ways to unlock synergies between different forms of infrastructure, such as the waste we produce, and the energy we require. Such thinking is not new, in fact cities like Copenhagen and Malmo already link waste management to energy generation, using district heating as an energy carrier. Although, integrating infrastructure is not just about waste and energy, it is important that we consider another key resource – water – something which will become increasingly more precious in the future as populations grow. Finally, overlaying the ICT infrastructure that is required to truly turn Britain into a digital economy, and smarten the relationship between our buildings and the energy generators that supply them (aided by smart metering), is another element of an integrated infrastructure mix. Again this approach is being taken forward in other parts of the world such as in Abu Dhabi in a city called Masdar where a range of innovative approaches are being employed to create a smart, sustainable city.
Sounds great, obvious even, but there is some bad news. There are some barriers. But there is some good news too. We know where they exist. Indeed a joint task group instigated between the UK Green Building Council (UK-GBC) and the Zero Carbon Hub reported in 2010 on the barriers facing the socially equitable deployment of low carbon, sustainable community infrastructure that linked water, waste, energy and ICT infrastructure as a ‘smart’ package. A key theme that ran through the Task Group’s report is the important role that local authorities can play as an integrating hub, facilitating public/private partnerships with a vision embedded in an ‘opportunity centric’ Local Plan. At a city level, local authorities have a range of options and opportunities available to them to reduce green house gas (GHG) emissions, and create a sustainable infrastructure legacy. For example, they can target emissions over which they have direct control as an organisational entity (e.g. energy used in public buildings, public transport etc…) and use these assets as a basis from which to drive a community wide green revolution, by organically growing an integrated city wide infrastructure. Therefore, put simply, they can use their capacities and policy levers to reduce GHG emissions stemming from those socio-economic activities over which they have an administrative influence. Examples of such areas of local policy influence include land use zoning, natural resource management, building efficiency, waste and water services.
However, even where a local authority has established a vision and has identified and organised the levers it will tug on, to create a suitable planning environment for integrated community infrastructure schemes, a further stumbling block lies in the middle of the greener road ahead. This obstacle relates to the current lack of standardised legal arrangements The lack of standard off-the-shelf legal arrangements means that a well intentioned, strongly supported sustainable infrastructure proposition fails to get off the drawing board and into the ground because of the sheer scale of the costs and
bureaucracy associated with establishing a set of legal arrangements for utility suppliers and project partners to sign up to. Trying to address this issue is a second joint UK-GBC and Zero Carbon Hub task group , which has been formed to bring together a range of legal experts from across the UK-GBC’s membership base to identify the legal issues that need to be overcome to make sustainable community infrastructure a practical reality. This task group delivered its interim findings in May 2011 with its final report expected in January 2012.
But finally, it is impossible to steer away from the elephant in the room which in most instances is the biggest thing that stands in the way of the deployment of sustainable community/city infrastructure – cold, hard, cash. In a time of fiscal constraints, many local authorities simply lack the funds to deploy ambitious integrated infrastructure programmes to curb emissions and facilitate sustainable growth. Their ability to invest is therefore a key constraint, but there is an opportunity on the horizon which could provide the answer. In July 2011, the Zero Carbon Hub launched its report on Allowable Solutions for New Homes – Towards a workable framework . This report focused on how carbon emission offset payments made by developers from 2016 to reach the ‘zero carbon standard’, could be partnered with senior debt finance and project sponsor equity within either Community Energy Funds or Private Energy Funds. Applying a simple leveraging principle, the report explores a proposed framework which could transform £190m of developer payments into over £1bn of annual funding for carbon saving projects, such as sustainable community infrastructure. This could prove a valuable financing vehicle for local authorities with both the vision and opportunities to develop and grow sustainable community infrastructure packages which in time could be expanded to green an entire city.
So, what of ‘sustainability and the city’? Well let’s look at the facts: (a) we know that a long term trend is that cities will become larger, more densely populated and hungrier for energy; (b) we know that we need to curb emissions and use our resources more efficiently. These facts point to the need for a vision for cities today that creates an infrastructure platform which improves the energy fitness of its communities today, but is both fit for purpose for a ‘megacity’ of tomorrow. Yes there are barriers, yes there are challenges, but not addressing them is not really going to be all that acceptable for future generations who will ask why we didn’t before our cities got too big.
ENVIRONMENT INDUSTRY MAGAZINE |43|
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156 |
Page 157 |
Page 158 |
Page 159 |
Page 160 |
Page 161 |
Page 162 |
Page 163 |
Page 164 |
Page 165 |
Page 166 |
Page 167 |
Page 168 |
Page 169 |
Page 170 |
Page 171 |
Page 172 |
Page 173 |
Page 174 |
Page 175 |
Page 176 |
Page 177 |
Page 178 |
Page 179 |
Page 180 |
Page 181 |
Page 182 |
Page 183 |
Page 184 |
Page 185 |
Page 186 |
Page 187 |
Page 188 |
Page 189 |
Page 190 |
Page 191 |
Page 192