Wasting time chasing a Technofix

[Patrick]

With all of this blather in the media about alt-fueled vehicles, and the rising environmental awareness, you think there might be one mention of building an adequate passenger rail system in this country, and abandoning the continued expansion of the suburbs. To my knowledge not a single story in the mainstream media this past year regarding environmental issues has discussed this issue. All of our energy, and money, is dedicated to chasing after the technofix. When are we as a nation going to stop wasting our time with this project and learn from the successes that the Europeans and Asians have had with mass transit and compact development? The only logical reasons I can think of for our car-only transportation system are profit and incompetence. A new project in Sweden has recently demonstrated the ability to reduce energy use/emissions by 50% compared to a similar project in the 1990s using better urban design, mass transit, and centralized power - solar panels or turbines are barely used, and waste is collected and burned in a central power station. The project costs 5% more than a conventional project.

sustainablecity.blogspot.com

[Metyu]

Thanks P.

I note also "Combustible waste is cleverly sucked through a system of tubes, rather than being taken away by polluting lorries, and burned in a combined heat and power plant to provide electricity and heat via the district heating system" What a good idea! (although I am not sure about the emissions from burning waste? PM10s and the like?)

In the UK, the Government seems to prefer micro-generation (one problem is the lack of people skilled in repair and installation; another is that you need to make and install about 25 million of them, which surely takes some resources?) and nuclear. Hopefully I don't need to comment on the latter .

I'm thinking particularly for existing stock, which in the UK will account for 70% of housing in 2050 (even though we have really ambitious new housing targets) and a large chunk of all CO2 emissions. Installing district heating may be expensive at the outlay, but will reduce CO2 emissions significantly, provide cheaper heating bills (good for the elderly - see reports of excess winter deaths) and give an opportunity during installation for things such as installing FTTP, and fixing water pipes. But that would require a lot of co-ordination...

[Metyu]

This may also be of interest? BMVBS: The programme to reduce CO2 emissions from buildings

[Corey]

The reality..... "is that is less better?"

Media and Corporations been telling us all our lives that "more" is better and thus if they flip they loose face. That is their view.

One of the concerns that I have, about replacing buildings, is whether they are replaced prematurely "before the natural life expectancy of the structure.
In order to place a more environmentally friendly structure. The new building requires new raw materials. thus the new materials will be used earlier than if the building was replaced when the structure is at its end.

The new structure needs to have smaller spaces as well that way there is not a lot of dead space for heating and cooling. not to mention less raw materials to build said structure.

[Patrick]

I think the majority of building materials these days are recycled (glass, metal, stone, plastic, wood, etc).

We have a society that multiplies human wants (through advertising) rather than reducing human wants, which should be the goal.