I’ve written about this before but in light of the Low Carbon Transition Plan launched last week, it’s worth reiterating:
It’s increasingly clear that carbon reduction through on site measures will be set at 70% of regulated emissions. Sounds quite high. But in reality this equates to just 44% of total emissions – less than half of the reduction originally required under the Zero Carbon definition!
Here’s the 70% in the context of regulated emissions:
That 70% appears to take a pretty big chunk out of the carbon. But if you look at the same upcoming regulations in terms of total emissions, the graph looks like this. I’ve assumed that unregulated emissions add 60% (averaging CLG’s 50% and 70% – see original post if you want the detail).
That’s a big old step backwards. I’m not saying it’s not appropriate, but I do think we should understand what’s being proposed here and how far CLG’s original requirement for zero carbon has been watered down.
carbon limited 
I suspose the big question is whether the CLG’s revisions are either
a) watering down of the proposed standards due to lack of vision
b) A rationalised and evidence based response to the fact that going zero carbon on new schemes does not necessarily present best value for UK PLC’s overall carbon reduction strategy.
So, does this mean that we are about to have an informed debate, where inevitably some of us will have differing opinions. Lets try to keep some perspective that the level of debate hopfeully about to be had is what we all hoped for 5 years ago but never expected to actually happen….
Or option C (for “Cynical”): the HCA has realised 1) how much it would cost them to meet the original zero carbon definition for all grant funded developments and 2) what they would lose in land value across their portfolio and so have happily acquiesced to the pressure from the construction industry to reduce the target. The govt came out with the 70% figure almost before the UKGBC report was published!