Communities and Local Government Select Committee

Inquiry into Existing Housing Stock and Climate Change

Memorandum of Written Evidence by Beyond Green

Summary of Themes

Lifestyles and Behaviour

Our behaviour necessarily underpins all action to reduce emissions. The energy we use is the first problem we face, and undoubtedly the foremost. Measures to make that use more efficient, and to use energy which is associated with lower emissions, can only have an impact if they are in addition to, not instead of, changes in how we live.

It is our lifestyles themselves, and not the policies, technologies and investments which frame them, which must change if we are to avoid catastrophic climate change.

A Whole House Approach

It does not and can not work to calculate the theoretical carbon savings achieved by the replacement of a boiler, or the fitting of insulation. A house is a thermal system and must be considered as a totality in order to design effective interventions.

Beyond this, other factors such as the value of the property, the tenure under which it is held, how long it is likely to last and its location will all influence the appropriate solution.

Finally there are the residents. Changes to the building should only be made if the potential savings they represent will be maximised by those who live there.

A Whole Neighbourhood Approach

There are a large number of potential gains in efficiency which can only be achieved at a neighbourhood (rather than a single house) scale. These include "hard" gains such as the installation of shared generation facilities, and "soft" measures such as the sharing of experience. Focusing on neighbourhoods also ensures that solutions are appropriate to the locality.

Full Response

The impact of existing stock

A clear distinction must be drawn between the potential for reductions against predicted future emissions and reductions against an existing emissions baseline. Although a huge amount of house building will be carried out in the UK over the coming years, demolition rates remain low. Even if all new homes are built to zero carbon standards between now and 2050, and demolition rates increase significantly, this can only contribute at the most a 5% reduction in domestic emissions against the 1990 baseline soon to be enshrined in law.

Rather than comparing the impact of new build and existing stock, the most useful exercise that could be undertaken would be to categorise and quantify the impacts of existing housing according to: type (flat, terrace, semi-detached etc); materials, construction and thermal efficiency; tenure (owned, rented, social housing etc); and demographic.

A major complication to the impact of housing stock is introduced when behavioural factors are considered. The "rebound effect" and the "Khazzoom-Brookes postulate" suggest that energy efficiency savings have historically increased and not decreased total energy use[1].

In other words, a building's SAP rating and the efficiency of its boiler are not enough to tell what impact the overall household will have.

Respective roles

Reducing the carbon emissions produced by existing housing stock in the UK is without doubt a "wicked problem" as defined by the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution[2]. This means that it is not considered productive to attempt to fully apportion causality - and hence responsibility - to different groups.

Solutions exist, but these solutions require a variety of co-ordinated actions from different groups. As well as residents, homeowners, landlords, local government, central government and the energy industry, there is a need to consider finance providers, non-governmental organisations, sources of information, advice and assistance (whether national or community based), and other areas of government (especially regional agencies and non-departmental public bodies).

Their respective roles in any solution will differ depending on the exact context and it is our recommendation that the most fruitful approach to carbon reduction is to take a whole house and whole neighbourhood approach, to determine the functions that are necessary to reduce carbon in each of these spheres, and to then implement means of satisfying these functions.

It is a feature of current government policy relating to domestic carbon reduction that the necessary measures have been standardised, and the roles and responsibilities in implementing them have been separated and apportioned to a single agency or group, meaning that measures taken are not properly prioritised and are not capitalised on as they could be.

The Energy Efficiency Commitment (EEC) is a good example of this. Energy companies have been handed the responsibility of installing particular pieces of hardware without any need to connect this to associated measures, or to mitigate the well known and well documented "rebound effect" which was mentioned earlier.

An energy company could satisfy its allocated responsibility by installing a super-efficient boiler in a house with no insulation or draft-proofing, which could then be used to keep the thermostat at 21 degrees in winter with the windows left open.

We need to establish shared responsibility and active co-operation between the groups involved to do what is needed to reduce emissions at the household scale and at the neighbourhood scale.

Information provision and Energy Performance Certificates

The imminent introduction of Energy Performance Certificates (EPCs) represents the most significant step the government has so far taken in trying to influence the private housing market to take account of energy efficiency and carbon performance.

Although we will have to wait to see how effective they prove to be, EPCs hold the potential to perform in a similar way to the energy efficiency labelling of consumer white goods. In this market we have seen the emergence of deliberate editing of choice by retailers, who have quickly chosen not to stock the worst performing products as they are seen as a sign of poor quality and hold inherently negative associations.

This is a development which goes beyond price adjustments, and can be considered the holy grail of the EPC scheme. Just as some individuals will refuse to live in certain neighbourhoods regardless of any financial savings, it is to be hoped that homebuyers will eventually refuse the least efficient houses, regardless of any calculation setting ongoing energy costs against initial outlay.

There is already some evidence of the emergence of a cultural, values-based attitude which inherently favours energy efficient housing. In a recent report by Ipsos MORI[3] it was found the most popular reason given for wanting to live in a sustainable housing development was to "Help me do my bit to save the planet", an answer given by 54% of respondents as opposed to only 35% who felt it would "Reduce the amount I spend on bills".

In addition, perceptions of sustainable homes were overwhelmingly positive. They were seen as "modern" rather than "old fashioned", "attractive" rather than "ugly", "hi-tech" rather than "low-tech", "fashionable" rather than "un-fashionable" and "good value for money" rather than "poor value for money".

The challenge for EPCs is to ensure that these perceptions apply to existing housing stock to at least the same extent to which they already apply to new developments.

Whether they will achieve this remains to be seen. What can be said for certain is that they will undoubtedly have a much greater effect if they are accompanied by other measures designed to put a price on carbon, the most extreme of which would be an individualised carbon rationing system.

Existing initiatives

There have been various attempts to improve carbon performance, but they are piecemeal and tend to focus on technical specifications, theoretical measurements and physical kit rather than on the actual real life performance of a home.

The Energy Efficiency Commitment (EEC) has seen insulation and efficient boilers fitted in homes, as well as the distribution of low-energy lightbulbs and other energy efficient appliances.

The Decent Homes programme has introduced similar measures to social housing, alongside wider refurbishments, with the aim of providing "thermal comfort" through efficient heating and effective insulation. Fuel poverty programmes in designated "Warm Zones" have pursued similar aims.

Alongside these more strategic programmes, there are also government grants available to install renewable energy technologies as well as energy efficiency measures. These have been criticised, but nevertheless have seen significant take-up of carbon saving measures.

What is missing from the scheme, however, is a consistent and predictable incentive for selling excess energy back to the national grid. Renewables Obligation Certificates are intended for this purpose, but they do not guarantee a return, and so make it impossible to accurately calculate a payback period which in turn makes it difficult to arrange credit to finance the remainder of the installation cost.

A much more coherent approach can be found in the idea of fiked Feed-In Tariffs which are the most widely used form of incentive in Europe for the installation of renewable technologies (and associated efficiency measures which maximise the payback of installed technologies).

The problem with existing initiatives is that they do not take a whole house approach. The implication is that all that is necessary to reduce the emissions of existing stock is to retrofit some kit, make the necessary calculations, and assume that the job is done.

The reality is far more complex, and the behaviour of residents is absolutely crucial. Not only can home owners easily erode any efficiency gains by, for example, turning their thermostat up a few degrees in winter because it is now cheaper to heat their homes, but there is also a missed opportunity to engage individuals, households and even entire communities and neighbourhoods in active attempts to reduce their carbon footprint across all aspects of their lives, and to minimise their wider ecological impacts.

Technology

When retrofitting existing stock, there is a natural limit to the effectiveness of the introduction of technologies. Diminishing returns mean that by far the most cost-effective measures are often low-tech.

For example, in an old terraced house with sash windows, it seems much more worthwhile to fit draft excluders, blinds and thick curtains to all windows and ensure that windows are not open while the heating is on, and that blinds and curtains are shut when the sun goes down than to replace all the windows, or even to fit them with double glazing.

We have all the technologies we need to achieve a 40% reduction in the emissions from existing stock through behaviour changes to reduce the use of energy, efficiency measures to get the most from what is used, and renewable technologies to reduce the emissions from what is used.

The remaining reduction which will be needed to achieve the minimum target of 60% by 2050 will have to come from lower carbon energy supplies.

Again, the technology exists to achieve these savings although there will always be room for improvements. This is where the government most needs to encourage the development of technologies and, much more importantly, rapid implementation.

Our ambition must be to effectively apply those technologies which already exist (and have often existed for a number of years), and to maximise their effectiveness through behaviour changes.

With this end in sight, the main focus for innovation and investment should be into ways to quickly and accurately assess the most effective measures to take in any specific house (a function which could easily be added to the production of EPCs) and into how to effectively engage individuals, households and neighbourhoods to change their behaviour.

If this is achieved, then a market should emerge of sufficient scale to naturally incentivise further technological developments.

Costs

This focus on the energy hierarchy (reduce use, increase efficiency, micro generation, then cleaner energy supplies) is not only the most coherent approach, but also the most cost effective. Not only does it mean that the cheapest things are done first, it also ensures that maximum gains are achieved from the installation of those measures which do have a significant cost attached to them.

Many of these measures, however, are by their very nature cost-neutral at the least. Although pay-back periods will vary with context, there will always be financial savings which accompany reduced energy use (the only exception being the introduction of large-scale low-carbon energy generation, which will require the active manipulation of the energy market to become significantly cost-effective).

The implementation of the energy hierarchy can be encouraged through the provision of loans to install equipment, with repayments structured so that they match the savings which should be achievable as a result of behaviour changes combined with newly installed equipment.

If individuals do not achieve the savings they could do, the loans will then provide a financial incentive to re-address behaviours.

These loans could be provided by a number of different institutions, from Registered Social Landlords to traditional mortgage lenders to central government, with varying terms and rates of interest.

If it is combined with the gradual incentivisation of low-carbon living, this approach provides a means of achieving all possible efficiency savings with cost-neutrality to both residents and government. Government resources can then be focused on large-scale infrastructure and energy generation.

There are measures which would greatly encourage more widespread uptake of green financing packages, and foremost amongst them is the implementation of Feed-In Tariffs. These would allow the calculation of a guaranteed pay back on the installation of renewable energy technologies combined with energy efficiency measures.

Lifestyle

The single factor that can bring back some kind of coherence back to the need to reduce carbon emissions from domestic stock is a consideration of how people live.

The government itself has an approach to behaviour change, articulated in its Sustainable Development Strategy[4]. The recommendation is that behaviours can only be changed through an approach which simultaneously enables, encourages, engages and exemplifies.

Changes to the built fabric of a house can only qualify as enabling more low-carbon living. The access that has already been gained in order to effect these changes have been a missed opportunity to engage. Other attempts at engagement have been limited to confusing and occasionally even conflicting information and advice. Attempts to encourage changes (mostly through incentives and disincentives) have been piecemeal and confused. There is little in the UK that exemplifies a low carbon domestic lifestyle.

To make the reductions in domestic carbon emissions which are possible, there must be a more considered, concerted, holistic approach to altering the homes that we live in, and how we live in them.

Wider Opportunities

It is likely that for this to be possible, an approach will be needed that does not consider households in isolation, but instead looks at the level of neighbourhoods and communities.

This is important in encouraging enthusiasm, the types of fundamental attitude change that were mentioned above, and in generating the co-operation and social capital which can be generated when people work together.

An article which appeared in the Guardian earlier this year[5] described how climate change has brought together the community of a small town called Wolvercote in Oxfordshire. Young aspirational families who care about climate change are learning lessons in economy from the older generation of post-war settlers who have never given up the habits of vegetable gardening and repairing broken items which stood them in good stead in times of scarcity. The article even reports a change in the neighbourly crimes which now go noticed. 4x4s and well-lit houses are suddenly frowned upon.

Perhaps the most remarkable aspect of this story, however, is that not only has tackling climate change as a community helped the villagers to do it more effectively, it has also served to unite the community and overcome traditional antagonisms:

"there is a kind of community commitment that may sound idealist and naive but that defies cynicism - people are talking to each other and changing their lifestyles - and they are doing it together."

This may be a particularly emotive example, but it is not an isolated one. Villages around the country are declaring ambitions to be low-carbon, zero-carbon or carbon neutral. The Transition Town initiative in particular has been hugely popular. Communities as diverse as Brixton in London, Totnes in Devon and Kinsale in Ireland have signed up to a scheme which helps them apply the principles of low impact living to the way their neighbourhoods functions, and to help each other reduce their own impact and that of their houses.

The idea of a locally replicable approach to reducing emissions rather than small schemes which can be expanded nationally is an eminently sensible one. It means that lessons are learnt, it allows actions to be taken up where and when they are likely to be successful, and it makes allowances for context and difference.

Nicky Gavron has advocated this approach, and emerging models suggest that there may be financially viable ways of establishing Energy Services Companies to service existing stock (this could initially done through the extension of companies which have found success on new developments expanding their reach to neighbouring areas).

This approach reconciles the difficulties that occur tackling carbon emissions from existing stock in a realistic and practical way, but most of all it presents a basis for action which can go a long way to realising the government's aspirations for better communities.

Furthermore, it takes advantage of the well-documented, though difficult to quantify "halo effect" whereby individuals and groups who are successfully engaged in reducing their domestic carbon emissions take an interest in mitigating their wider climate change and ecological impacts.

Beyond Green's Work

Beyond Green is actively working to try to achieve reductions in domestic emissions from existing housing stock. The three main areas which our work covers are:

· Media content and lifestyles advice, primarily through our Director Joanna Yarrow, engaging the general public and inspiring them to reduce their impacts.

· The development of a green financing package offer in association with a major high street bank. This will deliver cost-neutral carbon reductions through the provision of loans to cover the cost of implementing a whole house action plan, based on the EPC, with the loans paid back at the rate of expected utility bill savings (which are, of course, dependent on the behaviour of residents).

· The strategising of whole neighbourhood emissions reduction plans with Registered Social Landlords.

Beyond Green helps clients and project teams to treat sustainability as an integral part of what they do. We are strategists and practitioners with a wide-ranging experience of the application of leading-edge sustainability. Our multi-disciplinary teams of planners, researchers, designers, engineers and communicators are supported by a network of outstanding expert associates. Together, we conceive, plan, design, communicate, consult on, develop business models for and help to deliver sustainable developments.

---

[1] Saunders, H. D. (1992) The Khazzoom-Brookes Postulate and Neoclassical Growth. The Energy Journal, 13(4), 159-169

[2] RCEP (2007) The 26^th Report of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution: The Urban Environment

[3] Ipsos MORI (2007) Tipping Point or Turning Point? Social marketing and climate change

[4] Defra (2005) Securing The Future: delivering UK sustainable development strategy

[5] Jane Muir, A little can go a long way, Society Guardian, Wednesday June 13, 2007