Should energy labels for washing machines be expanded to include a durability rating?

Washing machines are a key household appliance that can be found in the majority of UK homes. Over 2.5 million are sold in the UK every year and account for one of the highest material and production impacts of householder products in the UK (WRAP, 2011). Energy efficiency ratings are provided as a method for consumers to make an informed purchasing decision and were brought in by EU legislation to reduce energy use and enable users to reduce running costs, as it is known that the greater environmental impact of a washing machine is during use. From 2014, all washing machines sold must be at a minimum A rated, with ratings increasing to A+++. However, under this current labelling system the embodied impacts and durability of the machines are ignored. Through semi-structured interviews with consumers, manufacturers and distributors, this paper explores different perceptions of longevity and expectations of performance and durability. The paper explores whether energy labels should be expanded to include durability information, as this could enable consumers to make a decision based not only on cost and energy efficiency but also on expected lifespan. Existing manufacturer’s guarantees may give an indication of the expected durability of the product and this is investigated to explore if there is a positive correlation. The findings will further discuss the potential impacts of providing durability information and how this could enable manufacturers and consumers to shift towards a low material and energy future

Embed circular economy thinking into building retrofit

Building retrofit is essential to deliver decarbonisation. But its implementation could leave a legacy of waste if end of life is not considered now. Here I consider the challenges and implications of embedding circularity into building retrofit

Aligning carbon targets for construction with (inter)national climate change mitigation commitments

In the face of a changing climate, a growing number of construction firms are adopting carbon reduction targets on individual projects and across their portfolios. In the wake of the Paris Agreement, some firms are seeking a means of aligning their targets with sectoral, national and international mitigation commitments. There are numerous ways by which such an alignment can be achieved, each requiring different assumptions. Using data from the UK construction industry, this paper reviews current company commitments and progress in carbon mitigation; analyses the unique challenges in aligning construction targets, and presents a series of possible sectoral decarbonisation trajectories. The results highlight the disparity between current company targets and the range of possible trajectories. It is clear that a cross-industry dialogue is urgently required to establish an appropriate response that delivers both a widely-accepted target trajectory and a plan for its delivery. This paper is intended to stimulate and support this necessary debate by illustrating the impact of different methodological assumptions and highlighting the critical features of an appropriate response

Building on the Paris Agreement: making the case for embodied carbon intensity targets in construction

Progressive clients are targeting embodied carbon reduction through the introduction of carbon intensity targets (CITs). CITs challenge design teams to deliver buildings with supply chain carbon emissions below a set level per functional unit. Despite CITs acting as catalysts for innovation, there are few drivers for their use and substantial variations in their implementation. There is also no means for ensuring consistency between project CITs and national mitigation targets, nor a mechanism for ratcheting up ambitions as anticipated by the Paris Agreement on climate change. This paper discusses these concerns and suggests how CITs could in future be determined, implemented and enforced

Understanding and overcoming the barriers to structural steel reuse, a UK perspective

To meet greenhouse gas emission targets, at global, national and sector level, reduction opportunities should be explored in both the embodied and operational carbon of the built environment. One underexploited option to reduce embodied carbon is the reuse of structural steel. However, in the UK, work by Sansom and Avery (2014) suggests a picture of declining levels of reuse. This paper explores why this is the case by identifying the practical barriers to structural steel reuse through a series of semi-structured interviews with UK construction industry members. Whilst there were many identified barriers, five practical barriers were prioritised as being most significant: cost, availability/storage, no client demand, traceability and supply chain gaps/lack of integration. These contrast with those most commonly identified in global literature: cost, supply chain gaps/integration, risk, jointing technique, composite construction and time for deconstruction; with only two overlaps: cost and supply chain gaps/integration. Many of the barriers from literature have a technical focus (reducing salvage yield rather than completely preventing reuse) differing from the largely systemic barriers that the interviews prioritised. These systemic barriers will need to be dealt with first to increase reuse rates. This will require a coordinated approach across the UK construction supply chain. Building on interview insights, this paper proposes four mechanisms to overcome these systemic barriers: (1) the creation of a database of suppliers/reused section availability, (2) a demonstration of client demand (3) technical guidance and education for the construction industry and (4) government leadership. Together these mechanisms would improve reuse rates in the UK, reduce the embodied emissions of the built environment and play a crucial role in meeting greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets

Optimising the balance between flexibility and structural mass for lower short- and long-term embodied carbon emissions in mass housing

The building construction industry is one of the largest contributors to global greenhouse gas emissions. One solution to reduce the industry's carbon footprint is to design structures efficiently, thus using less structural mass. However, over-designing is a fundamental aspect of flexibility; a building's capacity to make physical changes in the future – which is key for domestic buildings in particular. It is therefore important to strike a balance between structural efficiency and high flexibility, to limit both short- and long-term embodied carbon emissions. This balance was investigated using a mass housing case study, creating a series of design iterations to explore the trade-off between flexibility and structural mass. An optimum solution illustrated that this case study can be redesigned to have double the flexibility, lower structural mass, and less carbon-intensive materials. Therefore, this research concluded that it is possible to significantly reduce the short-term embodied carbon emissions of this housing design, whilst simultaneously reducing long-term emissions too. Although these findings might be specific to this case study, the duplicate nature of mass housing means that the carbon savings of this one housing design can be multiplied many times across a whole development. Applying this research to other mass housing designs could significantly reduce the embodied carbon of future developments and improve the carbon footprint of the building construction industry

The potential of vertical extension at the city scale

The UK construction sector is central to the climate and housing crises and must now deliver vast amounts of residential accommodation whilst reaching net zero emissions by 2050. Housing provision through the vertical extension of existing buildings offers opportunity to achieve this, reducing embodied carbon emissions and creating more efficient high-density settlements. In England, permitted development (PD) rights allow for residential vertical extensions without the requirement for conventional planning permission. Despite this, and due to limited uptake of PD rights and a lack of existing studies, the potential for housing provision through widespread extension is unknown. This paper develops a framework to assess the ability of vertical extensions in providing housing at different scales and applies this to Sheffield, England. The generation of new dwellings through PD vertical extension could house up to 175,000 in Sheffield, with detached buildings and those in residential use being most suited to extension. PD rights favour the enlargement of existing dwellings over the generation of new residential units, potentially limiting their effectiveness in tackling the housing crisis

Everything Counts: Why transport infrastructure emissions matter for decision makers

The construction and maintenance of new infrastructure involves the release of greenhouse gas emissions, in this case carbon dioxide. Emissions are released when fossil fuels are used to mine, refine, manufacture and transport materials, and to carry out the construction process. We refer to these emissions as ‘embodied emissions’. There is also carbon released to fuel the operation of the infrastructure, e.g. lighting or signalling. At a national scale, the accounting responsibility for almost all these embodied emissions rests with the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS), whilst the tailpipe emissions from vehicles rests with the Department for Transport (DfT). Promoters of new infrastructure schemes need to take account of both embodied and tailpipe emissions, yet integrated assessments are not commonplace, particularly at the early strategic stage in decision-making. This briefing sets out the key findings from an analysis of the embodied carbon in road and rail infrastructure expansion, which have been applied to several case studies

Measuring Road Infrastructure Carbon: A ‘critical’ in transport’s journey to net-zero

The Department for Transport’s Decarbonisation Plan focuses on ‘tailpipe emissions’ from vehicles. Whilst the plan acknowledges embodied emissions in the construction and management of infrastructure and the building of new vehicles, no clear indications of the scale of these emissions nor their significance have been provided. The national accounting responsibility for those embodied emissions sits with the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) at a national scale. So, the Department responsible for generating these emissions through decisions to expand infrastructure (DfT) is not responsible for managing those emissions. The reality for organisations promoting new infrastructure, such as Transport for the North (TfN), is that they will need to present a ‘whole-life’ approach which deals with all of the carbon implications of their choices. Shifting to a ‘whole-life’ carbon (WLC) approach requires an understanding and assessment of embodied carbon at the ‘design’ stage to become a part of strategic decision making, leading to investment programmes compatible with climate commitments. However, perhaps because of the lack of focus on these issues within DfT and the lack of responsibility for transport infrastructure within BEIS, the departments currently offer limited guidance, expertise and experience in understanding how important embodied emissions might be to different types of investment cases. The aim of this work is to quantify the embodied and operational carbon associated with the systems and sub-systems in the roads transport infrastructure to inform decision-making

Measuring Railway Infrastructure Carbon: A ‘critical’ in transport’s journey to net-zero

The Department for Transport’s Decarbonisation Plan focuses on ‘tailpipe emissions’ from vehicles. Whilst the plan acknowledges embodied emissions in the construction and management of infrastructure and the construction of rolling stock, no clear indications of the scale of these emissions nor their significance have been provided. The national accounting responsibility for those embodied emissions sits with the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS). So, the department responsible for generating these emissions through decisions to expand infrastructure (DfT) is not responsible for managing those emissions. The reality for organisations such as Transport for the North (TfN) or Network Rail, promoting new infrastructure, is that they will need to present a ‘whole-life’ approach which deals with all the carbon implications of their choices. Shifting to a ‘whole life’ carbon (WLC) approach requires an understanding and assessment of embodied carbon at the ‘design’ stage to become a part of strategic decision making, leading to investment programmes compatible with climate commitments. However, perhaps because of the lack of focus on these issues within DfT and the lack of responsibility for transport infrastructure within BEIS, there remains limited guidance, expertise and experience in understanding how important embodied emissions might be to different types of investment cases. The aim of this work is to quantify the embodied and operational carbon associated with the systems and sub-systems in rail based transport infrastructure to inform decision making