黑洞社区

An additional 2 million tonnes of CO2 emissions could be produced each year by 2020 as a result of the government鈥檚 decision to axe zero carbon targets, according to industry experts.

The decision, which included ditching both the proposed 2016 uprating of building regulations and the proposed 鈥渁llowable solutions鈥� carbon offsetting scheme, was announced as part of chancellor George Osborne鈥檚 productivity drive, Fixing the Foundations, last week.

A snapshot analysis produced by architect HTA and corroborated by other consultants, suggests that each home produced to current building regulations will emit two tonnes more carbon per year than those previously proposed under the 鈥渮ero carbon鈥� target.

Should the government hit its target of building 200,000 homes a year over the next five years, then by 2020 those homes will produce an additional two million tonnes of CO2 each per year as a result of the government鈥檚 decision.

HTA鈥檚 calculation is based on estimates produced to support the design of its zero-carbon homes for housebuilder Barratt at Hanham Hall in Gloucestershire.

The axing of the targets also means new homes will be affected by higher running costs, experts warned. Rory Bergin, partner for sustainable futures at housing architect HTA, told 黑洞社区 he estimated additional energy bill costs in the region of 拢200 per year per household, totalling a yearly 拢200m spent on energy by consumers.

Homes built under the policy will also continue making additional carbon emissions throughout their lives, meaning impact of the policy will grow.

鈥淭he impact in the long term could be far far higher than two million tonnes,鈥� said Bergin.

The increase in CO2 emissions will also create an additional cost as the extra CO2 will need to be offset elsewhere to meet the UK鈥檚 legally binding CO2 budgets.

Simon Sturgis, managing director at Sturgis Carbon Profiling agreed that new homes would emit in the region of two additional tonnes of carbon per year because of the policy change, and said there was a need to 鈥渢ackle the economic argument [against sustainability].鈥�

Isabel McAllister, sustainability director at Mace, said: 鈥淒elivering the zero carbon trajectory was not difficult and did not mean incurring unacceptable costs.鈥�

UK Green 黑洞社区 Council chief executive Julie Hirigoyen labelled the move 鈥渂izarre鈥� and 鈥渧ery disappointing.鈥� She said: 鈥淚t鈥檚 a bizarre U-turn on a policy which was well underway. The government has changed the goalposts six months before the 2016 deadline. It鈥檚 very disappointing, to say the least.鈥�

However, housebuilders welcomed the plans as a reduction in red-tape. Sarah McMonagle, head of external affairs at the Federation of Master Builders, said the 鈥渦nnecessary zero carbon standards鈥� had 鈥渢hreatened to perpetuate the housing crisis and impose significant additional costs on small housebuilders鈥�.