Building emissions
MAR 18, 2024
∙ PAID
A horrible news report appeared earlier today in the Financial Times. The outlet formerly known as a reputable source of relatively unbiased information cited a warning from the UK’s public spending regulator that people were not buying heat pumps and this was a very bad thing.
The reason people were not buying heat pumps, the National Audit Office concluded, was that their prices were not falling quickly and substantially enough. Apparently, the UK government had made some quite unrealistic predictions about price declines in the heat pump space and now they were coming back to haunt it.
Heat pumps cost about four times as much as gas boilers, the report informs us. This is quite an investment to make for most households, not only in the UK. But it’s not the only significant investment households in the UK and Europe are about to be forced to make as greenulators try to tackle emissions from buildings.
The European Parliament earlier this month voted on what Euractiv called a controversial law obliging member states to implement substantial reductions in emissions from buildings. By 2030, per that law, called the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive, all newbuilds must be emission-free, with government buildings supposed to go emission-free two years earlier.
The most charming part of the directive? “When calculating the emissions, member states will take into account the life-cycle global warming potential of a building, including the production and disposal of the construction products used to build it.”
The obvious inference from the above would be that energy consumption in these buildings must be efficient on an otherworldly scale — or, you know, pretty low — to offset all the emissions that went into the production, transportation, and use of all the materials that went into making it.
Indeed, there is a stipulation in the EPBD that says energy consumption from residential buildings must be cut by between 20% and 22% by 2035. Insulation mandates won’t be enough.
If there is one thing the European bureaucracy truly excels at it is making simple things as complicated as possible, including for itself. The buildings directive is no exception but a great example of this.
Not only is it going to force property owners into spending tens of thousands on insulation, rooftop solar (and no doubt heat pumps) but it’s also going to create mountains of paperwork for calculating “life-cycle global warming potential”.
Ironically, it could have been a lot worse. The final version of the directive has given member states the freedom to choose how to go about hitting their building emission reduction targets, which is not how central planners like their laws but it seems they were forced to make concessions to get the law passed. Now it’s going to get interesting.
In France, it already did. President Macron’s government last year agreed to oblige homeowners to renovate their property to reduce emissions, which contribute a horrific 65% of total buildings emissions in France. If they don’t, they’ll have a hard time renting that property.
It’s a law similar to that in the UK, which has also tied selling or renting a property to its emissions status, effectively twisting homeowners’ arms to invest in insulation — and heat pumps, of course. But because there are also other laws at play, notably one about preservation of historical buildings, a lot of housing property in France would never live up to the new energy efficiency standards.
Neither would a lot of residential buildings in Bulgaria, it appears, since the new EU directive also mandates the installation of rooftop solar — but only if it’s economical. There is zero way a solar installation can be economical on a block of flats that’s 12 floors high with the shape of a rectangular breadstick.
Even for smaller blocks with larger roofs solar installations don’t make much sense. The output would never cover any meaningful percentage of the residents’ electricity use besides perhaps staircase lighting during some of the daylight hours.
Of course, all this is beside the point, the point being the enforcement of as many emission-cutting mandates as possible to think of. Because “Lower energy bills, reduced energy poverty, and less emissions will come with our plan to improve Europe’s buildings,” according to an Irish Green MEP who was negotiator for the law at the EP.
Yes, insulating your house — or block of flats — will indeed bring energy bills down. Reducing energy waste is a good thing and if people won’t do it willingly (because it’s expensive), regulators would make them do it. In fact, down here you are already obliged to put external insulation on your house if it was built after a certain year, which escapes me. The assumption is that if you can afford to build a house, you can afford to insulate it.
Fair enough, no argument there. But what about the majority of houses that are older than 20 years or so? Well, I expect we’d need to rely on government support to be able to insulate our old houses — and equip them with heat pumps because that’s next, with EU plans to phase out “carbon use for heating” by 2040.
The plans beg my usual question: will there be enough money to subsidise all this? Because if there isn’t, the energy poverty point of that Green MEP dies a very quick and brutal death.
The usual answer is “Probably not”, if the UK is any indication. Per a recent Bloomberg report, greenulators in the UK are finding it especially challenging to enforce universal insulation on the country’s “cold and drafty homes”. Because they can’t find the money to finance that insulation drive.
One would think that forcing insulation, solar, and heat pumps on unwilling people is bad enough but have I got news for you. It might — just might — get even worse. Because there are groups advocating for the complete reshaping of cities with a view to cutting emissions from buildings, especially residential ones.
With many thanks to the Founders’ Club member who sent me the link, I give you The Economist and the idea of basically doing away with suburbs — and possibly all old buildings — and packing everyone in blocks in the cities to reduce emissions. And it’s the NIMBYs’ fault this is not happening. I know, just when you think nothing can make you even raise an eyebrow any more along comes something like this and the eyebrow rises on its own.
So, the author, or perhaps authors, of the article whose name/s I could not detect anywhere around it, argue that old, energy inefficient buildings must be torn down and replaced by new, efficient ones, preferably within walking distance of everything.
This, the argument goes, would reduce energy consumption for the daily commute even though it would increase rent expenses. But higher rent is a necessary sacrifice people need to make to help reduce emissions. If only NIMBYs stop protesting new construction, the stupid backward individuals they are.
I would be happy to invite the author of that article to my Sofia neighbourhood. I have no doubt he or she or possibly they would take a look around and marvel at the way real estate developers have managed to cover virtually every free square metre with buildings, including one smack in the middle of a street.
Funny story, that. The street, built by the municipal authorities decades ago, turned out to be illegal, lying in part on private property. The owner of the private property decided to build a block of flats on said property.
Traffic had to move by a couple of metres sideways. Driving along that street is an unforgettable experience, which we decided we don’t really cherish, so we moved. And the block? It’s at full occupancy. The neighbourhood is trendy. It’s got grocery shops, butcher shops, plastic surgery clinics, and two supermarkets 15 minutes away. Here’s a picture from construction times.
It appears the author of the above Economist article would like to see more such neighbourhoods, saying that the demolition of old buildings is justifiable despite its carbon footprint because “Greenhouse gases that have been released by the construction of an existing building will heat the planet whether the building becomes derelict, is refurbished or is knocked down.”
Yes, some people are at the stage of counting the carbon emissions from constructing a building fifty-seven years ago. They must really live empty lives.
So, because these emissions have already been released, it doesn’t really matter if you leave the building standing or knock it down to build a new, more energy efficient one (complete with its own emissions). It’s an argument I’ve heard meat-eaters make as justification for their dietary choices. The animals, the argument goes, have already been slaughtered. Someone will eat them, so why not me?
Now imagine this idea becoming more mainstream at some point in the future when governments realise they cannot keep subsidising residential building insulation and rooftop solar forever. Because, to quote Exxon’s Darren Woods, “No government can afford to subsidize the energy transition forever.” Now that would be exactly the farce that befits Europe’s climate crusade army leaders.