By continuing to use the site you agree to our Privacy & Cookies policy

Your browser seems to have cookies disabled. For the best experience of this website, please enable cookies in your browser.

Close

Your browser is no longer supported

For the best possible experience using our website we recommend you upgrade to a newer version or another browser.

Close

‘Don’t scrap 2016 zero-carbon target,’ urges UK-GBC

The UK Green Building Council (UK-GBC) has urged the government to stick with its target for all new homes to be zero-carbon by 2016, despite calls for more flexibility from the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS)

‘This is not the time to scrap the zero-carbon target,’ a UK-GBC spokesperson told the AJ. ‘The whole point of setting out the future direction of the Building Regulations is to drive innovation and bring down the cost of zero-carbon solutions. The 2016 target is tough, but still achievable.’

Last week (20 March 2009), the RICS called on the government to rethink its ‘unrealistic’ target, in response to the Definition of Zero-Carbon Homes and Non-Domestic Buildings consultation, which began at the end of 2008. The institution claimed only a 70 per cent reduction of emissions in all new homes is achievable by 2016.

Also in response to the consultation, the RIBA advocated a total 80 per cent reduction of emissions in all homes by 2050, and called for a reclassification of district power and cooling schemes.

Ben Humphries, an associate at London-based practice Architype, added that the government needs to re-focus its priorities on renewables. ‘Its approach is misguided. It needs to set these ambitious targets, but has to give more focused assistance in the right areas.’

Readers' comments (1)

  • What an unbelievable proposition at a time like this - isn't every economist saying we should be investing in green tech, creating a Green New Deal, etc, to avoid this recession turning into a depression? The RICS is more than 'misguided', they're mad! Besides, doesn't any kind of target mean work for architects? Isn't that what we're gunning for?

    Unsuitable or offensive?

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment.

Related Jobs

Sign in to see the latest jobs relevant to you!

The searchable digital buildings archive with drawings from more than 1,500 projects

AJ newsletters