1. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    625
    07 Dec '14 20:195 edits
    http://phys.org/news/2014-12-energy-related-carbon-emissions-cent.html
    "...
    Cities could make a significant contribution to cutting greenhouse gas emissions at zero net cost, according to a report published today

    ...
    The authors of the report find that these developments have a payback period of just two years, on average. After this payback period, the developments would continue to deliver savings and the returns could be reinvested in other low-carbon developments in the city.

    Lead author Professor Andrew Gouldson of the University of Bristol said: "A low-carbon economy is a no-brainer from an economic point of view, as well as an environmental one.

    The report states: "Our findings suggest that investment in the early stages of the low-carbon transition can appeal to local decision-makers and investors on direct, short-term economic grounds. This indicates that climate mitigation ought to feature prominently in economic development strategies as well as in the environment and sustainability strategies that are often more peripheral to, and less influential in, city-scale decision-making."

    For instance, low-carbon investment of £11.6 billion in Leeds City Region – which includes the local authority districts of Barnsley, Bradford, Calderdale, Craven, Harrogate, Kirklees, Leeds, Selby, Wakefield and York – could deliver annual emission reductions of 21.8 per cent in 2025 relative to projected levels, and at no net cost to the region.

    The report finds that residential buildings could be responsible for almost a third of the Leeds City Region's total emissions reductions by 2025. Investment of £1.1 billion in the domestic sector would create savings of £400 million each year, paying back investment within three years and saving billions therein.

    For Leeds residents, this could see the widespread introduction of mini-wind turbines with a feed-in tariff, biomass boilers with a renewable heat incentive and solid wall insulation.

    ..."

    I just hope some politicians somewhere will take serious notice of this! (although some are already taking similar measures to the above )
    With these savings economically paying for themselves within just 3 years, unless you have the philosophy of short-termism to the extreme, surely it would be extremely stupid NOT to do this whichever way you look at it!
  2. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    07 Dec '14 21:02
    The problem with schemes that save consumers money, is that the sellers loose out. In many cases, the seller is the government or some other entity with influence in the decision making process.
    The reason people use so much energy, is because there is no incentive for energy producers to find ways to conserve energy.

    Here in SA, we had power shortages a few years ago and there was a drive to reduce energy usage which was quite successful, but it didn't go nearly far enough.

    Germany has been very successful with solar and other renewables largely because of a politically enabling environment in which you can sell power to the grid. If that were to happen worldwide we would see much faster uptake of solar.

    Building designs that save power, often cost more to build, but save money in the long term. However the builder is incentivised to cut cost in the short term.
  3. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    625
    08 Dec '14 11:081 edit
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    The problem with schemes that save consumers money, is that the sellers loose out. In many cases, the seller is the government or some other entity with influence in the decision making process.
    The reason people use so much energy, is because there is no incentive for energy producers to find ways to conserve energy.

    Here in SA, we had power shortage ...[text shortened]... save money in the long term. However the builder is incentivised to cut cost in the short term.
    In other words, the only barrier to doing this non-brainer where everybody benefits is politics ( more specifically, extremely stupid bad politics )
  4. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52619
    08 Dec '14 11:31
    Originally posted by humy
    In other words, the only barrier to doing this non-brainer where everybody benefits is politics ( more specifically, extremely stupid bad politics )
    Politicians would only see that 11 billion price tag and start shivering and just run away, going back to their re-election campaign.
  5. Joined
    31 Aug '06
    Moves
    40565
    08 Dec '14 18:21
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    Politicians would only see that 11 billion price tag and start shivering and just run away, going back to their re-election campaign.
    Until shyte becomes impossible to ignore, at which point they'll all blame each other instead of coming together to remedy the consequences at a much higher cost than they would have had, had they done something early on, and I can't stop writing this sentence because I always get annoyed when I think of politicians and their insipid election games but, hey, maybe some day people in general will make things happen by demanding better, more environmental-friendly, durable and long-term affordable products, and the industry will just have to get in line, and politicians can just keep doing what they're doing, which is to do nothing really, and now I find myself asking: what am I on about, and why am I so annoyed right now?
Back to Top