Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Science
In reply to the discussion: Have We Already Won the Renewables Revolution? [View all]muriel_volestrangler
(106,276 posts)48. Here's what I was referring to
UK scraps zero carbon homes plan
The zero carbon homes policy was first announced in 2006 by the then-chancellor Gordon Brown, who said Britain was the first country to make such a commitment.
It would have ensured that all new dwellings from 2016 would generate as much energy on-site through renewable sources, such as wind or solar power as they would use in heating, hot water, lighting and ventilation. This was to be supported by tighter energy efficiency standards that would come into force in 2016, and a scheme which would allow housebuilders to deliver equivalent carbon savings off site.
However, both regulations were axed by the government on Friday, in a move Julie Hirigoyen, chief executive of the UK Green Building Council, said was the death knell for the zero carbon homes policy.
It is short-sighted, unnecessary, retrograde and damaging to the house-building industry, which has invested heavily in delivering energy-efficient homes, Hirigoyen said. Britain needs more housing but there is no justification for building homes with a permanent legacy of high energy bills.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/10/uk-scraps-zero-carbon-home-target
The zero carbon homes policy was first announced in 2006 by the then-chancellor Gordon Brown, who said Britain was the first country to make such a commitment.
It would have ensured that all new dwellings from 2016 would generate as much energy on-site through renewable sources, such as wind or solar power as they would use in heating, hot water, lighting and ventilation. This was to be supported by tighter energy efficiency standards that would come into force in 2016, and a scheme which would allow housebuilders to deliver equivalent carbon savings off site.
However, both regulations were axed by the government on Friday, in a move Julie Hirigoyen, chief executive of the UK Green Building Council, said was the death knell for the zero carbon homes policy.
It is short-sighted, unnecessary, retrograde and damaging to the house-building industry, which has invested heavily in delivering energy-efficient homes, Hirigoyen said. Britain needs more housing but there is no justification for building homes with a permanent legacy of high energy bills.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/10/uk-scraps-zero-carbon-home-target
Your OP was about "the entire war" - the revolution. The article says that victory is inevitable. It's wrong. No revolution has happened yet, and there is a tiny amount of interest in it. Politically, it practically never comes up. There's the Paris targets, but how they'll be achieved is still anyone's guess. So far, it's lip service.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
60 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
My F150 gets about 4 mpg less with E85 than E10. When I pull my trailer is goes to about 5.5 less.
tonyt53
Oct 2016
#52
e-cars just shift the dirt around if powered by coal generated electricity instead of petroleum nt
msongs
Oct 2016
#2
I don't see at all that "we as a species" have deliberately chosen renewables
muriel_volestrangler
Oct 2016
#37
"the challenge is to make that work" - you were saying the revolution was already won
muriel_volestrangler
Oct 2016
#46
"And, as I said, there is no 'inertia' in economics. That's wishful thinking."
kristopher
Oct 2016
#51