Blanchard Consultancy – the independent construction consultant

The government's zero carbon homes initiative is in danger of being "devalued" say campaigners who have previously lauded the scheme as pioneering. They say the definition of zero carbon risks being diluted in the face of the worst economic conditions for housebuilding since the 1920s.

However, launching a government consultation on the definition of zero carbon today the housing minister Margaret Beckett said despite the economic crisis she was "absolutely committed to our 2016 target".

The government has pledged that by 2016 all new homes have to be zero carbon, through energy efficiency and renewable power. It estimates that 25% of the UK's CO2 emissions come from housing - reducing demand for household heating using fossil fuels is key to achieving the government's target of an 80% reduction in emissions by 2050.

"Climate change is one of the biggest challenges facing the world, and introducing zero carbon homes is an important part of our plans to tackle this." said Beckett.

She added: "With the consultation process we are launching today, we are confident we will be able to achieve our ambitions while giving the industry flexibility for how they get there."

Read more at Guardian online

Labels: financial crisis, zero carbon housing

Bemused by the banking crisis and the stock market madness of recent weeks? The Independent's Business Editor Margareta Pagano answers the key questions

Is the worst of the worldwide crisis in banking now over?

Governments have committed a total of $2 trillion to be injected into the banking system. Here in the UK, for example, the Government is pumping £39bn into three of the our biggest banks – Royal Bank of Scotland, Lloyds TSB and HBOS – by buying shares in them to provide new capital.

The aim is to strengthen the banks' balance sheets so that they can start lending to each other again, and to their customers. But the most important objective is restoring confidence in the financial markets. It's too early to tell whether this has been achieved. But the way the world's leaders took such committed action last weekend to put together this co-ordinated action appears to have gone far to prevent a systemic collapse. Don't take too much notice of the volatile reaction of the stock markets last week after the news was announced. The markets are now looking forward to the next crises – the unwinding of the derivatives market and recession.

Who is to blame?

We all are, to some extent. Over the past decade the US and UK governments allowed people and companies to borrow too much and too cheaply. In the US, mortgage companies were offering "teaser" mortgages at only 1 per cent, so when interest rates were raised, many could not afford to meet the new mortgage payments – leading to the so-called sub-prime market. In the UK, banks were lending money to people to buy mortgages at 100 per cent. They were also encouraged to take on more credit. With house prices rising, everyone felt wealthy and so they replaced equity in their house for debt to fund the next holiday. Savings ratios crashed. But then last year Northern Rock collapsed, sending shivers through the financial system because it could not raise enough money to meet the demands of its depositors. So you could say governments were to blame for allowing the debt mountain to grow, the financial regulators for not keeping a tighter control over the banks who lent beyond their means too, and the public for indulging in their debt addiction.

Article continues at the Independent online

Labels: credit crunch, explanation, faq, financial crisis