Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Saving For a Space Ship

Demolishing Old Houses And Building New Adds To Climate Change

Recommended Posts

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtm.../eahomes117.xml

If the 288,000 long-term empty homes in England were used and upgraded to higher efficiency standards, instead of many of them being demolished under Government "Pathfinder" regeneration schemes, it would save the equivalent of three million cars being taken off the roads for a year.......

......... Researchers commissioned by the Government-funded Empty Homes Agency compared the amount of carbon dioxide given off in building new homes and in refurbishing old ones.

They found that building a new home emitted four and-a-half times as much carbon dioxide as refurbishing an existing dwelling.

They also found that the carbon dioxide emitted as a result of the construction of a new building - from quarrying, brick making and so on - accounted for nearly three times more of a building's lifetime emissions than had been supposed.

Previously the amount of energy involved in the construction of a home had been assumed to represent 10 per cent of the energy used over the lifetime of a building.

In fact, energy involved in construction added up to nearly 30 per cent of the emissions over the lifetime of the building, according to the report "New Tricks with Old Bricks; how reusing old buildings can cut carbon emissions."

Related housing articles

Use empty houses, Gordon Brown told

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtm.../eahomes113.xml

Edited by Saving For a Space Ship

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly the same goes for cars, lots of energy and materials goes into construction thats why new things cost so much! Pft, the most energy saving thing to do would to stop manufacturing and return to the dark ages...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is well documented that there are all these 'empty homes' - 850k, over a million if you add the possible dwellings (above shops etc).

This whole Pathfinder business is, it seems to me, another nice little earner for those connected enough to win contracts.

Homes knocked down unnecessarily when renovation would be a fraction of the cost and would maintain, even improve the community. Instead, people are chucked out of their homes... new houses are put in their place, the original community is priced out, and poorer areas join the high priced/debt enslaving housing stock that the Govt seems to be so keen on.

There is no plan, or strategy or proper thinking things through - i.e., what are the alternatives, what is the best and least costly way of improving these areas? It's just egos, lobbyists and political connections... and money. That old investment rather than a home chestnut.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Human activity DOES NOT CAUSE GLOBAL WARMING.

Shhhh! You'll alert the sheeple! It is imperative that the sheeple believe that individually and collectively they are the cause of global warming so that their every action can be dictated by and monitored by and taxed by our emerging one world government. Don't rock Big Brother's boat, BH.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Human activity DOES NOT CAUSE GLOBAL WARMING.

Actually, some human activity does warm the planet. Land use change, for instance - concreting over huge tracts of otherwise fertile plant filled land. It also has the added advantage of concretising the "rural" temperature measuring stations that then unsurprisingly shows that it is a lot hotter when you put a thermometer next to an aircon vent in a car park. <_<

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is well documented that there are all these 'empty homes' - 850k, over a million if you add the possible dwellings (above shops etc).

This whole Pathfinder business is, it seems to me, another nice little earner for those connected enough to win contracts.

Homes knocked down unnecessarily when renovation would be a fraction of the cost and would maintain, even improve the community. Instead, people are chucked out of their homes... new houses are put in their place, the original community is priced out, and poorer areas join the high priced/debt enslaving housing stock that the Govt seems to be so keen on.

There is no plan, or strategy or proper thinking things through - i.e., what are the alternatives, what is the best and least costly way of improving these areas? It's just egos, lobbyists and political connections... and money. That old investment rather than a home chestnut.

Pathfinder==Common Purpose?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Similar article on the same subject in the Guardian. It says new builds need to last 50 years to compare to old houses, but as often discussed on hpc, many are expected to last 20-30 yrs. Even housing associations would not buy a load of them recently.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2008/mar/1....householdbills

Since new homes are well insulated, they can eventually make up for the large amount of emissions released during their initial construction because of their overall lower energy costs. But it can take several decades - in most cases, more than 50 years - for the figures to eventually balance out. Oliver says that although new-builds can last for more than 50 years, their quality can 'sometimes be poor' and that it is likely that a new-build house will need refurbishing once it gets to that age.

'If you are buying a flat made from chip-foam panelled walls as a low-cost housing solution, then yes, it might not last forever,' says Bill Dunster, architect and director of Zedfactory, the firm that designed the largest carbon-neutral eco-development in the country, BedZed in Surrey. 'We do have to stop this "dash for trash" and stop people building homes which look good but will become unlivable. We have to go back to quality.'

The climate change debate is off-topic (& never ending it appears) here as the issue is about material & energy conservation primarily , but I think it relevant to stress that every Government, V.I & spinmaster will use anything, particularly 'greenwash' to further their agenda.

Recent greenwash appears to have become an epidemic as pointed out in this article about some of the worst over consumption sinners, the fashion industry. The distraction of using minor stories (in the whole waste picture) like the plastic bag debate are increasing imo.

Elle magazine announces that eco-friendly fashions are hip and features Stella McCartney vegan, silk dress sandals at $495, which would work well on a date in the $100,000 Tesla electric sports car. "In this epoch of global warming," declares Green Guide online fashion consultant Anne Wallace, "fall fashion rules are undergoing climate change: it's OK to wear knee-high faux fur boots with a light cotton skirt and wool sweater." Vogue magazine advises, "prepare for erratic weather by putting warmer wraps over something skimpy." Like your awareness of the issues?

consumer trolley.

To be fair, for decades, those in the environmental movement have wanted ecology to become popular, so we can hardly complain that it is. Consumer choices impact the environment, and we might rejoice that the shopping public is aware of this. Nevertheless, since consumption itself remains a root cause of our ecological crisis, we must ask: "Who is really gaining ground and who is blowing

http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/blog/about/de...itanic-20080307

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 294 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.