26/07/2020

(AU) The Green Recovery: This Builder Used To Be Sceptical About Green Homes. Now He’s A Convert

The Guardian | 

Australia’s leaky homes are leaving millions of us vulnerable to extreme weather. In the first of a series of features on the Green Recovery, we look at how coronavirus stimulus could fix the problem

Builder Tony O’Connell from TS Constructions on site at The Cape, a sustainable residential development at Cape Paterson, Victoria. Photograph: Alana Holmberg/Oculi for The Guardian

Green Recovery
The coronavirus pandemic has devastated the economy but also presented a unique opportunity: to invest in climate action that creates jobs and stimulates investment, before it’s too late.
The Green Recovery features people on the frontline of Australia’s potential green recovery.
Tony O’Connell used to build whatever was put in front of him.

The 53-year-old from Wonthaggi, a coastal town in Gippsland, Victoria, has been in construction for 34 years. “What was on the plan was what was on the plan,” he says. “I wouldn’t question it.”

That is, until he attended a meeting for a proposed development in the area – one of a number of locals gearing up to run the interlopers out of town.

“We all went along thinking, yep, it’s going to be a greenwash and just someone else doing a cookie-cutter development to cut our lovely little town up,” O’Connell says.

Sand dunes at Cape Paterson separate The Cape from Bass Strait. Photograph: Alana Holmberg/Oculi for The Guardian 

But he left thinking they might have a point. More than a decade on, that development is The Cape, one of Australia’s leading eco-villages, in the nearby town of Cape Paterson. And O’Connell is one of a growing number of builders trying to improve Australian houses.

Now, when a plan lands in front of him, he’s the first to point out how it could improve, coaxing homeowners into making small changes that he calls “two percenters”. A window shifted to a different wall, a patch of concrete floor that soaks up the winter sun – these tweaks can make a big difference. “I get a lot of irate calls from architects,” says O’Connell.

The Australian home has a big problem: it's draughty, poorly insulated and costs a fortune to heat and cool. Most older homes have an abysmal energy efficiency rating – and we are paying the price. So what can be done to fix the problem? A lot, actually. And the government could play a role in retrofitting Australia's existing housing stock with its coronavirus stimulus spending. Here's how.

According to Trivess Moore, a senior lecturer and researcher into sustainable housing at RMIT, builders – and plumbers, electricians, people who sell appliances and others – are “critical intermediaries” in delivering sustainable housing.

Most people build new homes or do renovations rarely, Moore says, which leaves them reliant on tradies for information.

“Quite often it might be that someone is recommended to you, ‘Oh, my friend used that builder, I’ll trust whatever they say,’” he says. “[The ideal is] when you do have builders who are going the extra mile, and also going ‘If this was my house, this is what I’d want for a better outcome.’”

Tony O’Connell on site at one of the homes he and his team are constructing at The Cape, one of Australia’s leading eco-villages. Photograph: Alana Holmberg/Oculi for The Guardian

But green builders have a lot of work ahead of them. Building better houses from scratch is one thing. Improving Australia’s dismal existing housing is another.

The national building code currently requires new houses to have a six-star energy-efficiency rating. The majority of houses built before 2005 have ratings between 1.5 and two.

“They’re pretty shocking,” says Alan Pears, a senior industry fellow at RMIT who has been working in housing policy since the early 1980s. “[Problems with] windows, the building fabric, poorly insulated, poorly shaded and the houses leak like sieves.”

O’Connell says many older homes are so leaky, the air in the house changes over about 15 times each hour. As well, they are full of inefficient appliances, spanning from hot water systems to fridges to lightbulbs to televisions.

It all adds up – and exacerbates inequality. People on lower incomes are more likely to be living in older and poorer quality homes, and then either cannot afford or are not in control of upgrades.

People are starting to see sustainability as a long-term benefit instead of a drain on their bank accounts, Tony O’Connell says. Photograph: Alana Holmberg/Oculi for The Guardian


 According to Kellie Caught, senior advisor on climate and energy at the Australian Council of Social Services, low-income households spend 6.4% of their income on energy bills, against a national average of 2.4% and just 1.5% for high-income households.

Poor quality housing is also detrimental to people’s health, a factor likely to worsen as the climate crisis unfolds.

“We’ve got a lot of people who in winter are suffering from cold,” O’Connell says. “And in summer, we have a higher death toll from people living in heat who can’t afford air conditioning than we do out of bushfires.”

There are ways to make older homes more efficient, but some are harder than others.

It’s easy enough to put insulation in ceilings and sometimes under floors, to replace lightbulbs with LEDs, and to plug gaps to keep out the cold and heat. Other changes, like upgrading to double-glazed windows, putting insulation into the walls, and buying better appliances can be costly, difficult or both.

The poor standard of Australian buildings has prompted calls for a nationwide efficiency drive as part of federal and state coronavirus stimulus spending, which would also help tackle the climate crisis. About a quarter of national emissions are from buildings.

The Australian Council of Social Service and the Australian Industry Group are among those to have urged the Morrison government to support an efficiency and solar power package for low-income and social housing, finding it could create 60,000 jobs.

The chief scientist, Alan Finkel, has also highlighted the benefits of fixing the country’s leaky buildings, as have groups representing business, the energy industry, the property sector, unions and major investors.

Beyond Zero Emissions, a climate change thinktank, analysed what it would take to transform Australia’s building sector as part of what it calls a “million jobs plan”. It found there would be about 200,000 jobs in a five-year program to perform 2.5m “deep energy retrofits” on existing homes and construct 150,000 7.5 star-rated social houses.

Tony O’Connell at The Cape. He says many older homes are so leaky the air in the house changes over about 15 times each hour. Photograph: Alana Holmberg/Oculi for The Guardian

Separately, researchers from the Australian National University set out to test how Covid-19 stimulus spending could have lasting economic value, cut emissions and improve people’s lives. They found energy retrofits, particular for low-income households, ticked all boxes.

“You can just get the dollars out the door and into the community really quickly,” says Prof Frank Jotzo, director of ANU’s Centre for Climate and Energy Policy. “It would be a much better investment economically, socially and environmentally than the Homebuilder program, which is paying money to people who already have a project under way.”

Advocates are clear that a nationwide housing overhaul is needed. But it just hasn’t happened.

“We’ve been talking about regulating upgrading of older buildings since the 1980s,” Pears says, breaking into resigned laughter, “and we haven’t done it.

“I think it’s fair to say there is a lack of will and leadership to drive this because it is tricky.”

In the early 2010s, Heidi Lee was the project manager of Beyond Zero Emissions’ ambitious plan to retrofit every single building in Australia.

“If you committed to doing it wholesale, it’s much cheaper,” Lee, now the project lead on BZE’s “million jobs plan”, explains. But when it comes to upgrading inefficient homes, you have to spend money to save it, and lots of Australians don’t have the cash sitting around.

‘I think if you went back 10 years ago and talked about sustainable construction, people would think you were proposing to build an igloo somewhere.’ Photograph: Alana Holmberg/Oculi for The Guardian

Another big weak point is the rental market. “The landlord would have to spend the money to upgrade the building and the tenant is the one getting comfortable and having lower bills,” Pears says. “Why would a landlord do that?”

One way around this, and a major solution to unlocking mass retrofits, Lee says, is the expansion of environmental upgrade agreements across Australia. Under these agreements, owners can get low-interest loans that cover the upfront cost of energy retrofits and are paid back through council rates.
If you get the design right, it doesn’t cost a lot of money to build sustainable
Tony O’Connell
Such schemes are currently available in Victoria, New South Wales and South Australia, but only for commercial buildings. Victoria recently passed legislation to extend the schemes to homes. The space is still developing, Lee says, but could be extended to social housing.

“We see upgrade agreements as a key plan for a green recovery, particularly coming out of Covid,” says Scott Bocskay, CEO of Sustainable Fund Australia.

Bocskay says there are a number of other energy-saving schemes and incentives out there – for instance, Solar Victoria offers interest free loans for solar panels – but generally the approach is “fragmented”.

Tony O’Connell inspects the masonry. Photograph: Alana Holmberg/Oculi for The Guardian

Another option for prompting retrofits, Moore and Pears suggest, is putting a minimum energy-efficiency standard on houses that are put up for lease or sale. The Australian Capital Territory intends to introduce such a law for rental properties in 2021.

“That’s a way of using the market to lift the bottom, but it also means if you choose not to sell your house for 10 or 15 years or whatever it might be, you don’t have to worry about that,” Moore says. “It doesn’t force everyone to make the change right now but it ensures that over time there is that lifting of standards.”

There’s also the question of how to gain public momentum. People building new homes are often pushing for sustainability in the long term, but decision-making for renters tends to be more multifaceted. Plus, a house’s energy performance isn’t exactly visible.

“It’s pretty hard to tell if there’s insulation in the walls. A lot of people don’t even know which way the house is facing,” Pears says.

“And look, to be honest, most Australians have never lived in a decent house in terms of energy performance. We’ve all grown up in 50- or 20-year-old buildings that are pretty awful, and we don’t even know what a good building is until we live in it.”

There’s no doubt homes being built in Australia today are better than those constructed last century. But experts and builders say the six-star requirement is already out of date, and leaves Australia in Europe’s dust.

“While that may have been a big step 10 years ago, now six stars is so easy to achieve for a builder,” O’Connell says. “We’re building a lot of homes at the moment that people can’t afford to live in through extremes of temperature. We’re not planning for the future.”

If you design a house well enough, O’Connell says, you can get to six stars with single-glaze windows and no insulation. Add a bit of insulation, and it rises to seven or eight. These are the kinds of dwellings he is working on at Cape Paterson, which he sees as a benchmark for better housing in Australia.

Tony O’Connell outside a home he and his team at TS Constructions built at The Cape. Photograph: Alana Holmberg/Oculi for The Guardian

“If you get the design right, it doesn’t cost a lot of money to build sustainable,” O’Connell says. “It’s when you don’t get the design right and you try to get your energy ratings by putting increasingly more expensive product in to try and achieve the rating, that it does cost a bit.”

There are hopes the 2022 revisions to the National Construction Code will see the minimum standard for new homes and significant renovations lifted to seven stars.

O’Connell delivers talks to other builders and to councils about building more sustainable homes. Change is slow, he says, but happening.

“I think if you went back 10 years ago and talked about sustainable construction, people would think you were proposing to build an igloo somewhere,” he says.

Now, people are starting to see sustainability as a long-term benefit instead of a drain on their bank accounts.

“It’s hip pocket. They get their quarterly power bill, they know how much it’s costing, you demonstrate how little it can cost,” he says. “I think the thinking has changed now, where people are considering a lot of these things to be a benefit rather than a cost.”

Links

(AU) Climate Change Litigation: The Australian Government Gets Sued

Scoop - 
“It’s time the government told the public about the impact climate change will have on our future and the economy.”
Katta O’Donnell,
The Guardian, Jul 24, 2020

Katta O’Donnell
Photograph: Molly Townsend


Dr Binoy Kampmark holds a PhD in history from the University of Cambridge. He also has a Masters degree in history and honours degrees in Arts and Law from the University of Queensland.
Dr Kampmark is a Senior Lecturer in the School of Global, Urban and Social Studies, teaching within the Bachelor of Social Science (Legal and Dispute Studies) program at RMIT University, Melbourne.
While coronavirus ravages life, dominates policy and clouds debate, that other pressing issue of addressing climate change has moved into a more modest gear.

That has not prevented some bubbling activity from taking place on the matter of litigation.

While climate change law suits remain in their swaddling clothes, some shape is discernible.

In countries where fossil fuels remain sovereign, legal actions have focused on restricting or preventing the approval of projects and holding companies accountable on environmental risks associated with their activities.

Short of the bare fisted force of legal action, people’s tribunals, community bodies and petitions have tended to urge change in the field, drawing attention to the predations of climate change policies. In December 2005, for instance, Sheila Watt-Cloutier filed a petition on behalf of the Inuit with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights claiming that US climate change policy had breached their human rights. As she stated at the time, “A declaration from the commission may not be enforceable, but it has great moral value…. Protecting human rights is ground occupied by both reasonable governments and civil society.”

In April 2019, the Australian legal firm Corrs, with unintended punning, predicted a “third wave” of climate change litigation. “In that wave, investors will seek to recover their losses from directors, auditors and advisers who have not confronted climate change risks.” Communities affected by the vicissitudes of climate change would also “litigate to try to force action by government and the largest emitters, and to seek damages from those they think might be held responsible for contribution, inaction, and obfuscation.”

In December 2019, a galvanic jolt passed through the field of ecological justice with a ruling by the Netherlands’ highest court in Urgenda Foundation v. Netherlands. The Dutch Supreme Court upheld the decision of the appellate court affirming the original decision that the government cut its greenhouse gas emissions by at least 25% by the end of 2020 (compared to 1990 levels). While the Dutch State did not disagree with the threat posed by climate change, their argument rested on the primacy of political decision making: it was up to political representatives to decide on the levels of reduction.

In their judgment approving judicial scrutiny of such governmental actions, the justices noted that inadequate action in addressing climate change posed a “risk of irreversible changes to the worldwide ecosystems and liveability our planet” with a “serious risk that the current generation of citizens will be confronted with loss of life and/or a disruption to family life… that the State has a duty to protect against.” The European Convention of Human Rights reaffirmed the State’s obligation “to protect the life and the right to private and family life of its residents”.

The ruling gave Michelle Bachelet, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, enough to suggest that “a clear path forward for concerned individuals in Europe – and around the world – to undertake climate litigation in order to protect human rights” had been made. “The potentially devastating effects of unchecked sea rise, heat waves, uncontrollable forest fires, hurricanes and other growing emergencies must spur us all to demand courage and decisiveness by Governments everywhere in responding to these threats.”

As of January 2020, the number of climate change cases filed was recorded at 1,444. A climate change litigation update furnished by Norton Rose Fulbright noted in February this year that suits had “been filed in 33 countries, in addition to cases brought in regional or international courts and commissions. The vast majority of these cases continue to be commenced in the United States (US), followed by Australia, United Kingdom, European Union, New Zealand, Canada and Spain.”

On July 22, university student Katta O’Donnell filed a civil action in the Australian Federal Court that may find itself in the same league as Urgenda, albeit with a somewhat more corporate flavour. She wished, in her words, to put the government “on trial for misconduct”.

The action makes the dangers of climate change, and a state’s obligation to inform investors of those dangers, a central theme. “At all material times,” the action observes, “there has existed a significant likelihood that the climate is changing, and will continue to change, as the result of anthropogenic influences.” To that end, “Australia is materially exposed and susceptible” to the risks posed by climate change.

Such risks loom large for the investor – in this case, the investor who seeks to trade in government bonds, a market in Australia worth A$700 billion. Such considerations “can have a serious material impact on a decision by an investor to invest in Sovereign bonds and on the value of Sovereign bonds.” In lending money to the government, investors were entitled to be appraised of these risks, being “material to [their] decision to trade in exchange-Australian government bonds (e-AGBs)”.

In “failing to disclose climate change risks to investors,” claim O’Donnell’s lawyers, “the Commonwealth of Australia is accused of breaching its duty of disclosure and misleading and deceiving investors.” The requisite standard of care and diligence was therefore not met. “The standard is equivalent to the legal standard imposed on company directors in Australia.”

The current Australian government, overly friendly to the fossil fuel sector, filled with barely closeted climate change denialists, will find O’Donnell’s action troubling. The voter turned demanding investor is a truly threatening prospect.

Links

(US) Climate Change Poses ‘Systemic Threat’ To The Economy, Big Investors Warn

New York TimesChristopher Flavelle

Financial regulators should act to avoid economic disaster, according to a letter from pension funds and other investors representing almost $1 trillion in assets.

A letter signed by executives from pension plans and other major investors warned the Federal Reserve and other agencies of the financial risks of climate change. Credit...Leah Millis/Reuters

WASHINGTON — Climate change threatens to create turmoil in the financial markets, and the Federal Reserve and other regulators must act to avoid an economic disaster, according to a letter sent on Tuesday by a group of large investors.

“The climate crisis poses a systemic threat to financial markets and the real economy, with significant disruptive consequences on asset valuations and our nation’s economic stability,” reads the letter, which was signed by more than three dozen pension plans, fund managers and other financial institutions that together manage almost $1 trillion in assets.

That financial threat, combined with the physical risks posed by climate change, may create “disastrous impacts the likes of which we haven’t seen before,” the letter says. It urges the Fed, the Securities and Exchange Commission and other agencies to “explicitly integrate climate change across your mandates.”

Investors worry that if regulators do not act, climate change may cause the price of some companies to fall suddenly, the effects of which may ricochet through the economy. Providing more information about that risk — for example, by requiring companies to disclose more about their greenhouse gas emissions, or which of their facilities are at risk from rising seas — could help investors make better decisions.

That, in turn, might encourage companies to lower their emissions, or risk losing access to investment or affordable insurance coverage. “Every medium and large business has bank loans and has insurance,” said Steven Rothstein, managing director of the Ceres Accelerator for Sustainable Capital Markets, a group that works with investors and which organized the letter.

The letter calls on regulators to adopt the steps Ceres outlined last month in a report that makes 51 recommendations to eight federal agencies. At its core are two demands: that the agencies treat climate change as a systemic risk, and that the S.E.C. ensures mandatory and consistent disclosure of climate threats facing companies.

According to Ceres, regulators can adopt each of its recommendations without new legislation from Congress. Still, during the Trump administration, even agencies that are meant to have a degree of independence from the White House have been reluctant to address climate change. President Trump has called global warming a hoax, and he has reversed nearly 70 environmental rules, with another 30 in progress.

Nevertheless, Ceres’s recommendations offer a blueprint for how a Democratic administration might begin to tackle climate change, should former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. win the presidency in November. Last month, Democrats on the House Select Committee on the Climate Crisis released a report that echoed some of the recommendations from Ceres, particularly ones regarding the disclosure of financial risks.

The letter on Tuesday suggests that those recommendations have significant support among investors as well.

The letter was signed by some of the largest pension funds in the country, including the California State Teachers’ Retirement System, or CalSTRS, which manages $246 billion; the New York City Comptroller’s Office, which oversees pension funds worth $206 billion; and the New York State Comptroller’s Office, which manages the state’s $211 billion retirement fund.

Liz Gordon, executive director of corporate governance for New York State’s fund, said that even large institutional investors with skilled researchers could not protect their holdings against climate risk. “We do a lot of engagement with companies individually,” Ms. Gordon said. “But that’s not going to solve the broader problem.”

She said the S.E.C., which regulates the stock market and requires publicly traded companies to regularly disclose information about a range of perils they face, should also require those companies to better disclose the financial risks they confront from climate change.

Other asset managers warned that climate change would increasingly disrupt businesses.

Julie Gorte, senior vice president for sustainable investing at Impax Asset Management, which manages $23 billion, said the S.E.C. should force companies to disclose the location of their physical assets, such as factories and other facilities. That way, investors can gauge the risks facing those facilities from wildfires, hurricanes or flooding, and push companies to address them. Investors would then be able to choose whether to invest based on that information.

“Regulators actually have the power to make the risks smaller,” she said. “That will help all investors.”

Another useful change, Mr. Rothstein said, would be for the Fed to require banks to examine the climate vulnerability of the companies they lend money to. Banks already do those tests for other types of financial risk, through a process that regulators and investors call “stress tests.”

Banks could then use the information from those climate-related stress tests to increase the amount of money they hold in reserve, to help them stay solvent if some of those companies defaulted. After the 2008 financial crisis and the collapse of the United States housing market, “we looked at stress tests for banks, focusing on housing,” Mr. Rothstein said. Now, he said, “think about the climate risks.”

Sarah Bloom Raskin, a former Federal Reserve governor and deputy secretary of the Treasury who wrote the foreword to Ceres’s list of recommendations, said that regulators in the United States were falling behind their counterparts in other countries, which have already begun imposing stress tests for climate change as well as other steps.

“You see very credible central banks, like the Bank of England and the European Central Bank, taking the risk of a climate calamity into their mission in a very disciplined and structured way,” Ms. Raskin said. “These aren’t fringe ideas.”

While the changes don’t require congressional approval, the objections of some Republican lawmakers to acting on climate change have had a chilling effect on regulators, said former Representative Carlos Curbelo, Republican of Florida, who signed the letter.

“Some civil servants logically fear that certain legislators, certain committees would come after them or attack them,” Mr. Curbelo said. “By and large, regulators try to stay out of controversy.”

Still, Mr. Curbelo said the need to act was clear. “The risks are real,” he said, “and those of us who live here in South Florida observe them on a daily basis.”

Links