The Zero Carbon 2016 debate - so, what is the definition?

The cross-industry taskforce, Zero Carbon Hub, have been working on a document to aide the Government is its quest for zero carbon, and presented it to Housing Minister, Grant Schnapps at the start of March this year. Entitled ‘Carbon compliance: setting an appropriate limit for zero carbon new homes: findings and recommendations’’, it sets out 11 primary recommendations for delivering zero carbon homes from 2016.

Within their report, they acknowledge the enormity of this ask, and warned that the house building industry needs to overhaul the way it works if it is to meet new energy efficiency standards from 2016. ‘Ensuring new homes’ built performance on carbon compliance is in-line with their designed performance will be a major challenge’, the report says, which will ‘have an impact on every aspect of the house building process’.

For that reason, the government needs to ‘make its decisions promptly to stimulate innovation and give the industry time to respond’, the report states.

So, in the budget a mere couple of weeks later, the Government did indeed make decisions promptly, and George Osborne revealed that new homes would not have to be fully zero carbon but built in accordance to Level 5 of the Code for Sustainable Homes (Level 6 is the highest standard achievable, which is zero carbon).

Implications of this change are that, whilst Energy Efficiency and Carbon Compliance are still paramount, the emissions from Allowable Solutions, which is essentially electrical appliances in the home, are no longer included in the definition. As these appliances can account for between one third and one half of domestic emissions, it’s no surprise that people are now confused as to what exactly the definition of zero carbon is, and what we’re now aiming for.

On hearing the announcement in the budget, the UK Green Building Council’s chief executive Paul King made his feelings clear very quickly, saying in a statement, “a zero carbon home will no longer do what it says on the tin. In the space of two weeks, this government has gone from a firm commitment on zero carbon homes, to a watered down policy.”

So, where has that left the industry now – is anyone clear on the definition of zero carbon? And, even with the omitance of Allowable Solutions, will we really be ready to wholeheartedly deliver on the Energy Efficiency and Carbon Compliance by 2016?

There are so many factors to consider in this mammoth task, that even code Level 5 seems unobtainable. At present, most developments under construction or to be approved are still at Level 3 or lower and, although there are more and more renewable technologies on the market, benefits could potentially be exaggerated and life-spans unknown.  

This is illustrated in a recent statement by Andrew Stunnel (Junior Housing Minister for the Liberal Democrats), who reported that “there are early indications that those zero carbon homes already constructed are not living up to their name. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation’s evaluation of its Elm Tree Mews development found that, though residents were comfortable and pleased with their heating bills, the homes were losing 54 per cent more heat than they were designed to.”

Add to this the limited knowledge and understanding of the general public as to what zero carbon entails, the ‘ugliness’ of solar panels and the costly technology and it’s associated maintenance, and code Level 4 seems more realistic, certainly for 2016.

However, during George Osbourne’s Budget speech, he did greatly acknowledge the findings of the document supplied by the Zero Carbon Hub, and agreed that a carbon compliance standard be set, which will form the basis of the consultations on Buildings Regulations changes in 2013 and 2016.The Hub’s recommendation to move to ‘as-built performance’ of new homes, as opposed to ‘performance as projected by design’, will be at the forefront of thinking in future Building Regulation changes, although, as Neil Jefferson, chief executive of the Zero Carbon Hub points out himself, “exactly how this works and how we ensure new homes really do deliver carbon savings will now form the basis of discussion and investigation across the sector”.

Hope that, perhaps Code 5 is obtainable, but within what timeframe? And, just to play devil’s advocate, even if the ‘zero carbon’ code Level 6 were to be obtainable, if you dig deep into the code and its ‘rules’, you could still find faults and raise questions as to the true meaning of the term.

For instance, the code looks at issues such as the regulated emissions through SAP, water usage through water consumption measures, materials and the energy used in their manufacture and sustainability by using the green guide. What these do not take into account is the transport of the material, i.e. is it really more sustainable to transport a timber joist from Canada to Britain compared to a concrete floor plank from within the same country or even town?

Can we really achieve a zero carbon house given the energy that goes into constructing it, manufacturing the components, transporting the components, running the house, maintaining the dwelling and furnishing the dwelling over its life-time? Furnishings and the objects we buy to fill our houses all need energy to manufacture them.

To have a truly zero carbon house we should not just be looking at the regulated emissions but also the unregulated emissions as well as the energy used in the production of materials, transport etc.

A pure zero carbon dwelling will only ever be a possibility if it incorporates facilities to generate power or energy over the life-time of the building to balance with the total energy used in all aspects of construction, transport, manufacturing, living, maintenance etc, that goes into a dwelling.  You could argue that this will never be possible, but then, who knows what the future holds in terms of new technologies using renewable energy?

Ultimately, we all know and understand that something has to be done to greatly reduce carbon emissions from the built environment, and the Government is bravely tackling the issue head-on. Perhaps they’re just trying to achieve too much too soon.

Rome wasn’t built in a day, and it would appear zero carbon hones were not built too quickly either; but it seems the definition of ‘zero carbon’ is a main sticking point, and very misleading. So, given the confusion, and quite rightly so, perhaps a change as simple as the title of the policy could clear things up a little. As we’re now focused on achieving homes with greatly reduced carbon emissions, why not say it as it is – it’s not a zero carbon 2016 policy but a carbon reduction 2016 policy. Then the policy really would do what it says on the tin and everyone can get on with achieving it.