Gee, I'll bet that place ain't cheap to heat. Bring on the bulldozer!
Posted on 05/29/2005 7:24:58 PM PDT by blam
3m homes 'should be demolished' to cut global warming
By Charles Clover
(Filed: 30/05/2005)
Some 3.2 million homes must be demolished over the next 45 years to fulfil the Government's aspirations for tackling global warming, academics have warned.
The report, by researchers at Oxford University's Environmental Change Institute and Heriot Watt University, is bound to re-ignite the controversy caused by the proposed demolition of 400,000 homes in the Midlands and the North.
Households account for around 30 per cent of Britain's total energy use and the researchers conclude there is a "desperate need" for a clear strategy for housing stock to bring about the 60 per cent reduction in the country's fossil fuel emissions that Tony Blair has said he wants to see by 2050.
The academics say that Britain's 25 million homes are among the oldest and least efficient in Europe and recommend that 14 per cent of the current stock - 3.2 million homes - should be pulled down by 2050.
Listed buildings would be spared, but the plan would quadruple the present demolition rate to 80,000 homes a year by 2016.
"Care must be taken not to invest money in upgrading those homes that will ultimately be demolished," say the authors.
Even so, two thirds of the housing stock of 2050 has already been built and this will have to be made more efficient. The immediate priority is for walls and lofts, then solid walls, to be insulated. By 2050 all windows will be double or even triple glazed. The report, the "40 Per Cent House", emphasises the need to construct the 10 million new homes that will be built by 2050 to far greener standards than in current building regulations.
John Prescott's department has said that from April 2006 all publicly-funded new homes - including 120,000 planned for Thames Gateway - will comply with a new code for sustainable buildings, due to be released this year.
Quinlan Terry, the leading classical architect, criticised the researchers' recommendations last week at a conference in London about designing sustainable buildings.
He said the proposed demolition missed a "bigger picture", which included the fossil fuels already expended in putting up existing buildings and how long the new buildings would last.
He said that the embodied energy in each Victorian terrace house scheduled for demolition as part of the Government's urban renewal plans in the North was equivalent to 15,000 litres of petrol, according to the Buildings Research Establishment.
The carbon from the fossil fuels burnt to build our existing housing stock was already in the atmosphere, warming the Earth. "So why repeat the process?" asked Mr Terry.
I challenge any competent scientist or scientific group to prove that statement false conclusively. It never has been, BTW
"I got the impression that the old drafty homes will be torn down and replaced with modern, energy efficient ones. Of course it will take energy to construct those..."
I got an almost identical impression. I would add that these "modern, energy efficient ones" will also be much smaller.
Just as with automobiles, the easiest path to reduced emissions is to reduce the size since this requires less emissions to build in the first place and less emissions for heating and cooling. Besides the econazis dislike large homes.
"Nothing wrong with getting rid of the decrepit and putting up new ones."
Certainly as long as it is the owners and not the government deciding which homes should be destroyed.
My cat is a socialist run amuck. Actually now that I think about him, he is a deadbeat.
Gee, I'll bet that place ain't cheap to heat. Bring on the bulldozer!
.
ping
In todays Chicago Sun-Times there is a story about the increasing demand and usage of water from Lake Michigan..If you read this story you come away with the idea that once the water is used it is then gone, never to be seen again...The disinformation parade just keeps marching along..
-this is where we're headed if we don't fight back the trend toward socialism here.-
The gubmint can already confiscate your home, no problem, and it's happening all over the place. Much is over "environmental" stuff, but also for development. So, there's no need to wait.
Demolish their homes and put the people where?? in "interrment camps, nursing homes, public housing"????
This is the most insane and extreme idea I have ever heard, demolishing peoples homes because they do not meet energy efficiency standards.
In 45 years, the population will most certainly increase. so what will be the cost of housing those additional people, and the current population be?
But the bright side is that in 45 years hopefully somebody will stop this insanity.
The house belongs to Babs.
Think of all the trees that will have to be cut down to construct the new housing? Not to mention all the energy it takes to transport the materials and construct the foundations etc. How about firing the kilns that bake the brick? gosh all the clay that will have to be mined from the ground to make the new brick? Wacko loonie bin pea brain small picture clueless enviroweenie politics.
One American CONTRIBUTES MUCH MORE to the rest of the world than 20 Bangladeshies. If America worked like the rest of the world does at this point it would take 1000 Bangladeshies to equal what ONE AMERICAN contributes.It is up to the rest of the world to IMPROVE its standard of living, but it cannot be achieved by destroying ours.
Productivity is directly connected to living standards.
Science knows a colony of mice will eventually starve to death without finding new ways to locate food. That is population control the natural way. Survival of the fittest, the most resourceful and intelligent is the natural way. yet this is completely ignored by the so called scholars.
The Cousteau statements represents the complete idiocy of environmental philosophy.
These folks give lunatics a bad name.
Since when did a honest citizen get to vote on a lame UN proposal or treaty. Those ideas are never based upon the input of voters, just politicans. And finding enough politicians to resist such an imposition are almost impossible. Because the same politicians keep getting re-elected are voters really empowered to stop the madness?
No!
Wow your perfect for the "committee" for destruction of homes. (sarc)
Grat. Two of my cats live to be 18-19 respectively. Good Job.
Soilent Green?
I think they should start with Madonna's estate. Then Elton John. That ought to end this insanity.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.