A carbon literacy test for Labour

The new government is adamant about its manifesto based right to do what it can to boost annual housebuilding rates to 370,000 to reach 1.5million new homes by 2029. It could not be unaware that the upfront or embodied carbon emissions from this scale of new building will be hard to contain within the carbon budgets set in accordance with the Climate Change Act 1990 as amended. This was legislation drafted by Ed Milliband the new Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero but has not publically questioned those chanting ‘build, build, build,’ so that the economy can ‘grow, grow, grow’ I am not in the planning business to advocate to increase or maintain the shocking levels of homelessness. But I fail to see sufficient connection between the new housing estates being built, permitted and planned on the edge of towns and villages, on ‘grey belt’ land and in new settlements and those living on the street or in sub-standard temporary accommodation. Neither do I see any real prospect of 29m dwellings being brought up to a zero carbon standard in the next few years. So there is a way of addressing both housing needs and carbon emissions that readers of the blog will know by heart. https://redbrickblog.co.uk/2023/06/sub-dividing-properties-to-meet-carbon-budgets/ The previous Government had not just one but two transition plans/carbon budgets found to be illegal for incompatibility with the Climate Change Act. No minister of official responsible for this travesty was fined or put in prison, unlike those who are arrested and charged with drawing these successive Government failures to the attention of the public. It seems to be more than likely that the new Government will see the manifesto commitment to housebuilding as a reason to sidestep responsible and legal carbon budgeting. There is the Future Building Standards and the NPPF consultation that could reference and Paul Brannen’s book Timber! How wood can help save the world from climate change were the Government interested in at least reducing upfront emissions. I doubt that the additional reliance on wood would be sufficient especially when new services and infrastructure is involved. But I would like to be proved wrong.