Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[crazy canuck]

I don't think the concept of embedded carbon is particularly widespread or has much currency in North America. The concept makes sense I think, but I don't believe I've come across it until this thread right now.

The idea that there needs to be a careful evaluation of carbon impact on an individual structure level for demolition and/ or new builds is not something I've come across before locally, even as an aspiration.

Is this a UK thing or a wider European thing? Does it have much currency elsewhere?

It is embedded in the building bylaws in Vancouver. You don't hear much about it because all new construction must have zero carbon impact by 2030.  Embedded carbon of the destruction of the existing structure is part of the calculation.

Building bylaws are the jurisdiction of municipalities, so you will likely not find something like a provincial or federal standard. But from what I understand, it is being implemented in most municipalities, at least in BC and Ontario. I'm not saying it's not being implemented in the other Provinces, I just don't know.

The Brits appear to be ahead of us in this regard, and that is commendable.

[Sheilbh]

Ed Davey doing the Lib Dem's customary prop stunt to celebrate a victory
https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1682325051700379648?s=20

It looks lovely and sunny down in Somerset today.

[Gups]

ULEZ is a bit of a misnomer imo with something like 90% of cars meeting the standard https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/media/press-releases/2023/march/over-90-per-cent-of-cars-driving-in-outer-london-now-meet-the-ulez-standards

Labour might have done a better job in explaining how few people would have to pay the charge; I was surprised myself when I looked it all up.

Those stats are disputed by others. Certainly by registration's more like 80%. The RAC claims 700,000 cars and 150,000 other vehicles in outer London are non-compliant. I suspect that quite a lot of people driving in outer London are coming from or going to inner London which would skew the figures. Personally I'm in favour of ULEZ but it is very unpopular in outer London.

[Richard Hakluyt]

I suppose we could ask the question who drives cars more than 17 years old and diesel powered vans, as they are the people who will have to pay the charge. The answer to that being the poor at a guess; so once again a policy bears down hardest on those with the least wealth.

[Gups]

Most diesel cars 8 years or older will not be compliant. There's quite a few of those around.

[Sheilbh]

I suppose we could ask the question who drives cars more than 17 years old and diesel powered vans, as they are the people who will have to pay the charge. The answer to that being the poor at a guess; so once again a policy bears down hardest on those with the least wealth.

Yeah and I think we do need to work this out and how to do it. Because coming down the road we've got - transition to EVs and ban on sale of ICEs; replacing gas boilers; new energy efficiency standards and decarbonising homes. A lot of those - like the air quality standard Khan is trying to meet - are already baked in to legislation.

They're all going to be politically difficult as they affect people's lives, homes and can mean a bit personal cost. If we just U-turn on all of them then we'll never get to net zero (far less on target), but if we don't do it in a way that is and is felt to be fair then there's going to be one hell of a backlash.

This is why I think - which you're already seeing - positioning this as culture wars and actually there are no issues it's just people being taken in by far-right culture warriors is a really dangerous comfort blanket.

[mongers]

I suppose we could ask the question who drives cars more than 17 years old and diesel powered vans, as they are the people who will have to pay the charge. The answer to that being the poor at a guess; so once again a policy bears down hardest on those with the least wealth.

 

And a better solution isn't to give some poorer a handout or subsidy they have to apply for, but maybe have the wealthy taxed more to compensate for some of the increased pollution their lifestyles inflict on the rest of humanity.

[Jacob]

It is embedded in the building bylaws in Vancouver. You don't hear much about it because all new construction must have zero carbon impact by 2030.  Embedded carbon of the destruction of the existing structure is part of the calculation.

Building bylaws are the jurisdiction of municipalities, so you will likely not find something like a provincial or federal standard. But from what I understand, it is being implemented in most municipalities, at least in BC and Ontario. I'm not saying it's not being implemented in the other Provinces, I just don't know.

The Brits appear to be ahead of us in this regard, and that is commendable.

Interesting - and good to know.

The thing that confuses me vis-a-vis the British examples is that it doesn't seem to be controversial at all (as far as I can tell) and we have plenty of demolition and news construction. I don't recall any cases where construction projects have been denied for reasons of carbon impact (doesn't mean they haven't, of course, it just hasn't come up in local media that I've noticed).

Is that because our builders are better at carbon neutral construction or because our standards are more lax or less enforced?

[Tamas]

I wouldn't worry about NIMBY Island's building regulations and their relationship to rational thinking.

[Sheilbh]

The Brits appear to be ahead of us in this regard, and that is commendable

I think on climate and energy transition of big countries, the UK has done relatively well - and a lot of that has been in the last 13 years. It's probably the biggest achievement of the governments in that time. Since 1990/Kyoto our emissions are down by almost 50% which is, I believe, the largest fall in the G7.

On a per capita basis we've gone from being between Japan and Germany at about 11 tonnes of CO2 emissions down to being between France and Italy at about 5 tonnes - for comparison Germany and Japan are around 8-9 tonnes and Canada and the US 14-15.

Obviously we're not there and there's lots still to do. But I think it's going to get more difficult now because we're moving from the easy stuff (shut down the coal industry, take advantage of our abundant wind ) to the more challenging, micro stuff now - electrifying people's daily lives, decarbonising homes etc.

[Sheilbh]

Separately - whatever the annoyances of interest rates/will house prices fall etc. Still pretty glad I got out the rental market because this is tough:


Asking rental prices in London 28% higher than pre-pandemic - and I've heard horror stories about people offering higher than the asking price and/or to pay months of rent in advance, often unseen. It is crazy out there. The place I was renting went in less than a day.

[Jacob]

Yeah that's the same story here, re: rental costs.

[Sheilbh]

It's the main reason why I still think the big issue in the housing market here is lack of supply v high demand. Sounds similar in Canada.

I think there is something going on around the impact of very low interest rates, QE, "financialisation" and all that - but rental numbers like this just suggest to me that there's not enough places to live in the areas people want to live.

As someone who moved into London during the great crash and was paying less than £500 rent at one point - and that was in housing benefit because I was unemployed - I just do not know how grads and young people moving to London are doing it. Because wages, especially starting salaries, have not changed that much.

[Jacob]

Yeah we're seeing stories like "This person on roughly a median salary - whose job is to help find housing for vulnerable groups - is unable to find a place to live because they're priced out of the market."

[Gups]

It is embedded in the building bylaws in Vancouver. You don't hear much about it because all new construction must have zero carbon impact by 2030.  Embedded carbon of the destruction of the existing structure is part of the calculation.

Building bylaws are the jurisdiction of municipalities, so you will likely not find something like a provincial or federal standard. But from what I understand, it is being implemented in most municipalities, at least in BC and Ontario. I'm not saying it's not being implemented in the other Provinces, I just don't know.

The Brits appear to be ahead of us in this regard, and that is commendable.

Interesting - and good to know.

The thing that confuses me vis-a-vis the British examples is that it doesn't seem to be controversial at all (as far as I can tell) and we have plenty of demolition and news construction. I don't recall any cases where construction projects have been denied for reasons of carbon impact (doesn't mean they haven't, of course, it just hasn't come up in local media that I've noticed).

Is that because our builders are better at carbon neutral construction or because our standards are more lax or less enforced?

It's not controversial here either. Except with Tamas.