We can make a difference locally. The WA Sustainable Energy Association is putting together a response to the Prime Minister’s Task Group on Energy Efficiency to advise the Australian Government on options to improve Australia’s energy efficiency by 2020. A copy of the report can be found here Prime Minister’s Energy Efficiency Report.
What did you think? What should be given priority? Was anything missed? You can comment on this blog and I’ll pass it on.
My own comments are that Local Government can do much more to promote awareness and practice of energy efficiency in:
- Design of residential, commercial and administrative buildings. This is much more about basic design, not just about ‘bolt- on’ features such as p-v panels.
- Use and working of such buildings. This is mainly about the selection of choices for operations, by owners, managers and individuals.
- Design and operation of systems of travel, including all modes- car, bus, train, cycle and possible other new technologies.
- Promotion of individual responsibility in daily decisions around all parts of life.
Local government is much closer to people’s lives and is much more likely to be able to exert personal influence.
Feel free to click on “Comments” below or just email me.
2 comments:
Two very, very basic things local councils could do, but I have no confidence that they do.
1. Have ceiling insulation at least to R2.5 along the coast and R3 inland as part of the requirements for a building license - they would never issue one for a building without a roof - more sophisticated requirements would be awnings or window protection for northern windows, and more extreme measures for east and west windows. Ultimately, builders should have ratings for the actual buildings - these ratings would take into account the dimensions and features of the building AND the local climate - which could easily be based on postcodes. We need software that will give many stars to a building design that collects much sunshine in cool climates like Hobart, change the postcode to that of Darwin, the design should not do so well.
A long time ago, now, but I used to do Home energy ratings using NatHERs software - much better stuff around now adays. Please be aware that ratings in terms of stars is only relative - it does not have an actual meaning. ie specifying 5 stars as a standard means nothing - needs to specify actual stars out of maximum stars. Having a benchmark of 3 stars to pass, allows others to push homes to be 5 stars and so promote a better standard or better still, the idea of doing better. Behind the scenes, councils can easily raise the benchmark for what a star actually requires of a building - so many MJ of energy for cooling and heating in that local a year. Builders will have to realise that one design does not fit all orientations or locations.
Check my old website at http://www.skyfarming.com.au/HERAust/
2. Maximum rather minimum car parking for residential and commercial places. We have way, way too much parking. Motorists will never admit to this, but the rest of us are very aware having to struggle around the excessive use of cars in this town - try crossing any but the smallest of roads, during peak hour.
And I have no idea why public transport is so incredibly bad in South Perth - there is not even a railway station! All that medium density high rise along Mill Point Rd, too. And the Zoo is, I understand, the biggest tourist attraction in Perth. Very, very difficult to walk there and it really should not so hard - where is the pedistrian lobby group in WA?
A simple thing we fail to recognise which can assist in energy conservation, pollution control (both airborne and noise) and in basic amenity is planting and preservation of trees! A tree strategically planted can reduce energy costs by as much as 15%pa.
It is time we recognise the value of trees in our urban environment. The current generation will not know what a mature species of tree looks like as our current development/redvelopment cycle, our smaller lots/larger houses, push for high density living and current 'fashion' all work against having trees in our backyards. It is time local government stepped up to the plate. In recent times, three houses in my street have been demolished and all mature vegetation removed. This has been a nightmare for the birds of the area and noise from the freeway traffic has greatly increased (baffled before by the tree canopies on these lots!). Some of this mature vegetation/trees could have been retained - clearing is simply for the "ease" of the builder! The Council could require retention of some of this vegetation, could plant on the street verges more wisely than one street tree per property (now one between two properties with infill) and plant other "leftover" areas much more densely all to aid in the urban environment of our suburbs (cleaner air, reduced hardstand, habitat for wildlife, water retention, noise reduction, etc). The dense planting of trees along roadways (lower speed zones) is known to be a deterent higher speeds for example. It is not advocated to have a policy to prevent tree removal as in other states or to stop development occurring because of mature trees but a sensible approach that advocates more planted areasless hardstand, retantion of mature vegetation and planting with built environments will go along way to aided our health and overall energy sufficiency.
Post a Comment