When John Prescott famously criticised the 'Noddy Box' designs of new British housing, who do you think took responsibility? Certainly not the handful of housebuilders who dominate the industry, and in our current shortage of supply can dictate what gets built. 'Not our fault,' came their hardly credible retort. 'We're just making what the public wants to live in.'
Now, it seems, the construction industry is at it again, only this time the stakes are much higher. According to a new survey of building professionals, one major reason we don't have greener homes, offices, factories, shops and schools is because of no demand. Really?
It's a handy excuse if you don't want to risk profits by changing your ways: blame the buyer, not the builder.
Around 52% of the UK's carbon dioxide emissions come from creating or using buildings, so given the government's aim to cut 60% of carbon dioxide emissions by 2050, the construction sector is a key target for a clean up.
Hence the pledge by Gordon Brown that all new homes will be 'zero carbon' by 2016. Leaving aside how this might actually work and what it would mean in reality, it's a crystal clear statement of intent. All of us need to be doing our bit.
So the report from the Chartered Institute of Building makes interesting reading. This is the body which represents 43,000 construction managers and directors of large companies. Not the bloke who comes round to put up a conservatory or fix the roof, but the giants behind the gherkin and many large housing developments.
The report states that awareness in the industry has been 'heightened' in regards to environmental issues, which sounds an encouraging note. Furthermore, a conclusive 98% of the 850 surveyed accept that construction has a role to play in climate change.
So far so good, but then comes a double whammy -- one that should not only worry government but indicates this is a sector happy to let things stay as they are. Asked whether the industry is currently able to produce zero carbon buildings en masse, the answer was an emphatic 'no' (87.8%). Well, you could argue, at least they have got nearly a decade to sort this one out.
The next question, however, asked why this was not possible, and the two biggest responses said it all. Firstly, 24% claimed there was no financial incentive. Come again? Are these builders suggesting they should be paid to pollute less, or that it is too expensive to switch to green products and practices? If it is the latter, then what about economies of scale? A nod or a wink from one of Britain's construction goliaths (the word dinosaur also comes to mind) could transform the whole green building landscape.
The second main reason the industry said they could not produce zero carbon buildings on a large scale, was 'not enough market' (20.9% of respondents claimed this). Like the proliferation of John Prescott's Noddy Boxes, builders would have us believe, the client is to blame.
I find this incredible. The idea that there is no appetite for carbon zero developments in the current climate is laughable. I even think buyers would pay slightly more for them. Take the much praised eco-housing at Great Bow Yard, in Langport, Somerset. Though this has never claimed to be zero carbon, it scores an 'excellent' eco rating, according to the Building Research Establishment. When the houses and flats came up for sale, they didn't take long to sell, even though slightly above the market price for homes of a similar size in the area.
Most importantly, the developer Ecos Homes recorded a profit on the scheme, one that favourably compared with the margins expected by mainstream housebuilders.
No money in green building? No demand? Come off it.
