English Heritage: a story of dubious ‘goings on’?

 

 

 

The Story so far

We blogged previously that English Heritage was reportedly instrumental in persuading Government Departments to repress planning legislation which required applicants to consider disposal and treatment of materials that might be affected by demolition at the time of new applications. This behind the scenes activity was recently commented upon in our blog at the time of the recent DEFRA consultation submission to Europe (Revisions to the Waste HierarchyPP115).

It seems, that what appeared at the time as the misguided action of  English Heritage, possibly for misplaced but sincere reasons, is only part of what, increasingly, looks like a broader policy of more serious intrigue.

English Heritage is arguably compromised

English Heritage has, according to Richard Girling in his Times Online article Fireworks over fireplaces, embarked for some time in  commercial activity that seems to compromise its independence and integrity. Arguably, this conflicts with public expectation of such an auspicious champion of conservation and heritage matters.

If Richard Girling is correct, English Heritage is very confused on matters relating to accurate historical architectural detail and not a little bit hypocritical, if not potentially fraudulent, in not declaring a vested interest when proffering advice on period fireplaces and chimneypieces.

Authenticity vs Commercial Advantage…you decide

How can English Heritage remain independent and free from external influence if it is advising on architectural matters of authenticity and at the same time recommending clients install reproduction fireplaces from a company with whom it enjoys commercial advantages?

This seems a straightforward conflict of interest without even considering the carbon footprint of importing manufactured reproduction chimneypieces from Turkey, Italy and China.

In 2010 , I think we need to re -examine the role of who, in English Heritage, is responsible for these disastrous policy decisions before the public loses all confidence in these former trusted champions of Britain’s precious heritage.

Read the full article by Richard Girling in Times Online: Fireworks over fireplaces.

Knowledge Exchange Network: House Of Commons Meeting

High expectations at the Knowledge Exchange Network…but were they met?

Set in the wonderful surroundings of the terrace bar restaraunt at the Houses Of Parliament, the Knowledge Exchange Network announced its coming of age.

Given the grandeur of our surroundings and 120 delegates and representatives from all walks of industry, expectations were high.

Sadly events went down hill after  MP Barry Sheerman’s motivational opening address, stressing the need for change and the imperative to understand that our present policies and patterns of consumption  cannot be sustained.

The Chairperson of the new group Environmental Sustainability KTN, Colin Drummond, Chief Executive of Viridor, called for a policy  directive to achieve 6% Energy from Waste from the present 1.5% base.  His proposition was well delivered and drove forward yet more backing for Incineration and Recyclates.

When will the authorities wake up to Reuse and Reclamation?

No mention in any literature, posters or speeches was made at any time in the entire proceedings about Reuse and Reclamation. So much for joined up government.

Only last month we had spent a whole day in Whitehall on the other side of Parliament Square listening to a DEFRA presentation on the need to change the Waste Hierarchy to comply with future European Waste Directive proposals. Yesterday, the only stated view was to do more of what already fails; the poor, hapless politicians were  trying to do their best but had no grasp of how, in their desperation to get things going, they were  sowing the seeds of failure.

Politicians need a reuse roadmap, not a commercial dead end

The good intentions of politicians who continue to believe down-cycling will remedy anything was palpably tragic given the cynicism of the commercial vested interests who were there only to control the opportunities that might come their way from Government.

I must stress, I have no doubt that the politicians present genuinely believe they are finding postive solutions.

They have no idea what the alternatives are because they are surrounded by commercial lobbyists who are concerned to promote only self interest. You cannot burn and crush your way out of the present over-consumption of virgin raw materials.

We, the reclaimers, need to do more

Why, on such an important ocassion, was there no reference even obliquely to Reclamation in any of the speeches, literature or wall posters?

The answer can only be the failure of the reclamation trade and sustainability lobby to convince  politicians that they are directed into a policy cul-de-sac that solves nothing. The financial and organisational muscle of the orthodox down-cyclers deafens all alternative voices.

We need to remove subsidy to the demolishers and recyclate industry and redirect priorities away from incineration as a central plinth of our campaigns for  Environmental Sustainability.

There will be a case for crushing and burning, but only on the margins if we are to recover the full carbon value of scarce materials.

Like the Olympic project, with all its fine words of support for sustainability, Reclamation has been substituted for Recycling. Valuable opportunities have, in reality, been ignored in favour of Down-Cycling.

Ten out of Ten for hospitality, charm and sincerity!  Nil points for change or improvement.

More about MASCo Sustainability

DEFRA Waste Consultation

So it was that Jonathan Essex of Bioregional and I arrived in Whitehall at the offices of DEFRA to take part in the latest consultation to discuss the EU Waste Framework Directive and the Waste Hierarchy.

Sadly, carefully worded thoughts are too dull to catch the popular imagination. Conversely, sensationalist headlines alienate the scientific community and responsible policy makers. So, taking the plunge and steering between the two extremes, someone had to call for commitment to environmental challenges and demand things change before it is too late. Let me restate that same point. Commitment has to mean confronting awkward and inconvenient truths that may involve disruption to comfortable lives and require significant altered behaviour. Al Gore may have his detractors but the title of his themed environmental crusade addresses the real issue. Will we accept the inconvenience?

Behind the scenes, in the corridors of power in dry committee rooms, argument hardly rages but quietly progresses, dealing with the great environmental issues of the day.

Before you lose the will to live I should explain.

The prevailing policy affecting waste and the construction industry is wedded to the obsession of recycling in the name of diversion from landfill. Successive government agencies have each rowed in behind the recycling posture, with Treasury subsidy following and providing reinforcement. Conveniently, this approach is easily monitored and measureable by targets, which gives Ministers the opportunity to claim tangible achievements, whilst actually failing to address the fundamental problem.

Waste is defined and modelled as a pyramid with Reuse (and the unspeakable reclamation) at the top of the narrow pinnacle presiding over the broad base of recyclates and incineration (crushing and burning demolition materials). The reality once more is that we pursue target driven objectives relentlessly endorsed by tax incentive, and gloss over the implicit deception because it is reassuring to believe we are successful as recyclers.

The deception continues in the very language we use and the way we discuss the issues. The Germans call the process of material recovery either up cycling or down cycling to expose the truth of the situation. We settle for pretending that recycling is good, whilst actually applying the lowest common denominator approach, and never truly addressing the problem that recycling destroys reusable building materials. Whilst we continue to recycle (crush and burn), we will never achieve the higher recovery of embodied carbon values which would be obtained by driving the emphasis of activity higher up the waste hierarchy.

Demolition on Olympic scale

If all this seems arcane, let me demonstrate the experience of the Olympic Park. The sustainability studies boast 90 percent recovery levels of recycled materials and go immediately into boasting the sustainability credentials of the project. Politicians and the Olympic Delivery Authority instantly congratulated themselves as successful in achieving two core buzz targets – sustainability and recycling. The reality is that traditional demolition teams have mechanically crashed (sorry, reduced) buildings to the ground, sent the concrete and bricks to an onsite crushing facility and segregated the timber and burnable elements for energy generation via incineration. The embodied carbon saving is minimal but the Government loves the headlines saying they are successful recyclers. Hardly anything is reclaimed and reused and so the self-deception goes on!

Jonathan Essex and I both made these points at last week’s consultation exercise held by DEFRA in Whitehall. The exercise could potentially redefine the waste hierarchy in favour of reclamation over recycling but DEFRA needs much more representation from the salvage industry to confirm that this is what we want, and to balance the almost 100 percent of construction stakeholders who are pushing for recycling over reuse.

Get your views off quickly to DEFRA whilst the door is open and before it can be diluted by vested interests that pursue profit before social and environmental considerations.

MASCo Twitter: Follow our thoughts and views on reuse.