tag:theconversation.com,2011:/es/topics/home-insulation-program-12195/articlesHome Insulation Program – The Conversation2022-12-13T09:49:55Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1957022022-12-13T09:49:55Z2022-12-13T09:49:55ZOne in four homes is ‘hard to decarbonise’ – without help their inhabitants could get stuck in fuel poverty<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/499528/original/file-20221207-1298-6wmhjd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=8%2C0%2C5848%2C3898&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Existing decarbonisation measures are often unsuitable for the least efficient homes.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/mother-son-trying-keep-warm-by-2206535659">Monkey Business Images/Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Millions of people are facing soaring energy bills this winter. Yet according to <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41560-022-01075-w">our research</a>, at least 20% of homes in the UK will continue to use large amounts of energy. We have found that existing energy <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-joins-with-households-to-help-millions-reduce-their-energy-bills">efficiency measures</a> such as improving home insulation and installing air source heat pumps are not enough to help these homes move out of the very lowest energy performance criteria.</p>
<p>These properties are called <a href="https://www.theccc.org.uk/publication/analysis-on-abating-direct-emissions-from-hard-to-decarbonise-homes-element-energy-ucl/">hard to decarbonise homes</a> and include a wide range of unconventional residential buildings such as high rise blocks, homes with space constraints or those with heritage status. An estimated <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41560-022-01075-w">one in four homes</a> worldwide are classified as hard to decarbonise, accounting for 25% of all direct <a href="https://www.theccc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Analysis-on-abating-direct-emissions-from-%E2%80%98hard-to-decarbonise%E2%80%99-homes-Element-Energy-UCL.pdf">residential sector emissions</a>. </p>
<p>But homes are the <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41560-022-01075-w">fourth largest</a> source of carbon emissions in the world. Failing to find affordable ways to improve the energy performance of the least efficient homes will undermine the UK’s ability to achieve its carbon reduction targets while trapping vulnerable households in fuel poverty. </p>
<h2>Energy inefficient homes</h2>
<p><a href="https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/housing/articles/energyefficiencyofhousinginenglandandwales/2022">Energy performance certificates</a> indicate the energy efficiency of buildings in the UK. Buildings are rated according to their energy features, including the building materials, heating systems and insulation. The ratings run from A to G, where A is the most efficient and cheapest to run.</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/499525/original/file-20221207-11795-bl1qaz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="An energy efficiency rating scale ranked from A (most efficient) to G (least efficient)." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/499525/original/file-20221207-11795-bl1qaz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/499525/original/file-20221207-11795-bl1qaz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/499525/original/file-20221207-11795-bl1qaz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/499525/original/file-20221207-11795-bl1qaz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/499525/original/file-20221207-11795-bl1qaz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/499525/original/file-20221207-11795-bl1qaz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/499525/original/file-20221207-11795-bl1qaz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Energy Performance Criteria are used to rate the energy efficiency of buildings in the UK.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/energy-efficiency-concept-rating-chart-108074963">MPanchenko/Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The UK’s housing stock has an average rating of D. But we found that between 60% and 80% of hard to decarbonise homes have an energy performance rating of F or G. </p>
<p>However, existing decarbonisation measures are often unsuitable for these homes. </p>
<p><a href="https://www.cse.org.uk/advice/renewable-energy/air-source-heat-pumps">Air source heat pumps</a>, for example, cannot be installed in homes with limited external space. The heat pump itself is small but needs to be positioned somewhere outside with unobstructed air flow. </p>
<p>High rise residential buildings can also be complex and expensive to insulate.</p>
<p>Renovating multi-storey buildings requires costly scaffolding. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/10286608.2021.1969371">Split incentives</a> can arise where the landlord is forced to make changes that, through reduced utility bills, will only benefit the tenant. And the priorities of different stakeholders often compete with one another – leaseholders are more likely to prioritise avoiding paying improvement charges, the freeholder may prioritise upgrading their property and tenants will prioritise savings on their energy bills. </p>
<p>In the absence of fitting decarbonisation measures, those occupying hard to decarbonise homes will be exposed to higher energy bills. The annual <a href="https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/cymraeg/amdanom-ni/about-us1/media/press-releases/out-in-the-cold-draughty-homes-mean-a-third-of-cash-spent-on-energy-bills-goes-straight-out-the-window-warns-citizens-advice/#:%7E:text=From%201%20October%202022%2C%20the,brought%20to%20EPC%20rating%20C.&text=Citizens%20Advice%20estimates%201%2C145%2C545%20live%20in%20homes%20with%20EPC%20rating%20F.">fuel costs</a> associated with an F-rated property are estimated to be at least £500 a year higher on average than they are for a D-rated home.</p>
<h2>Trapped in fuel poverty</h2>
<p>Vulnerable households, including those on low incomes and with physical and mental health issues, are <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352484721007782?via%3Dihub">disproportionately represented</a> within the hard to decarbonise housing stock. The situation of these occupants will be <a href="http://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-022-01075-w">exacerbated</a> by high energy costs and cold homes. </p>
<p>These people may be priced out of heating their home to a safe and comfortable level over the winter months. This so-called fuel poverty increases the chances of suffering poor mental and physical health. According to national fuel poverty charity NEA, <a href="https://www.nea.org.uk/news/271120-01/">8,500 deaths</a> in the UK were due to a cold home in 2020. </p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/499524/original/file-20221207-4043-riqkzh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C5250%2C3481&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Hand opening a wallet and revealing change in front of a white radiator." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/499524/original/file-20221207-4043-riqkzh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C5250%2C3481&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/499524/original/file-20221207-4043-riqkzh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/499524/original/file-20221207-4043-riqkzh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/499524/original/file-20221207-4043-riqkzh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/499524/original/file-20221207-4043-riqkzh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/499524/original/file-20221207-4043-riqkzh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/499524/original/file-20221207-4043-riqkzh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Occupants of the least efficient homes are exposed to escalating energy prices.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/hand-opening-wallet-few-coins-front-2205592199">Maren Winter/Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>UK homes are transitioning towards low carbon heat sources. But this could restrict future fossil fuel use to those occupying hard to decarbonise homes and risks exposing already vulnerable households to escalating prices. Households are already <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/nov/16/uk-inflation-rate-energy-price-rises">paying 90% more</a> on average for gas, electricity and other fuels than they were last November.</p>
<p>Failing to find solutions for hard to decarbonise homes will also leave occupants vulnerable to <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41560-022-01075-w">“asset stranding”</a>. This is where hard to decarbonise homes become prematurely obsolete and unappealing to purchasers because they are cold and expensive to run. </p>
<h2>Achieving a zero carbon future</h2>
<p>Addressing hard to decarbonise homes is a complex challenge. While it is <a href="https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/8742/documents/88647/default/#:%7E:text=The%20CCC%20estimates%20that%20an,on%20average%2C%20under%20%C2%A310%2C000.">widely accepted</a> that all homes will need to be energy efficient by 2050, nothing is being done to help people living in hard to decarbonise homes.</p>
<figure class="align-left zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/499535/original/file-20221207-4529-es1h8m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A man standing at the top of scaffolding installing insulation to the external wall of a building." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/499535/original/file-20221207-4529-es1h8m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/499535/original/file-20221207-4529-es1h8m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/499535/original/file-20221207-4529-es1h8m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/499535/original/file-20221207-4529-es1h8m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/499535/original/file-20221207-4529-es1h8m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/499535/original/file-20221207-4529-es1h8m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/499535/original/file-20221207-4529-es1h8m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">High rise residential blocks can be expensive to insulate.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/finishing-mineral-polystyrene-insulation-facade-residential-2104872782">Korostylev Dmitrii/Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>But it is the occupants of these properties that may hold the key to identifying viable solutions. These people know their homes best and can offer insight into how to live in energy <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/14036096.2019.1568296">inefficient homes</a>. Research has demonstrated people’s ability to adapt energy efficient technologies to the particularities of their <a href="https://doi.org/10.1142/S1363919608002072">homes</a> in the past. </p>
<p>From 2005 to 2012, a <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.12.038">study</a> in Finland recorded 192 instances of user innovation or modification to heat pump or wood pellet burning systems. The innovations included redesigning the controls or the addition of protective housing for outdoor units and improved the efficiency, suitability or cost of the heating systems. These users accelerated the development of these renewable technologies by modifying them to cater for the variation in their homes.</p>
<p>Taking an occupant led approach could reveal solutions that would enable the UK to meet its climate targets and better protect its most vulnerable inhabitants.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/195702/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Aimee Ambrose currently receives funding from the Arts and Humanities Research Council and Horizon Europe.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Rokia Raslan receives funding from BEIS, British Council, SEAI.</span></em></p>Existing decarbonisation measures are often unsuitable for the least efficient homes – failing to improve their performance will trap vulnerable people in fuel poverty.Aimee Ambrose, Professor of Energy Policy, Member of Fuel Poverty Evidence and Trustee of the Fuel Poverty Research Network, Sheffield Hallam UniversityRokia Raslan, Associate Professor in Building Performance Simulation, UCLLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1440392020-09-10T09:56:50Z2020-09-10T09:56:50ZFive cost-effective ways to reduce your carbon footprint at home<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/356562/original/file-20200904-14-jwdifc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=268%2C79%2C6239%2C3403&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/eco-friendly-house-concept-moss-covered-675099481">Shutterstock/Stockcreations</a></span></figcaption></figure><p><em>The Conversation made a correction in this article in the section on home heating after an error was noticed in the calculations comparing air source heat pumps and gas boilers.</em></p>
<p>Since the pandemic struck, most people have been spending the majority of their time in the house. Those working from home have become ever more reliant on electricity for running office essentials, including computers, printers, phones and broadband. </p>
<p>Others may be furloughed from work (or out of work entirely) and find themselves using domestic home appliances more heavily than usual. Hoovers, cookers, washing machines, kettles and televisions are constantly on and guzzling power. Whichever way you look at it, this adds up and contributes to both our carbon footprint and rising domestic energy bills.</p>
<p>Our new research project developed the <a href="https://act4eco.eu/">Act4Eco learning platform</a>. The aim of the platform is to help consumers use energy more efficiently and to save money. So here are five quick tips on how this can be achieved.</p>
<h2>1. Reading the electricity bill</h2>
<p>Not enough people understand all of the details on their electricity bill. For example, it is important to know if and when your tariff changes. In a fixed-rate deal the price you pay is locked for a set period. When you reach the end of this period, electricity charges can roll into a <a href="https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/key-term-explained/standard-variable-tariff-0">standard variable rate</a>, which will be more expensive. <a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3662969">Research shows</a> that changing electricity suppliers on an annual basis is a good way to get the best deal. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/d15TWD2anUA?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<h2>2. Energy intensive appliances</h2>
<p>Most people understand that the largest home appliances consume the greatest amount of electricity. The Energy Saving Trust, for example, <a href="https://energysavingtrust.org.uk/sites/default/files/reports/PoweringthenationreportCO332.pdf">estimates that</a> electric cookers consume 317kWh and cost £46 per year to run. But many people don’t realise that smaller appliances can guzzle a disproportionate amount of energy – kettles consume 167kWh per year, for instance. That means people are spending 7.5p on electricity for every 10 minutes spent boiling the kettle.</p>
<p>Charging cables for the likes of phones and laptops can also continue to siphon electricity even after they have been disconnected from a device. Left idle in a plug socket, a charger can consume between <a href="https://energysavingtrust.org.uk/sites/default/files/reports/PoweringthenationreportCO332.pdf">343kWh and 591kWh</a> per year and cost £50 to £85 annually. </p>
<h2>3. Home heating and thermostats</h2>
<p>People tend to inherit heating systems after moving into a new home. Unfortunately, these systems are not always the most efficient or carbon-friendly. To tick these boxes, householders might want to consider switching to a modern <a href="https://www.which.co.uk/reviews/ground-and-air-source-heat-pumps/article/air-source-heat-pumps-explained#How">air source heat pump</a>.</p>
<p>These pumps look like an air conditioning unit. They take heat from the air and boost it to a higher temperature using the heat pump. The electricity used to run the pump is less than the heat produced. An air source heat pump consumes 4,000kWh a year. Based on average <a href="https://www.ukpower.co.uk/home_energy/tariffs-per-unit-kwh">electricity prices</a> of 14p per kWh, that comes out at about £560. </p>
<p>This is still around £100 more expensive than gas central heating, however, and air source heat pumps can also be expensive to install. The Energy Saving Trust estimates that installation ranges from £6,000 to £8,000. But the big advantage is that the carbon emissions of air source heat pumps are at least <a href="https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:hkMeXFX3st0J:researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/POST-PN-0523/POST-PN-0523.pdf+&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk">a third lower</a> than a gas boiler, and will keep falling as the electricity network gets greener. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="A thermostat set at 19C" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/356565/original/file-20200904-18-184m6k7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/356565/original/file-20200904-18-184m6k7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=390&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/356565/original/file-20200904-18-184m6k7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=390&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/356565/original/file-20200904-18-184m6k7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=390&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/356565/original/file-20200904-18-184m6k7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=491&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/356565/original/file-20200904-18-184m6k7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=491&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/356565/original/file-20200904-18-184m6k7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=491&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Turning down home heating by just 1°C can make a big difference to bills and energy usage.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/hand-turning-home-thermostat-knob-set-519476797">Shutterstock/OlivierLeMoal</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>All the same, not everyone can afford to buy such a pricey item. Luckily, <a href="https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/128720/6923-how-much-energy-could-be-saved-by-making-small-cha.pdf">studies show</a> that doing something as simple as turning down the thermostat from 20°C to 18°C can save as much as 3,090kWh a year. Even turning down a thermostat by just 1°C can significantly cut your bill. </p>
<h2>4. Draught-proofing</h2>
<p>Now that we are coming into autumn, draughts will be on our minds and round our ankles. However, notwithstanding the advantages of insulating roofs and lofts or investing in external wall insulation, the initial outlay to improve home insulation can prove very expensive.</p>
<p>Fortunately, cheaper options exist. Foam, brush or wiper strips fixed around internal doors can <a href="https://energysavingtrust.org.uk/home-insulation/draught-proofing">cut draughts significantly</a> and self-adhesive foam strips for windows can also reduce air pushing through the gaps. Doing this could save around £20 a year.</p>
<h2>5. Make small changes and stick to them</h2>
<p>Okay, so you’ve read your bill, checked your appliance use, reduced your thermostat settings and insulated against draughts. What next? Unfortunately, <a href="https://research.birmingham.ac.uk/portal/en/publications/digital-behaviour-change-interventions-to-break-and-form-habits(765f57ae-bde7-4aee-a0a3-9b283a0a7491).html">research shows</a> that people tend to fall into repeating habits unless they make a conscious decision to change and sustain the effort.</p>
<p>People can make a much larger impact on their lives if they change one small habit at a time over the duration of a year. And <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14786451.2014.936867">studies show</a> that these small changes can make a difference. The cumulative effect of our efforts could see a substantial reduction in our carbon footprint. </p>
<p>So for some, “going green” may seem unattainable right now due to economic concerns. But free and cheap actions that reduce our carbon footprint <a href="https://act4eco.eu/">do exist</a> and do make a difference – to our pockets and the planet.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/144039/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>ACT4ECO is funded by the EU Horizon 2020 programme - one of the biggest EU funding programmes for research and innovation.
Nine European partners are involved in this project:
The Danish Board of Technology Foundation, Arnold Nielsens Boulevard 68E, 2650 Hvidovre, Denmark.
Business Information Systems, Cork University Business School, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland.
Deco Proteste, Lisbon, Portugal.
Hebes Intelligence, Athens, Greece.
Knowledge Economy Forum, Vilnius, Lithuania.
Sinergie Formazione e Innovazione, Reggio Emilia, Italy.
Strategic Design Scenarios, Brussels, Belgium.
The Applied Research and Communications Fund (ARC Fund), Sofia, Bulgaria.
The University of Helsinki, Centre for Consumer Society Research, Helsinki, Finland.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Laura Lynch and Stephen McCarthy do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>As the UK heads into a recession, here are some simple - and cheap - tips to reduce utility bills and make less of an impact on the planet.Wendy Rowan, Post-Doctoral Researcher, Business Information Systems, University College CorkLaura Lynch, Research Support Officer, Project Manager, University College CorkStephen McCarthy, Lecturer and researcher in the Department of Business Information Systems, University College CorkLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1263292019-11-05T14:46:49Z2019-11-05T14:46:49ZLabour’s low-carbon ‘warm homes for all’ could revolutionise social housing – experts<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/300278/original/file-20191105-88409-1nd7wd6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C4252%2C2666&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">A home designed to Passivhaus standards, with solar panels and windows that help conserve heat.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/modern-passive-house-white-roof-solar-1012291636">Radovan1/Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>All homes built from 2022 onwards would be carbon neutral under a Labour government, according to a recent election pledge by the party. Labour has also promised to guarantee “<a href="https://labour.org.uk/press/warm-homes-for-all-labours-plan-to-reduce-energy-bills-create-jobs-and-tackle-the-climate-emergency/">warm homes for all</a>”, by retrofitting the UK’s 27m houses with insulation, double-glazed windows, heat pumps and solar panels, to help them save and produce at least as much energy as they use, effectively neutralising their contribution to the climate crisis. </p>
<p>At the moment, that contribution is surprisingly large – heating and energy use in homes accounts for <a href="https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/790626/2018-provisional-emissions-statistics-report.pdf">18% of the UK’s total carbon emissions</a>. Decarbonising housing is an urgent task and will require a herculean effort – are Labour’s plans up to the job?</p>
<p>There’s at least no shortage of potential providers for new, zero-energy homes. Councils could choose to build the houses themselves or work in partnership with private developers and housing associations – non-profit organisations which rent affordable accommodation to people on low incomes or with particular needs. In order to make all new homes carbon neutral by 2022, all builders and developers would need to play their part.</p>
<p>Retrofitting all existing houses is estimated to cost about £250 billion, of which Labour pledges £60 billion in public subsidy. This would mean government investment would only cover 24% of the estimated cost, with the rest expected to come from “energy savings” down the line. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/a-hundred-years-of-social-housing-how-standards-and-quality-got-lost-along-the-way-121068">A hundred years of social housing: how standards and quality got lost along the way</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Meanwhile, councils and housing associations are already under strain to deliver enough affordable housing. In recent years, the amount of investment that the Conservative government has been willing to commit to building houses, through grants to housing associations and councils, has dwindled. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/300261/original/file-20191105-88428-60f2fr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/300261/original/file-20191105-88428-60f2fr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/300261/original/file-20191105-88428-60f2fr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/300261/original/file-20191105-88428-60f2fr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/300261/original/file-20191105-88428-60f2fr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/300261/original/file-20191105-88428-60f2fr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/300261/original/file-20191105-88428-60f2fr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The building of affordable housing has stalled under the Tories.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/cobblestone-reflection-house-puddle-after-rain-1098538682?src=e31965aa-d00d-4749-8505-360eb8f3f500-1-1">I Wei Huang/Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>If they want to build new homes, housing associations are expected to build properties for private sale or rent and invest their profits into building social housing – that is, homes that are let for below-market rents. </p>
<p>But this policy of cross-subsidy hasn’t delivered <a href="https://www.insidehousing.co.uk/news/news/nhf-and-lga-bosses-clash-over-social-rent-focus-63426">the number of affordable homes that are needed</a>. A public commitment to fund the delivery of environmental standards in existing and new-build homes will be necessary to ensure Labour’s plans don’t fall short. But what could a future of zero-energy social housing look like?</p>
<h2>Street that could change Britain</h2>
<p>In July 2019, a council housing scheme in Norwich called <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2019/jul/16/norwich-goldsmith-street-social-housing-green-design">Goldsmith Street</a> won <a href="https://www.insidehousing.co.uk/insight/the-gold-standard-how-a-council-housing-scheme-won-architectures-biggest-prize-63761">the prestigious Stirling Prize for architecture</a> for its eco-friendly design and for providing 100% social housing. Residents report lower energy bills – <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/oct/11/spacious-and-green-norwich-award-winning-new-council-houses-goldsmith-street">as low as £150 a year</a> in some cases – and <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2019/jul/16/norwich-goldsmith-street-social-housing-green-design">plenty of green space</a>. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/s--1w1PQeF8?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>The houses have much thicker insulation than normal, triple glazing and mechanical ventilation which can <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-to-use-the-london-underground-to-heat-your-home-21256">recover and circulate waste heat</a>. Similar grand designs have offered glimpses of how homes might be greener, but Goldsmith Street’s commitment to social housing could help meet the <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-46788530">drastic need for more affordable homes</a>. So how could this tantalising vision become the norm?</p>
<p>The answer might seem obvious: make it the law. But the UK construction sector is highly fragmented – and different subcontractors are often responsible for the walls, roof and electricity in a single house. This makes quality control difficult. There’s also a skills shortage, especially when it comes to the detailed knowledge required to build a zero-energy house. And if energy-consuming extras such as underfloor heating or electrically driven windows are added, the energy savings from design may be lost.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/climate-change-means-we-cant-keep-living-and-working-in-glass-houses-45006">Climate change means we can't keep living (and working) in glass houses</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>One solution might be to mandate the use of <a href="http://passivhaustrust.org.uk/certification.php">Passivhaus Certification</a>, as architects did on Goldsmith Street. Under this scheme, contractors must have the right qualifications and the energy modelling – which determines if a home will truly produce as much energy as it consumes – must be completed in a highly prescribed manner. A guarantee that the correct insulation and other features have been delivered and fitted must be rigorously reported to a third party. </p>
<p>While there are costs involved with this, certified Passivhaus homes typically have heating bills that are <a href="http://www.passivhaustrust.org.uk/what_is_passivhaus.php#2">one-tenth of the UK average</a>, meaning that residents of a three-bedroom semi-detached house could expect heating bills of around £50 per annum. </p>
<p>Most people would pay more for a car that came with free petrol for life, which is close to what a zero-energy home is. But people will need to believe this is what they will get. <a href="https://passivehouseplus.ie/magazine/insight/how-brussels-went-passive">More than 40,000 such buildings have been delivered</a> across Europe, and Passivhaus was the <a href="https://passivehouseplus.ie/magazine/insight/how-brussels-went-passive">route to low-energy construction that Belgium chose</a>. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/300265/original/file-20191105-88414-upjha.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/300265/original/file-20191105-88414-upjha.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=378&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/300265/original/file-20191105-88414-upjha.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=378&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/300265/original/file-20191105-88414-upjha.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=378&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/300265/original/file-20191105-88414-upjha.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=475&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/300265/original/file-20191105-88414-upjha.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=475&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/300265/original/file-20191105-88414-upjha.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=475&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A Passivhaus home (right) leaks less heat than a traditional building (left).</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_house#/media/File:Passivhaus_thermogram_gedaemmt_ungedaemmt.png">Passivhaus Institut/Wikipedia</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>But Passivhaus only works if the right design decisions are made from day one. If an architect starts by drawing a large window for example, then the energy loss from it might well be so great that any amount of insulation elsewhere can’t offset it. Architects don’t often welcome this intrusion of physics into the world of art. In other industries – high-performance car design for example – the need to work with physics to reduce drag also affords an attractive, low and sleek look.</p>
<p>Architects and building engineers aren’t often taught together in the UK, and engineering is rarely included in architecture degrees. Our team at the University of Bath is working on simple energy modelling tools that could help architects incorporate these principles in their designs.</p>
<p>To take Labour’s plans from their blueprints and on to streets in the UK, an incoming government will need funding to roll out new homes and retrofit old ones. It will need to introduce regulation to ensure all homes are brought up to standard and drive a revolution in what architects currently consider acceptable for how houses should look and feel. That’s a tall order – but decarbonising each component of society will take nothing short of a revolution.</p>
<hr>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/300094/original/file-20191104-88372-xpdf2e.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/300094/original/file-20191104-88372-xpdf2e.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=140&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/300094/original/file-20191104-88372-xpdf2e.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=140&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/300094/original/file-20191104-88372-xpdf2e.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=140&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/300094/original/file-20191104-88372-xpdf2e.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=176&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/300094/original/file-20191104-88372-xpdf2e.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=176&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/300094/original/file-20191104-88372-xpdf2e.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=176&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><em><a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/newsletters/the-daily-newsletter-2?utm_source=TCUK&utm_medium=linkback&utm_campaign=TCUKGE2019&utm_content=GEBannerA">Click here to subscribe to our newsletter if you believe this election should be all about the facts.</a></em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/126329/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>David Coley receives funding from BIS and EPSRC.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jo Richardson does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Housing currently accounts for almost one-fifth of the UK’s annual carbon emissions.Jo Richardson, Professor of Housing and Social Inclusion, De Montfort UniversityDavid Coley, Professor of Low Carbon Design, University of BathLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1034852018-10-16T15:14:28Z2018-10-16T15:14:28ZFrance: The road to a low-carbon building sector by 2050 will be a long one<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/236937/original/file-20180918-158243-1tusxgo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C8%2C1200%2C790&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Insulation work.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/fr/image-photo/construction-worker-thermally-insulating-ecowood-frame-1136497328?src=QsRJoEdnJrvrUCWV8ww_cg-3-68">Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>In the wake of the Paris Climate Agreement, France has committed to cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 to 75% below 1990 levels. To help achieve this ambitious target and as part of its energy transition strategy, France wants to lower final energy consumption to 50% below 2012 levels by 2050. The residential and non-residential building sector currently accounts for 45% of final energy consumption, 60% of heating consumption, and 27% of the country’s greenhouse gas emissions. Lowering energy use in this sector is thus a key strategy for achieving ambitious medium- and long-term energy and climate targets such as the carbon neutrality for the building stock by 2050.</p>
<p>In that context, the <a href="https://en.grenoble-em.com/energy-market-barometer-report">Energy Market Barometers</a> conducted by <a href="https://www.grenoble-em.com/barometre-du-marche-de-lenergie">Grenoble École de Management</a> in June 2018 asked more than a hundred experts about their perception of the French energy policy targeting the building sector.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/236938/original/file-20180918-158222-1wx5hpr.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/236938/original/file-20180918-158222-1wx5hpr.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=320&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/236938/original/file-20180918-158222-1wx5hpr.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=320&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/236938/original/file-20180918-158222-1wx5hpr.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=320&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/236938/original/file-20180918-158222-1wx5hpr.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=402&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/236938/original/file-20180918-158222-1wx5hpr.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=402&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/236938/original/file-20180918-158222-1wx5hpr.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=402&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The findings suggest that the residential building stock in France is considered to have the highest potential. Compared to other EU countries, the average performance of its building stock in terms of energy consumption is significantly higher. For example, the energy consumption per m<sup>2</sup> for space heating for a French dwelling is 50% higher compared to a Dutch dwelling when adjusted for differences in climate conditions (see figure below). Thus, the French building sector offers substantial energy savings that may be realised in the coming decades.</p>
<h2>Podium spot for French energy policy for buildings</h2>
<p><figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/236939/original/file-20180918-158219-1l72p2r.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/236939/original/file-20180918-158219-1l72p2r.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=290&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/236939/original/file-20180918-158219-1l72p2r.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=290&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/236939/original/file-20180918-158219-1l72p2r.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=290&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/236939/original/file-20180918-158219-1l72p2r.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=364&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/236939/original/file-20180918-158219-1l72p2r.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=364&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/236939/original/file-20180918-158219-1l72p2r.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=364&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Unit consumption per m2 for space heating scaled to EU climatic condition (residential, year 2015).“ />
In view of this energy saving potential, past French governments have implemented a number of policies, believed to be among the most complete and efficient in the world. The International Energy Efficiency Scoreboard (<a href=</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">ODYSSEE</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>2018 edition) complied by the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy (ACEEE) ranks France second among industrialised countries in terms of energy efficiency in the building sector. The mix includes regulations – for example, the French building code that requires all new buildings to meet "nearly zero energy building” (nZEB) standards – financial incentives (tax credits, subsidies), and information campaigns (the one-stop shop initiative <a href="http://renovation-info-service.gouv.fr/trouver-un-conseiller/step1">PRIS</a>).</p>
<p>Considering that around 55% of France’s current residential building stock was built before 1975 (the year when building codes were introduced in France), the French government focusses on thermal renovation, which the French Energy Minister termed a “national priority”. In the long run, France wants to reduce energy consumption in the building sector by 28% in 2030 and to bring the entire building stock to the nZEB levels by 2050. The latter means that the entire building stock is required to consume less than 50 kWh/m2/year or about 5.2 litres of petrol/m<sup>2</sup>/year.</p>
<p>In addition, all buildings should then be brought up to an “A” performance level (on an A-G scale), below which they could not be rented or resold. The government is also planning to spend 14 billion euros over five years to promote and accelerate the thermal renovation of buildings (including 4.8 billion euros dedicated to improve the thermal insulation of public-sector buildings).</p>
<h2>Poor renovation performance despite ambitious targets</h2>
<p>In April 2018 the French government launched the <a href="https://www.ecologique-solidaire.gouv.fr/sites/default/files/Plan%20de%20r%C3%A9novation%C3%A9nerg%C3%A9tique_0.pdf">“Plan de rénovation énergétique des bâtiments”</a> (the plan governing the energetic renovation of buildings). This plan foresees the thermal renovation of about 500,000 dwellings every year (of which half should target fuel-poor households), but it does not specify a required level of energy performance. For instance, in 2014, 3.5 million renovations have been completed in France, but, 41% of these have been so-called light renovations, where only one measure to improve the thermal performance of the building was implemented. Less than 10% of these renovations can be considered as a thermal renovation (i.e., with at least 45% energy savings). Clearly, if this level of performance is maintained France will not achieve the envisioned carbon neutrality for the building stock by 2050.</p>
<h2>How to best achieve deep thermal renovation</h2>
<p>The plan further foresees subsidies to promote <a href="https://www.ecologique-solidaire.gouv.fr/renovation-energetique-des-batiments-plan-accelerer-mobilisation-generale">step-by-step thermal renovations</a>, which are expected to enable rapid initial energy savings. A majority (ca. 55%) of the French energy market experts believes that the government should support such step-by-step measures. About 30% disagree, and 15% do not know. Since implementing one measure at a time involves lower initial investment costs compared to a more comprehensive, single-step approach, a step-by-step approach may more easily overcome investors" financial constraints. In fact, the French government wants to vitalise this market and to renew its communication process to make renovation more attractive and affordable. Assuming that each building could achieve the nZEB standard via three subsequent steps (based on a building energy renovation passport, i.e. the “Passeport efficacité énergétique” (<a href="https://theshiftproject.org/experience-p2e/">P2E</a>)), the government expects to reach the target of decarbonizing the whole building stock by 2050.</p>
<p>However, implementing the measures sequentially may not be optimal and eventually involve higher costs. For example, a new heating system may turn out to be too large after later thermal insulation of walls, ceilings and windows. Finally, a step-by-step approach may lead to more discomfort and disruptions for households than a one-step approach. Recently, some innovative initiatives have been launched to overcome the barrier of high initial investment costs of a single-step deep renovation. For example, the <a href="https://www.renovation-doremi.com/">DOREMI</a> thermal renovation operational framework offers detached-homeowners and communities a simple framework that guarantees effective, cost-efficient retrofitting thanks to training and worksite assistance provided by groups of skilled tradesmen.</p>
<p>Despite its spot on the podium of the ACEEE policy ranking, more such initiatives appear to be needed if France wants to meet its medium and long term energy and climate targets for the building sector and beyond.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/103485/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Carine Sebi received funding from the European Commission.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Joachim Schleich receives funding from the European Commission and the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research. He is also affiliated with the Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research in Karlsruhe, Germany. </span></em></p>In the wake of the Paris Climate Agreement, France has committed to cutting achieving carbon neutrality for its building stock by 2050. While the goal is ambitious, the challenges are significant.Carine Sebi, Professor of Energy Economics, Grenoble École de Management (GEM)Joachim Schleich, Professor of Energy Economics, Grenoble École de Management (GEM)Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/927072018-03-02T11:58:08Z2018-03-02T11:58:08ZPoorest households hit hardest by UK climate change charges despite using least energy<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/208641/original/file-20180302-65519-keg9xj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The UK is one of the leading countries in addressing climate change. As well as signing international agreements, the country has its own target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions <a href="https://www.theccc.org.uk/tackling-climate-change/reducing-carbon-emissions/carbon-budgets-and-targets/">by 80% from 1990 levels by 2050</a>. And as part of the effort to meet that target, the government has added a series of charges to business and household energy bills. The average household energy bill is around £1,030 a year and the charges effectively act as a levy that costs households an average of £132 <a href="http://www.ukerc.ac.uk/asset/E4860C09-E371-40ED-A144020113AE077F/">(2016 figures)</a>.</p>
<p>The good news is that the levy is working. About <a href="https://www.nao.org.uk/report/controlling-the-consumer-funded-costs-of-energy-policies-the-levy-control-framework/">20% of the levy</a> is spent on improving the efficiency of homes. This is done by funding schemes such as the <a href="https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/environmental-programmes/eco">Energy Company Obligation</a>, which provides insulation and other energy-saving measures to low-income households. The average household energy bill would be £490 higher <a href="https://www.theccc.org.uk/publication/energy-prices-and-bills-report-2017/">without these improvements</a>. The money is also spent on research to improve renewable energy sources, such as wind and solar power, and help <a href="https://www.nao.org.uk/report/controlling-the-consumer-funded-costs-of-energy-policies-the-levy-control-framework/">bring down their cost</a>.</p>
<p>But is this really a fair way to raise the money? Our <a href="http://www.ukerc.ac.uk/publications/funding-a-low-carbon-energy-system.html">new research</a> shows that the poorest households not only are hit hardest by the levy but also receive less money back in the form of home improvements than they contribute in the first place.</p>
<p>To study the levy, we divided the UK into “income deciles”, ten groups each representing 10% of the population, divided from the lowest to the highest income. We then looked at how much energy use they were responsible for, both directly through their electricity, gas and fuel use, and from the other goods, services and infrastructure they use. The levy is only raised on a limited number of these “energy service demands”, namely home heat and power. So if your overall energy demand is higher for heat and power and lower for other services, you’ll pay a proportionally higher amount of the energy policy costs.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/208540/original/file-20180301-152584-1ain5hk.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/208540/original/file-20180301-152584-1ain5hk.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=356&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/208540/original/file-20180301-152584-1ain5hk.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=356&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/208540/original/file-20180301-152584-1ain5hk.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=356&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/208540/original/file-20180301-152584-1ain5hk.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=448&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/208540/original/file-20180301-152584-1ain5hk.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=448&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/208540/original/file-20180301-152584-1ain5hk.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=448&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Energy demand by income decile (group 1 lowest income, group 10 highest) and energy service.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">University of Leeds</span>, <span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>We found that, in a year, the richest households each consumed on average the same amount of energy that would be produced by 12.7 tonnes of oil, compared to 3.3 tonnes for the poorest households. But the poorest spent a much greater proportion of their income (10%) on energy than the richest (3%). And the energy used for heating and powering their homes – the part that their climate change levy bill is measured on – represented a much greater proportion of their overall energy use.</p>
<p>This means that adding the climate change levy to household energy bills hits the poorest households hardest. Energy bills account for a much greater share of their household income and more of their energy use is charged. In fact, the levy only affects a quarter of the total energy consumption of the richest households, compared to 53% for the poorest households. As a result, the richest homes use nearly four times more total energy than the poorest but only pay 1.8 times more towards energy policy costs.</p>
<p>One argument for the climate change levy is that poorer households benefit more because part of it is used to improve the efficiency of their homes. But we estimate that the poorest 10% of households currently pay £271m a year towards the levy, while the costs of the Carbon Savings Communities and Affordable Warmth schemes, which are designed to help the poorest homes, come to just £220m a year.</p>
<h2>Fairer alternatives</h2>
<p>We also compared the system of adding a levy to household bills to two other ways of funding energy policy. The first was adding a levy to the energy bills of businesses (including energy suppliers), at least some of which would be passed on to households who buy their goods and services. The second was paying for the policy with money raised from income tax. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/208544/original/file-20180301-152593-1kjldq4.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/208544/original/file-20180301-152593-1kjldq4.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=289&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/208544/original/file-20180301-152593-1kjldq4.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=289&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/208544/original/file-20180301-152593-1kjldq4.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=289&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/208544/original/file-20180301-152593-1kjldq4.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=364&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/208544/original/file-20180301-152593-1kjldq4.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=364&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/208544/original/file-20180301-152593-1kjldq4.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=364&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The proportions of household income required to meet the cost of three ways of funding energy policy.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">University of Leeds</span>, <span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>We found that the household levy is the most regressive system. Costs are placed purely on household bills, with the richest households paying 0.16% of their income compared to the poorest paying 1.5% (over nine times more).</p>
<p>Adding a levy to business bills is an improvement. Under this system, the richest homes pay 0.19% of their household income and the poorest pay 1.05% (still nearly six times more). </p>
<p>But funding energy policy from income tax would mean that the lowest income households wouldn’t contribute at all and the richest households would pay 0.5% of their income. Compared to a household levy, this approach would reduce costs for 70% of UK households, while the richest 30% would see an increase. The lowest income group would save £102 a year, at an additional cost of £410 for the richest households – which, at less than £8 a week, would make a relatively small difference to their lives.</p>
<p>Our analysis shows that the more you earn, the greater your energy demand, yet this is not reflected in current energy levy policy. It’s important to make sure that the costs associated with low carbon transitions are met by the households that cause the problem and those who can afford it, instead of hurting poorer households. We see it as essential that climate policies are compatible with social justice. Our research demonstrates it is clearly possible to design a system that is both fair and effective.</p>
<p><em>The headline of this article originally referred to charges on household energy bills as a climate change levy. This has been amended to avoid confusion with the government’s Climate Change Levy on non-domestic energy users.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/92707/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>John Barrett receives funding from the UK Research Council's Energy Programme as part of the UK Energy Research Centre.. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Anne Owen receives funding from the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council as part of a Post-Doctoral Fellowship in End-Use Energy Demand grant number RG.EVEA.111513.</span></em></p>Those on low incomes get less back from home improvement schemes than they pay in government charges.John Barrett, Professor of Energy and Climate Policy, University of LeedsAnne Owen, Research Fellow in Sustainable Consumption, University of LeedsLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/311892014-09-08T05:05:49Z2014-09-08T05:05:49ZInsulation royal commission exposes fatal market flaws<p>The most important finding in the final report of the <a href="http://www.homeinsulationroyalcommission.gov.au/Pages/default.aspx">Royal Commission into the Home Insulation Program</a> is the one the Abbott government is least likely to heed. One of the two crucial flaws Commissioner Ian Hanger identified was the decision to build the Home Insulation Program (HIP) around a laissez-faire market-delivery model. By offering an easily accessed rebate, the Rudd government decided that start-up companies, not the public service, would have oversight of the program.</p>
<p>Hanger’s report also exposes the fact that this choice of business model, a “turning point in the [Home Insulation Program]”, was imposed on the then Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (DEWHA) by forces close to then prime minister Kevin Rudd: the <a href="http://www.dpmc.gov.au/annual_reports/2009-10/html/chapter-3-domestic-policy/office-of-the-coordinator-general/">Office of the Coordinator-General</a> (a role Rudd created to oversee the stimulus measures) and Senator <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/insulation-blame-sheeted-home-to-alp-by-royal-commission/story-fn59niix-1227044453748">Mark Arbib</a>.</p>
<p>Former Labor attorney-general <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2014/s4078838.htm">Mark Dreyfus is right to say</a> that the A$20 million spent on the Royal Commission has not vastly altered the account of the insulation scheme that the previous eight inquiries had provided. The picture of a rushed program run by public servants with little understanding of the potential hazards of working in ceiling spaces was well-established.</p>
<p>Prime Minister Tony Abbott must also be lamenting the failure of the Royal Commission to confirm the multiple <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/insulation-blame-sheeted-home-to-alp-by-royal-commission/story-fn59niix-1227044453748">“direct personal warnings”</a> that Coalition MPs had claimed were issued to Rudd and Environment Minister <a href="http://www.petergarrett.com.au/">Peter Garrett</a>.</p>
<h2>A rush to outsource responsibility</h2>
<p>However, the findings do raise profound lessons for government. The dominance of market-knows-best ideology among the senior public service and Labor ministers and their staffers was critical to the mistaken and deadly assumptions behind the insulation program’s design. Linked to this, the commission has highlighted the disastrous role of private consultants and particularly the program’s <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/need-for-speed-won-over-safety-in-home-insulation-scheme/story-fn59niix-1227044309654">“external risk expert”</a>, Minter Ellison’s Margaret Coaldrake. Underpinning all these problems was the lack of program delivery experience and capacity within the environment department.</p>
<p>The Hanger report is the first to identify the abrupt imposition of a new delivery model, two months into the planning process, as a “critical” decision (page 4), “indeed the cause of later failures by the Australian government” (p. 157). Until a meeting on 31 March 2009, environment department officials had planned to contract major regional firms for recruiting, training and supervising the new insulation installer workforce.</p>
<p>This “regional brokerage” model (similar to that administered by the states in the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Building_the_Education_Revolution">Building the Education Revolution</a> school halls stimulus program) itself relied on outsourcing, albeit to experienced companies with “skin in the game”. But Minter Ellison’s first risk assessment found the department’s inexperience made it virtually impossible that the contracts would be signed off in time for the July 1 roll-out announced by Rudd. Minter Ellison’s suggested treatment for this and most other risks was to transfer “the largest risks to third parties (effective outsourcing)” (p. 117).</p>
<p>As Hanger notes, it was likely this risk report that informed the decision by the Office of the Coordinator-General (OCG) and Senator Arbib (p. 106) to push for a wholly new model for the home insulation program. The resulting “market-delivery” (p. 127) rebate model was unilaterally imposed on environment department officials without warning at a meeting that Hanger found was “structured to impose the OCG delivery model on DEWHA” (p. 136).</p>
<h2>Letting the market rip</h2>
<p>Rather than contract large companies to deliver the program, the government would provide a Medicare-administered rebate coupled with a low-barrier-to-entry online registration system. Market forces would do the rest. It was this recipe of funding and easy registration that drove the 15-fold increase in installations as the number of installation companies grew from 200 before the insulation program to 8,359 (p. 2).</p>
<p>As well as a zeal for meeting Rudd’s July 1 roll-out deadline, the OCG-Arbib model was “designed to allow market forces to work and deliver the most efficiency/effectiveness without providing a centralised solution” (p. 128). It would be a “light-touch regulatory model” (p. 131) that would “let the market operate with few restrictions” (p. 131).</p>
<p>The insulation program was constructed in response to the Global Financial Crisis, which Rudd and others categorised as a crisis of “neoliberalism”. And yet the public servants, and even Labor ministers involved in designing the scheme, were driven by the notion that public involvement should be minimised while, in the words of the public servants, they “let the market rip” (p. 144).</p>
<p>And rip it did. Every month that the program ran, a year’s worth of insulation activity was generated. The government orchestrated this situation and Hanger has found (p. 3) that the government was responsible for the results:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>1.1.18 The reality is that the Australian Government conceived of, devised and implemented a program that enabled very large numbers of inexperienced workers – often engaged by unscrupulous and avaricious employers or head contractors, who were themselves inexperienced in insulation installation – to undertake potentially dangerous work. It should have done more to protect them. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>The commission has found that even when government outsources work, “risk cannot be abrogated” (p.309). This has profound implications for the delivery of government programs by both sides of politics.</p>
<h2>The delusion of outsourcing risk</h2>
<p>As incredible as it may now seem, the public service saw the market-driven delivery model that relied on the ballooning of start-up companies as reducing the risk profile of the program. This can only be explained because the notion of risk that prevailed among program designers had nothing to do with the provision of a safe program.</p>
<p>Risk management was instead concerned to minimise the financial, political, legal and reputational risks to the Commonwealth. While shared across the insulation program management team, this concept of risk was embodied by the Minter Ellison risk expert Margaret Coaldrake. She told (p. 111) the commission:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The focus for the project was on risks to the Commonwealth and [the insulation program’s] implementation because the Commonwealth cannot manage a risk for someone else.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Hanger’s report sharply rejects Coaldrake’s understanding, saying (p. 119):</p>
<blockquote>
<p>That view is flawed … The risk to the Commonwealth of the [Home Insulation Program] includes the risk to the safety of one of its citizens undertaking work as part of the program.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Despite employing a “bevy” of risk experts, until the electrocution of 25-year-old insulation installer Matthew Fuller in October 2009, the risks facing installers were not mentioned in Minter Ellison’s 20-page central “Risk Register”. When questioned about this, Coaldrake told the commission that her role was merely facilitation and that no one in the department had informed her that workers could be injured as part of the program.</p>
<p>In fact, the commission uncovered evidence that injury to installers had been raised at an early DEWHA risk workshop. It was listed in early drafts of Coaldrake’s own risk register. However, between 10.54am and 12.05pm on 27 March 2009, this risk disappeared from the register, and neither Coaldrake nor any of the DEWHA staff redressed its omission during the crucial next six months of the program.</p>
<h2>Governments have lost in-house expertise</h2>
<p>Hanger finds that the Commonwealth did not have the in-house expertise to purchase and manage the “expert services” of Coaldrake (p. 312) whose role in the insulation program Hanger describes as “patently inadequate” (p. 5). </p>
<p>This finding echoes that of the <a href="http://www.news.com.au/national/breaking-news/final-report-on-school-building-the-education-revolution-released/story-e6frfku9-1226090773438">Building the Education Revolution Implementation Taskforce</a>, which found that state and territory education departments lacked the in-house skills and expertise to act as an “informed buyer” in dealing with the construction firms that delivered that program. Without in-house architects, planners and project managers, the government was open to accepting exorbitant management fees and unable to prevent sub-standard delivery.</p>
<p>Lack of public service capacity is the first point Hanger addresses in his lessons for the future. He notes (p. 301) that “the retention of outside experts did not always overcome the knowledge gaps that existed in the department”. </p>
<p>Hanger’s report paints a damning picture of the results of decades of outsourcing under the neo-liberal rubric of market efficiency and down-sizing. Unless public service capacity is rebuilt and the market-knows-best mentality inside the government replaced, it is only a matter of time before we repeat the mistakes of the home insulation program.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/31189/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jean Parker is affiliated with Solidarity.</span></em></p>The most important finding in the final report of the Royal Commission into the Home Insulation Program is the one the Abbott government is least likely to heed. One of the two crucial flaws Commissioner…Jean Parker, Assistant researcher, Macquarie UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/312232014-09-04T02:12:51Z2014-09-04T02:12:51ZTragic accidents by design: finally, a finding of systemic blame<p>The damning report of the Royal Commission into the Home Insulation Program (HIP) was <a href="http://www.homeinsulationroyalcommission.gov.au/Pages/default.aspx">released</a> on Monday. It cites multiple failures of ministers and public servants to foresee and prevent circumstances that would result in the tragic deaths of four young men. These deaths were avoidable; they were the result of system design that was both rushed and conflicted.</p>
<p>Commissioner Ian Hanger QC reported:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>In my view, each death would, and should, not have occurred had the HIP been properly designed and implemented.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The design of the HIP was undoubtedly flawed. Its consequences were horrendous for killed and injured workers and their families, let alone businesses and employees who lost their livelihoods after the Rudd government scheme’s sudden withdrawal. However, that this has attracted the attention of a royal commission which has specifically noted the design of the scheme as a contributing factor to the deaths and ruination is notable. </p>
<p>Many everyday systems designed with good intent ultimately, inadvertently, produce deaths and injuries. This includes workplaces, health systems and hospitals, sports activities and road transport, to name just a few. </p>
<h2>Recognising the risks of poor system design</h2>
<p>Whatever the government’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/pink-batts-and-union-inquiries-revive-a-tradition-of-political-retribution-26592">alleged motivations</a> for the instigation of the royal commission, its findings may set a precedent for finally acknowledging the contributing role of poor system design in producing economic or other circumstances that produce deaths and injuries. A government presently happy to point the finger <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/latest-news/insulation-report-shows-dysfunction-pm/story-fn3dxiwe-1227043679951">at its predecessor’s ineptitude</a> may need to take stock of the report’s potential implications.</p>
<p>For example, around <a href="https://www.bitre.gov.au/statistics/safety/">250 people</a> are killed every year in crashes involving heavy vehicles. This makes truck driving one of the most dangerous occupations in Australia. The heavy vehicle freight system regularly, predictably and reliably produces avoidable deaths and misery on a grand scale.</p>
<p>So what’s going wrong?</p>
<p>Driver fatigue and sleepiness is considered to contribute up to <a href="http://www.monash.edu.au/miri/research/reports/papers/fatigue.html">40% of trucking accidents</a>. Rather than simply blaming individual drivers for falling asleep, there has been growing recognition that system design factors are significant in producing conditions that increase fatigue and crash risk. </p>
<p>The overwhelming message from studies of the freight system is that performance-based per-kilometre or per-trip “piece-rate” payments encourage drivers to keep driving at the expense of “non-productive” activities such as sleep and rest breaks, maintenance or safety checks.</p>
<p>Despite convincing evidence of the role of piece-rate payment in driver fatigue, the conflict between payments and safety is often challenged by industry groups. <a href="http://saferates.org.au/">Transport unions</a> have generally advocated additional system regulation to ensure safety standards are met or maintained. </p>
<p>Owner-drivers, trucking companies and <a href="http://www.tandlnews.com.au/2014/02/12/article/industry-divided-heavy-vehicle-national-law-started-monday-10-february/">industry bodies</a>, however, have shown preference for more flexible, deregulated environments, which place responsibility for safety back on individual companies and drivers.</p>
<h2>Another insulation scandal in the making?</h2>
<p>Politically, such tension has also played out in the establishment, and recently proposed <a href="https://employment.gov.au/review-road-safety-remuneration-system">review</a>, of the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal. It is clear this is a decision that will affect the design and safety of the freight transport system.</p>
<p>Should heavy-vehicle crashes, deaths and injuries increase following the tribunal’s slated removal, might its effect on the design of the freight transport network draw the same attention as the HIP has received? Circling lawyers with a taste for percentages of compensation pay-outs may like to think so.</p>
<p>The Home Insulation Program as it was designed incentivised dangerous behaviour. Had the royal commission reached an alternative view – that responsibility for worker safety lay squarely at the feet of individuals and companies and that system design really had little to do with its ultimate deadly outcomes – it is unlikely either the government or the public would have considered this an acceptable finding. </p>
<p>That this same tendency to discount system design factors and blame individuals applies in many other realms of worker and public safety appears largely to escape us.</p>
<p>While the politics of blame and counter-blame emanating from the royal commission play out in the public gaze, barely reported injuries and deaths will continue to occur at the hands of other systems set up to produce them. Tomorrow, the next day and the day after that, multiple people will be killed and injured in transport accidents.</p>
<p>These numbers are regular, predictable and avoidable. As a society, however, we seem perfectly ready to <a href="http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/fetchObject.action?uri=info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.1001463&representation=PDF">accept them</a>, almost as a cost of doing business.</p>
<p>It would be challenging for anyone to contend that our current transport system, one that produces such ongoing misery, has been “properly designed and implemented”. Now who is responsible for that?</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/31223/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jason Thompson is a member of the Australasian College of Road Safety, Economics Society of Australia, Australasian Society for Health and Behavioural Medicine, and Rehabilitation Psychology Division of the American Psychological Association.</span></em></p>The damning report of the Royal Commission into the Home Insulation Program (HIP) was released on Monday. It cites multiple failures of ministers and public servants to foresee and prevent circumstances…Jason Thompson, Research Fellow, PhD Candidate, Monash UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.