is left. Be honest about the fact that we are coming to the end.
Is it about ‘we can’t do this because no one is asking for them’? Northern town proud of roundabout. It was what they did well. Not about roundabouts but had not done the thinking. Regent St rather than by-pass. Need a lot more vision in how we talk about. It is about simplifying it, not dumbing it down
Targets - value of emissions trading is in reductions. It they are profitable. Setting targets allows it to be profitable to set targets and to have targets fashionable.
Leadership: have been skirting around it. No one will aspire to anything without leadership. Why isn’t government insisting that schools be carbon neutral. This is an Issue for our engineering institutions. Role to be placed on institutions, meetings to instruct their councils.
Sustainable procurement task group, lobbying them to take forward recommendations to DEFRA. Some house builders trying to create a vision
RIBA targets and tool kits Help required.
Why have the tipping points changed
Use of word aspirational - Pew centre politics still uncertain for anything to be more than aspirational. Key syllables is rational.