Milliband has annouced plans to give 400,000 UK homes a ‘Green Makeover’ by 2015, extending to 7 million homes by 2020.  Milliband outlines his vision for all UK homes to have reduced demand for energy, and as a result, reduced emissions by 2030

 This plan will feed into the governments carbon reduction plans outlined in Climate Change Act 2008 to ensure an 80% reduction in carbon emissions by 2050.  Currently, homes account for 27% of the UK’s carbon emissions through heating and power and this refurb can cut emissions from homes by a third! (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment)

 Under the proposals,  Minister for the Department of Energy and Climate Change, Ed Milliband outlined that cavity wall and loft insulation will be available initially for all ‘suitable’ homes. Financial incentives for householders will also be granted for low-carbon technologies such as solar panels, biomass boilers and ground source heat pumps, paid for by a levy on utility companies.   

Although there are no upfront costs to the household, a main incentive alone, over time, these energy saving materials will pay back the investor, through savings gained in reduced heating bills.  In addition, the Renewable Heating Incentive will encourage local community to develop small-scale energy networks to feed into the national grid from their power-generating facilities.  This can benefit the household by generating electricity for local consumption, whilst profiting from sales to the national grid for excess electricity production; a win-win situation.

 The ’Great British Refurb’ has been welcomed by most organisations, including Nathan Argent, head of energy solutions at Greenpeace UK who comments:

“A programme to upgrade the housing stock alone would require £3.5-£6.5bn per year until 2050.  Tackling energy efficiency is the fastest way to cut emissions, boost our energy security, revitalise the economy and create tens of thousands of jobs. And, obviously, this will cut household bills too. But this plan needs much more investment right now. The government needs to put their wallet where their mouth is.” (Source: www.guardian.co.uk/environment) 

Paul King, chief executive of the UK Green Building Council (UKGBC) also comments:

“As Lord Stern said yesterday” energy efficiency in homes and buildings should be part of a green stimulus. Financial incentives are needed to encourage major green refurbishments – the precedent has already been set with stamp duty rebates for zero-carbon homes”.  (Source: www.guardian.co.uk/environment) 

 As with every consultation and new product launched by the government, there are cynics of the scheme, including comments made by the Environmental Industries Commission (EIC) and the Energy Saving Trust (EST), accusing the government for not tackling the carbon issues directly, boldly or soon enough. 

This stimulates the question if Milliband is targeting the correct sector for stimulating a green refurb change?  Since direct global carbon emissions from the UK’s 100 largest companies amounted to 480 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent – about 73% of the UK total, as revealed in a report ‘The Carbon 100‘ published by Henderson Global Investors.  The question that remains is, will the impact of the green refurb simply be enough to reduce CO2?  (http://www.edie.net/news/news_story.asp?id=10094)

Tory shadow Environment secretary, Nick Herbert has announced plans to stop Biodiversity loss in the UK, by putting a financial cost to nature’s wildlife.

How much is a rabbit, a bird, a hedgehog – yes, this is the proposed deal by the Conservative MP, to put a financial

cost to the animals destroyed in the development of a project, by adopting a “bio-credits” policy, similar to that in Malaysia, the US and Australia. (Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/feb/09/conservatives-biodiversity)

Bio-credits would act as an incentive to prevent the destruction of animals by assigning a financial value to the ‘animal loss’, which is to be paid by the developer.

This sum of money will be traded in to alternative projects which aim to improve biodiversity in another location.  The scheme is simply trading the loss of species in one project, to be protected in another.

There are 47 Wildlife Trusts in the UK alone, with 765,000 members who think that the scheme is perhaps a good idea, but as Dr Tony Whitbread of the Wildlife Trust comments:

“The bio-credits idea is interesting but, as always, the devil will be in the detail. Bio-credits raise many questions, for example: how would they work with the current planning system? How would they be funded, especially if they don’t put extra costs on businesses? And where would raised funds be spent? It is also vital that any new system recognises that some habitats are irreplaceable and cannot be traded.”

The benefits of the Tory proposed Bio-credit scheme also depends on being able to generate a regulatory framework strong enough to ensure that developers really will pay the costs, in supporting new Eco friendly projects, if they are to eliminate local wildlife, which goes completely against the principles of sustainability.

But as the government is encouraging firms to build three million more homes by 2020, how will developers view the new proposed “Bio credit” costs, in this difficult financial climate, and can the “Bio-Credits” policy be monitored and managed effectively. (Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1567489/New-homes-target-’not-enough-to-avert-crisis’.html)