𧱠The built environment represents 40% of U.K emissions, but the #Treasury's approach to the decarbonisation of this sector is an object lesson in how a lack of joined-up thinking is taking us away from our legally-binding #netzero carbon commitments.
π¨It can take between 10 and 80 years for a new, energy-efficient building to offset the emissions created during the construction process.
π· But the U.K tax system militates against low carbon retrofit and upgrades to existing buildings by levying 20% VAT on renovations, while zero-rating new build homes. This means it often makes more financial sense to demolish and rebuild, rather than preserve and upgrade.
ποΈ By incentivising new build, the Treasury is going against the learned view of organisations such as the U.S National Trust for Historic Preservation, which has shown that βreusing an existing building...is almost always the best choice regardless of building type and climateβ.
π· This is a sentiment shared and succinctly expressed by no less than Carl Elefante, former president of the American Institute of Architects, who famously stated that βthe greenest building is the one that already existsβ. architectsjournal.co.uk/news/opinion/tβ¦
ποΈ A reduction or zero-rating of the VAT currently levied on renovations would certainly be welcomed by Councils and registered providers of social housing, and would encourage them to rapidly upgrade their leaky housing stock, reducing both domestic emissions and fuel poverty...
π‘...and reducing or eliminating VAT on low carbon retrofit would also incentivise investment in energy efficiency measures by the unsupported 60% of owner-occupied homes that are not fuel poor, as noted by which the Climate Change Committee this week. theccc.org.uk/publication/inβ¦
ποΈ If the support for retrofit from architects, Councils, and housing associations were not enough, the @fmbuilders has also made it clear that a cut in VAT for renovations would support the construction sector, cut carbon, and help 'level up' the country. fmb.org.uk/resource/two-tβ¦
β‘οΈ The National Infrastructure Commission estimates that we need to deliver over 21 million individual heat energy efficiency measures to buildings in England by 2035. This includes insulating 10 million lofts, 6 million floors and almost 45 million walls.
π‘ For context, this equates to 21,000 energy efficiency improvements installed every week between now and 2035. The current rate of progress is around 9,000 improvements installations weekly.
To bridge that gap, we need a different approach. Starting with zero-rating retrofit.
πΌ So, come on @RishiSunak and @hmtreasury, in the year that the U.K hosts #COP26Glasgow, listen to the experts on what is required to start significantly decarbonising our leaky housing and reducing fuel poverty. #NetZero actions speak louder than words.
β’ β’ β’
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1/ The Daily Mail's latest LTN attack piece - complete with token Northerner sporting flat cap and whippet π - is a hoot.
Since it features LTNs I delivered - the Mail clearly doesn't know London Fields is in Hackney - let's look at some of its claims. dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1β¦
2/ Because all the evidence shows LTNs...
* Improving air quality without displacement.
* Halving road injuries,
* Eliminating rat-running.
* Reducing street crime.
....authors @markdavidduell and @eirianJprosser have to rely on unsubstantiated anecdotes.
"We found...injuries inside LTNs halved relative to the rest of London...indicat[ing] substantial reductions in pedestrian injury risk. We found no evidence of changes...on LTN boundary roads."
1/ Let me take you on a little journey about why this thread is nonsense. Albeit the kind of nonsense that Twitter thrives on, hence its 5000+ 'likes'.
But, more than that, let me tell you all about the awesome power of urban trees...
2/ The first giveaway that, despite their immense confidence, the Tweeter doesn't really know what they're talking about, is the claim that these algae units are to "be used in places where trees can't survive" is the healthy, mature street trees in both shots.
3/ Now, algae-based carbon sequestration does have potential at scale, but this gimmick box -with its high revenue and capital costs for cleansing etc and purchase - isn't it.
Besides, nature has already provided cheaper, far more effective alternative for constrained spaces.
1/ Recently, I wrote about the harassment campaign conducted against me by anti-LTN Horrendous Hackney Road Closures.
These are the same people who undertook a failed judicial review against the LTNs I delivered and, by all accounts, still owe the taxpayers of Hackney Β£10,000.
2/ Yes, the same anti-LTN group who mocked me up as a slave master and encouraged their gormless acolytes to lodge complaints about my support for LTNs appear to have turned out to be the bunch of dishonest, malignant grifters I warned you about.
3/ But who are Horrendous Hackney Road Closures and, crucially, where has all the money they raised gone?
I understand that failed Judicial Reviews don't come cheap, but by my reckoning they raised (and are continuing to raise) around Β£24,000 from over 1000 donations.
1/ Yesterday, we were treated to another statistics masterclass from anti-Low Traffic Neighbourhood journalist Andrew Ellson, of @thetimes.
Since I'm mentioned in the piece - a weird fixation - which cherry-picks DfT data to falsely imply LTNs increase mileage, this is my reply.
2/ Firstly, let's deal with Andrew's statement that I delivered the U.K's largest number of LTNs "on the basis that sat-nav apps were increasing the traffic on local roads."
This claim is false, as my introduction to Hackney Emergency Transport Plan (2020) shows:
3/ That is not to say I don't believe sat-nav-assisted displacement of motor vehicles from an overloaded main road network isn't a major issue for our cities. Because it is, as the following paper demonstrates: researchgate.net/publication/32β¦
1/ You may have seen @Telegraph's & @TimHarford's coverage of recent DfT changes to road traffic stats, showing that 20.3bn miles were driven in London in 2019, not 22.6bn.
Low Traffic Neighbourhood enemies claim this means we don't need LTNs.
They're wrong. And I'll prove it.
2/ Not rubbishing @transportgovuk's data, but 1993 π2019 miles driven on the U.K's roads annually increased by 100 billion. 70% came from cars/taxis, yet the DfT have not explained why their new estimates show just a 200 million mile increase in London in the decade to 2019.
3/ The 'smoking gun' for increasingly desperate Low Traffic Neighbourhood opponents, who've lost the argument, lost in court, and lost at the ballot box is that LTNs that based on the DfT's original data should be scrapped.
There are a couple of massive problems with this idea.