(I snapped this up from another forum, have never seen this page before, but seems a bit conspiratorial, nevertheless)

http://www.prisonplanet.com/eu-to-ban-construction-of-ordinary-family-houses-by-2020.html

(The pdf file, don't know if you can link to it here, but the link is in the article above.)

Page 32, Article 9, Paragraph1a: "by 31 December 2020, all new buildings are nearly zero-energy buildings"

 

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/public/focus_page/008-57107-187-07-28-901-20090612FCS57088-06-07-2009-2009/default_p001c002_en.htm :

 

Unless you are lucky enough to be sitting in a park with a laptop, if you are reading this you are probably in one of the 160 million buildings in the European Union. In total they account for 40% of Europe's energy use and the room for savings is extensive. MEPs on the Energy Committee recently backed proposals that should see all buildings constructed after 2018 having to produce their own energy. The plans relate to proposed changes to the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive.

 

On Tuesday 18 May, MEPs approved the changes to Energy Performance of Buildings Directive. This will help consumers to cut their energy bills and the EU as a whole to hit its climate targets set for 2020. Member States will have to alter their building codes so that all new buildings constructed from the end of 2020 meet high energy-saving standards. Existing buildings will have to be upgraded where possible.

 

Higher standards for new buildings

 

All buildings put up from the end of 2020 must have high energy-saving standards and, to a large extent, use renewable energy. Public authorities' building projects are to lead the way two years earlier. Part of the funding for these changes will come from the EU budget.

 

Upgrading of existing buildings

Where feasible the energy performance of existing buildings will have to be improved through major renovations. When renovating, owners will be encouraged to install "smart meters" and replace heating, hot-water plumbing and air-conditioning systems with high-efficiency alternatives such as heat pumps. Regular inspections of boilers and air conditioning systems will be required.

 

 

The Parliament approved the directive on Tuesday 18 May 2010. The EP's report was drafted by Romanian Socialist MEP Silvia-Adriana Ţicău.

 

-----

I have never liked the EU, and never will. It's one of the few things which i hold in common with the Left party here.

 

I don't know where these guys get their balls from. I understand the need to be energy efficient, i am very conscious about the planet. As a sports-fisher, you've already started to notice some changes.

However, to deny me the right to build a house of a design that i like is bollocks. Having proper insulation and hiring good contractors, in my mind, should be enough. If i had a guess, i would guess that is mostly older houses that leak, say pre-60s?

God damn this pisses me off. I don't like these fascist methods. Why should some old fart in Brussels, who don't have any contact with reality, decide what i can live in and not? Argh!

I don't want to live in some square box which looks like crap. And i'll be damned if someone in the future are gonna demand me to pay for upgrading my house (yes i know this is hypocritical with the 'conscious about the planet' statement).

thing is: we live lives that aren't sustainable. we need to change all aspects of our lives for them to be sustainable. they still won't be sustainable, but we'll ruin the world less.

 

This is one step in that direction for those who believe we should strive for leaving the world to future generations as best we can, instead of indulging in all luxury we can possibly imagine.

 

that's a little too radical for me, but everyone would be fine in your "boxes" Just not as luxurious at the expense of future generations. would i relinquish most of my luxury for a "better world" ? no.

Future generations can work hard like past and present generations did. Believe it or not, this planet has enough resources to last for a very long time. We just need to figure the technology to reach resources.

Some people have to be dragged kicking and screaming ino the next century...

 

Be glad that for you "the next century" means the 21st...

Some people have to be dragged kicking and screaming ino the next century...

 

Be glad that for you "the next century" means the 21st...

Hm? I'm very much in time.

Note to tip.it readers: Anything coming from prison planet should be taken with an extreme grain of salt. Alex Jones is a whack job.

 

On the topic at hand, though, cosign with tortilliachp. Leave aside the fact that we're destroying the planet with coal and oil through climate change and environmental impacts with the oil spill, we're using too many resources. This planet can't keep up with our wasteful lives. It's unsustainable. Live free or die? Well, I'd choose to live a life that's better for my children and grandchildren than doing something selfishly because of some distorted view of freedom, thanks.

Note to tip.it readers: Anything coming from prison planet should be taken with an extreme grain of salt. Alex Jones is a whack job.

 

On the topic at hand, though, cosign with tortilliachp. Leave aside the fact that we're destroying the planet with coal and oil through climate change and environmental impacts with the oil spill, we're using too many resources. This planet can keep up with our wasteful lives. It's unsustainable. Live free or die? Well, I'd choose to live a life that's better for my children and grandchildren than doing something selfishly because of some distorted view of freedom, thanks.

While I agree with the "too many resources" statement, I do question the heavy-handedness of forcing people to build their houses a certain way. Bearing in mind as well, many people don't have the funds to upgrade existing houses.

Note to tip.it readers: Anything coming from prison planet should be taken with an extreme grain of salt. Alex Jones is a whack job.

 

On the topic at hand, though, cosign with tortilliachp. Leave aside the fact that we're destroying the planet with coal and oil through climate change and environmental impacts with the oil spill, we're using too many resources. This planet can keep up with our wasteful lives. It's unsustainable. Live free or die? Well, I'd choose to live a life that's better for my children and grandchildren than doing something selfishly because of some distorted view of freedom, thanks.

While I agree with the "too many resources" statement, I do question the heavy-handedness of forcing people to build their houses a certain way. Bearing in mind as well, many people don't have the funds to upgrade existing houses.

 

I'd seriously question forcing people to do it, but putting a hand on regulation and tax incentives is the way that it should be done. The US suburban lifestyle needs to be attacked, head on. Europe needs to tackle it sooner I suppose because there's not enough land, let alone resources.

 

The world is heading for an "ecological credit crunch" far worse than the current financial crisis because humans are over-using the natural resources of the planet, an international study warns today.

 

The Living Planet report calculates that humans are using 30% more resources than the Earth can replenish each year, which is leading to deforestation, degraded soils, polluted air and water, and dramatic declines in numbers of fish and other species. As a result, we are running up an ecological debt of $4tr (£2.5tr) to $4.5tr every year - double the estimated losses made by the world's financial institutions as a result of the credit crisis - say the report's authors, led by the conservation group WWF, formerly the World Wildlife Fund. The figure is based on a UN report which calculated the economic value of services provided by ecosystems destroyed annually, such as diminished rainfall for crops or reduced flood protection.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/oct/29/climatechange-endangeredhabitats

 

Say good bye to tuna, too:

 

What was in the water that day was a congregation of Atlantic bluefin tuna, a fish that when prepared as sushi is one of the most valuable forms of seafood in the world. It’s also a fish that regularly journeys between America and Europe and whose two populations, or “stocks,” have both been catastrophically overexploited. The BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, one of only two known Atlantic bluefin spawning grounds, has only intensified the crisis. By some estimates, there may be only 9,000 of the most ecologically vital megabreeders left in the fish’s North American stock, enough for the entire population of New York to have a final bite (or two) of high-grade otoro sushi. The Mediterranean stock of bluefin, historically a larger population than the North American one, has declined drastically as well. Indeed, most Mediterranean bluefin fishing consists of netting or “seining” young wild fish for “outgrowing” on tuna “ranches.” Which was why the Greenpeace craft had just deployed off Malta: a French fishing boat was about to legally catch an entire school of tuna, many of them undoubtedly juveniles.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/27/magazine/27Tuna-t.html?src=me&ref=general

Fair enough. Way I see it is: Regulations on new buildings are fine (architecturally no, as long as they can be made energy efficient) but I still can't agree with forcing people to upgrade old houses. Incentives are one thing, but forcing....not ok with me, considering the possible financial difficulties.

 

I'll use my situation as an example, though obviously I don't live in Europe:

 

We're in a 40 year old house, obviously it's not particularly energy efficient. My parent's aren't exactly poor but could not afford the money to completely redo the house to make it energy saving.

 

As repairs come a long, we do them, we've slowly replaced the toilets with water saving ones as they break, and most of the rest of the appliances. Same thing for the roof tiles, and a few of the windows, so our house has definitely improved over the last 10 years. Thing is, repairing slowly as stuff breaks is the only way it's economically feasible for us.

Future generations can work hard like past and present generations did. Believe it or not, this planet has enough resources to last for a very long time. We just need to figure the technology to reach resources.

 

I'd like to see some facts backing such a statement.

 

More and more data are indicating that humans are not living within the carrying capacity of the planet. The Ecological footprint measures human consumption in terms of the biologically productive land needed to provide the resources, and absorb the wastes of the average global citizen. In 2008 it required 2.7 global hectares per person, 30% more than the natural biological capacity of 2.1 global hectares (assuming no provision for other organisms).[34] The resulting ecological deficit must be met from unsustainable extra sources and these are obtained in three ways: embedded in the goods and services of world trade; taken from the past (e.g. fossil fuels); or borrowed from the future as unsustainable resource usage (e.g. by over exploiting forests and fisheries).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainability

 

If undeveloped countries are allowed to develop to western standards of living, we have to cut an awful lot of our consumption.

Note to tip.it readers: Anything coming from prison planet should be taken with an extreme grain of salt. Alex Jones is a whack job.

 

On the topic at hand, though, cosign with tortilliachp. Leave aside the fact that we're destroying the planet with coal and oil through climate change and environmental impacts with the oil spill, we're using too many resources. This planet can't keep up with our wasteful lives. It's unsustainable. Live free or die? Well, I'd choose to live a life that's better for my children and grandchildren than doing something selfishly because of some distorted view of freedom, thanks.

Aha yes, i thougt it was a bit weird site. But the the document from the parliament is interesting.

 

My beef with it, is to force people to live in a certain way. I don't have a problem with a house being pro eco and all that, but i don't like the idea of forcing. I would be interested in seeing if there were any other types of solutions to the design of such houses.

I also wonder how they are gonna tackle upgrading the current houses, since not everyone can afford it.

i think this is going to cost more money then is saves in the long run :mellow:

how are we supposed to "upgrade" a circa 1900s house?

i think this is going to cost more money then is saves in the long run :mellow:

how are we supposed to "upgrade" a circa 1900s house?

 

It's not about saving money. It's about saving energy.

I have never liked the European Union, and I never will. Their flag is utter rubbish.

 

Besides disagreements with how they are slowly taking away the sovereignty of nations that have existed for several centuries, I just simply don't like them.

 

On topic: Concerning their efforts to make the world a cleaner place, sure, that's great and even admirable, but they are also trying to strong arm nations in the process, which is wrong.

Why limit our energy consumtion when they could just increase energy production?

 

We got nuclear, air, water, hydrogen, solar, hell you could get a bunch of prisioners to push around a turbine. Why should the majority get the short side of the stick?

I don't care what side of the global warming fence you're on, but there's no excuse for wasting energy and natural resources.

I don't see the big deal. So they're making people's houses more efficient (Which, by the way, will also save them money in the long run)? To be honest, if "It doesn't look good" is the best reason anybody can think of to not have these changes made, then it is just selfish and stupid. No matter how vast the quantities of resources we have, there is no reason to waste them if we don't need to.

Jesus it's not like they're going to come pick out your furniture and live with you. There is no other way to get people to live efficiently except to force them. Everyone will get over it eventually and we'll all be better off for it. Selfish people, sheesh

Why limit our energy consumtion when they could just increase energy production?

 

We got nuclear, air, water, hydrogen, solar, hell you could get a bunch of prisioners to push around a turbine. Why should the majority get the short side of the stick?

 

show me where this extra energy will come from in ways that do not create an energy deficit for the future, and i will be one very, very rich man.

 

Your solution is so obvious, and simple there should be no problem. There is a problem, and so your reasoning lacks a major consideration: we cannot produce the energy you wish to waste. Now if we could have coldfusion power, your "let's just produce more" sentiment would be very pertinent. As of today's technology, you're living in a magical world of plenty, that simply doesn't exist.

 

May I ask you how long we've been getting net-power from solar cells? Energy costs in production have exceeded energy produced in their lifetimes until about 5 years ago: they haven't been producing power, they've been batteries. Almost all energy production and food production today is fossil-derivative. That means we could not produce the energy and food without the fossil components we're using up that are not replenishable.

 

What is "hydrogen power" ? Do you mean hydrogen fuel cells, which are a way of storing energy, not making it?

 

why haven't you mentioned biofuels?

 

These questions lead me to think you know very little about where the energy you expend (rather, degrade but that gets complicated) comes from

I don't care what side of the global warming fence you're on, but there's no excuse for wasting energy and natural resources.

There's no such thing as wasting if there's an almost infinite amount of energy. Plus, humanity's long history deserved us to some luxory. Think about this: would your factory working great-great grandfather want his family to be told what to do and live an unfair life?

 

I don't see the big deal. So they're making people's houses more efficient (Which, by the way, will also save them money in the long run)? To be honest, if "It doesn't look good" is the best reason anybody can think of to not have these changes made, then it is just selfish and stupid.

Ahh, the young and naive, always thinking about the trees but ignoring the papers. Most people, including you I bet, won't be willing to waste thousands of CURRENT dollars to fix something that will save who knows how much FUTURE dollars. Not to mention those who simply can't afford it.

 

 

Jesus it's not like they're going to come pick out your furniture and live with you. There is no other way to get people to live efficiently except to force them. Everyone will get over it eventually and we'll all be better off for it. Selfish people, sheesh

Oh, right, the government knows best. Independent people can't think at all. No, their taste for art is selfish. Society must run like a computer: to the most logical and reasonable with no comforts or emotions whatsoever.

Society must run like a computer: to the most logical and reasonable with no comforts or emotions whatsoever.

If only.

I don't see the big deal. So they're making people's houses more efficient (Which, by the way, will also save them money in the long run)? To be honest, if "It doesn't look good" is the best reason anybody can think of to not have these changes made, then it is just selfish and stupid.

Ahh, the young and naive, always thinking about the trees but ignoring the papers. Most people, including you I bet, won't be willing to waste thousands of CURRENT dollars to fix something that will save who knows how much FUTURE dollars. Not to mention those who simply can't afford it.

I put that part in brackets because it was merely a sidenote, but, assuming I knew that I could make it through the period where I had a lack of money from spending those thousands of dollars, then yes, I would spend them to save more in the future. I wasn't really taking cost into account, but I accept that if people cannot afford it, then those people should not be forced to do it.

 

By all means, it should be phased in over a long period, nobody should be ordered to do it right away, and I was simply assuming that was the general consensus, and thus I didn't mention initial cost to the general public.

Why limit our energy consumtion when they could just increase energy production?

 

We got nuclear, air, water, hydrogen, solar, hell you could get a bunch of prisioners to push around a turbine. Why should the majority get the short side of the stick?

 

show me where this extra energy will come from in ways that do not create an energy deficit for the future, and i will be one very, very rich man.

 

Your solution is so obvious, and simple there should be no problem. There is a problem, and so your reasoning lacks a major consideration: we cannot produce the energy you wish to waste. Now if we could have coldfusion power, your "let's just produce more" sentiment would be very pertinent. As of today's technology, you're living in a magical world of plenty, that simply doesn't exist.

 

May I ask you how long we've been getting net-power from solar cells? Energy costs in production have exceeded energy produced in their lifetimes until about 5 years ago: they haven't been producing power, they've been batteries. Almost all energy production and food production today is fossil-derivative. That means we could not produce the energy and food without the fossil components we're using up that are not replenishable.

 

What is "hydrogen power" ? Do you mean hydrogen fuel cells, which are a way of storing energy, not making it?

Oh, you thought I meant we could do these things NOW. No. We still got oil and coal and other methods. Wait till that runs out, THEN we'll switch to the things I said. There won't be no "energy shortage" or "world-wide crisis" when we run out of energy...because we never will. Multi-billion dollar companies, while I do not like them, are not stupid and already have plans to take part of the post-oil energy industry. What else would they do? "Invention is the offspring of necessity." Where we will get energy, while I've got some ideas, I'm sure a scientist (corporate most likely) knows loads more where.

 

why haven't you mentioned biofuels?

Good thing you brought this up. Personally, I would rather grow corn for feeding people, not powering up cars.

Why limit our energy consumtion when they could just increase energy production?

 

We got nuclear, air, water, hydrogen, solar, hell you could get a bunch of prisioners to push around a turbine. Why should the majority get the short side of the stick?

 

show me where this extra energy will come from in ways that do not create an energy deficit for the future, and i will be one very, very rich man.

 

Your solution is so obvious, and simple there should be no problem. There is a problem, and so your reasoning lacks a major consideration: we cannot produce the energy you wish to waste. Now if we could have coldfusion power, your "let's just produce more" sentiment would be very pertinent. As of today's technology, you're living in a magical world of plenty, that simply doesn't exist.

 

May I ask you how long we've been getting net-power from solar cells? Energy costs in production have exceeded energy produced in their lifetimes until about 5 years ago: they haven't been producing power, they've been batteries. Almost all energy production and food production today is fossil-derivative. That means we could not produce the energy and food without the fossil components we're using up that are not replenishable.

 

What is "hydrogen power" ? Do you mean hydrogen fuel cells, which are a way of storing energy, not making it?

Oh, you thought I meant we could do these things NOW. No. We still got oil and coal and other methods. Wait till that runs out, THEN we'll switch to the things I said. There won't be no "energy shortage" or "world-wide crisis" when we run out of energy...because we never will. Multi-billion dollar companies, while I do not like them, are not stupid and already have plans to take part of the post-oil energy industry. What else would they do? "Invention is the offspring of necessity." Where we will get energy, while I've got some ideas, I'm sure a scientist (corporate most likely) knows loads more where.

 

why haven't you mentioned biofuels?

Good thing you brought this up. Personally, I would rather grow corn for feeding people, not powering up cars.

 

This is a global energy shortage today. That's why electricity prices are globally rising, why oil, why coal why gas prices are rising. There are no solutions today, "fixing the problem when it happens in the future, in the future" doesn't work when the problems are here today. Invention isn't miracle. There is necessity, half the scientists who ever lived are alive today, where are your inventions? maybe we do have to change how we live, then, since what we're currently doing obviously isn't working?

 

post-oil is here today, now, twenty thirty years ago. We haven't found alternatives. We need to change how we live because the "new technology that will offset everything and make all good" doesn't exist yet. Politicians have budgeted with these improvements for decades and still do.

 

Again, you show a completely lacking understanding of what a biofuel is. What happens to your sewage? Is it used to produce methane? no. Can that be done? yes. Is it done some places in India? yes. Why isn't it done everywhere? we haven't changed. the technology exists. Rather, we use precious fresh water to flush this energy resource quite literally down the toilet.

 

Where is your innovation? what about locations where food cannot be grown? what about the fossil fuel usages in growing food?

 

I think you need a fact check, I think I need to gain better understanding, but i think our politicians need to take charge (to a reasonable extent). consumption and production for consumption is what sustains the world economy. If we went environmentally friendly to the extent the world needs, the world economy would collapse. Civilization as we know it would too, but there would be a future for our grandchildren's grandchildren's grandchildren.

 

I'm not going to make all the changes i should. I like luxury so much i'm not going to give it up even though i do live my life at the expense of others. I'm honest enough to admit as much though, you are either deceiving yourself, uninformed or rejecting your responsibility.

Adding on to the thing on biofuels, just the stalks of corn can be used to produce energy. The stalks are going to be there as waste either way from feeding people, so why not use it?