This week, thousands of cities across the globe will dim their lights at 8.30pm for an hour, joining in the world’s largest voluntary environmental action: Earth Hour.

Scheduled for the last Saturday of every March – closely coinciding with the equinox to ensure that most cities are in darkness as it rolls out around the Earth.

The growing importance of this global environmental action is reinforced by the unprecedented challenges our planet faces.

Our growing population is consuming at a rate that requires much more than one planet can provide. We are not living sustainably. While our carbon footprint grows, biodiversity is shrinking while our hunger for natural resources expands. Living beyond our planet’s means is putting increased pressure on food security, water security and climate security.

Earth Hour’s growth from 2 million people in Sydney, the city in which it all started, in 2007, to hundreds of millions in more than 5000 cities across more than 130 countries and territories shows that individuals across the globe recognise the challenges our planet is facing.

This year Earth Hour organisers hope to see this initiative grow further, with new countries taking part and landmarks from Las Vegas, Times Square, the Brandenburg Gate and the Eiffel Tower to the Burj Khalifa and even the International Space Station committing to switch off for the planet.

But the real value of Earth Hour does not lie in its sheer scale. The real value is in individual, grassroots actions. When you consider the potential of hundreds of millions of people all making small changes, it gives us hope for the future of our planet.

Earth Hour is about much more than an hour of darkness, it is about people showing their commitment to sustainability and environmental action. It is about individuals moving beyond NGOs, governments and businesses to express their personal commitment to living more sustainably.

So just remember – do your bit this week for the planet and switch off.  For further information have a look at www.earthhour.org

Source: www.smh.com.au

Source: www.yonderr.com.au

A Newspoll survey conducted late last year showed many Australians plan to keep rising energy prices in check by closing curtains, washing clothes in cold water and taking shorter showers – but how much does any of that actually affect the average power bill? Apparently, quite a bit.

By matching the five most popular energy-saving strategies with some ballpark dollar savings based on the National Australian-Built Environment Rating System (NABERS), it was found the average three-person household can save hundreds of dollars a year.

Put simply – simple changes can lead to big savings on your power bill.

Of course, all of this varies depending on which state you live in, how you use power, and exactly how you implement each strategy in your home. But whichever way you look at it, there are plenty of opportunities to reduce your utility bill with just a few behavioural changes.

1. Closing curtains/blinds: $55 p.a.

Windows are a home’s biggest sources of heat in summer (and cold in winter) so the 89 per cent of Newspoll respondents who plan to close blinds and curtains can expect to save around $55 this year according to the NSW Government’s Save Power website.

Effective window insulation includes:

- Shading windows and skylights during the day as much as possible

- Lined curtains and close-fitting Holland and/or Roman blinds instead of vertical blinds, conventional or timber Venetians

- External blinds or awnings on north, east and west windows

- Keeping doors and windows closed during the day as much as possible

- When the temperature drops at night, opening doors and windows up.

With window glazing, you can save even more. If the cost of double-glazing looks a bit steep, consider secondary glazing (fitting a membrane to the window) instead.

Of course, it helps if you’ve got effective house insulation. Energy retailer AGL estimates efficient insulation can bring the temperature down by up to 7 degrees in summer, and increase it by 10 degrees in winter, slicing more than $100 off your power bill every year.

2. Washing clothes in cold water, drying on line/rack: $380 p.a.

AGL says that cold water has been ‘scientifically proven’ to be just as effective as hot water when it comes to washing clothes, and Save Power calculates the cost saving at $30 or more per year.

You can save another $30 per year if your machine is a front-loader with a 5-star energy rating.

But the real savings kick in when you cut back on clothes dryers. These energy thieves can use more power over the course of a year than a reasonably energy-efficient fridge, and cutting them out can save a whopping $350. Dry outside or on a rack instead – apart from being budget-friendly, it’s a whole lot kinder to your clothes too.

If you do need to use the dryer, AGL recommends setting it to warm rather than hot – it takes a little longer but uses less energy.

Bear in mind the cold water rule doesn’t apply to dishwashers – hot water is more efficient when it comes to dishes.

3. Being quick in and out of the fridge: $25 p.a.

Running your fridge efficiently can save about $25 per year. That means making sure it’s set to the right temperature (fridge at 4°C, freezer at -18°C), has decent sealing and is kept closed as much as possible.

Fridges use more power when they’re empty than when they’re full so if you’ve got a second fridge, turn it off and leave the door ajar when you don’t need it. Giving it a rest for six months of the year could take another $130 off your bill.

And if it’s time to upgrade, you’ll find an energy-efficient model pays itself off before long by reducing power bills by about $145 per year.

4. Taking shorter showers: $105 p.a.

Shaving three minutes off shower times can save a three-person household about $105 a year – or much more if your house is still running an electric water heater.

“Electric water heaters account for around 25 per cent of a household’s energy use,” says Stephen Cranch from Solahart, an Australian solar water heater manufacturer.

“Switching to a solar water heater will reduce water heating energy consumption by 50-90 per cent,” he says – he says, and according to Save Power, reduce your annual power bill by about $150.

Plus, the Federal Government is planning to phase out electric water heaters from 2012, so rebates are also available for households needing to upgrade.

5. Switching appliances off at the power socket: $125 p.a.

It’s estimated that standby power contributes about 10 per cent of every power bill, so switching things off at the wall can save $125 or more a year.

And it’s not just computers and appliances. Even chargers use power when they’re not connected to our phones, iPads, razors and toothbrushes, and the digital clock on our microwaves can cost more to run than the cooking function itself.

But awareness goes a long way. All up, you can reduce your bills by close to $700 without sacrificing comfort or refitting your home.

Source: www.smh.com.au, www.yonderr.com.au

The benefits of natural light, minimal aircon and natural carpets have been shown to have positive benefits for office workers.  Beyond the obvious savings in cost and energy, employees are happier, healthier and more productive.  And remember, you don’t need a carbon tax to become more aware of CO2 emissions.

A recent article in The Sydney Morning Herald reported that the Green Building Council of Australia says the number of buildings winning Green Star certification has risen from just three in 2005 to 22 last year.

1 Bligh Street in the CBD is one of the 16 new buildings to be awarded six-star green status so far this year. It became the new home to law firm Clayton Utz in June this year and among the green features it incorporates are its own basement sewerage plant that recycles 90 per cent of the water in the building, solar panels on the roof and cooling from “chilled beams” rather than conventional air-conditioners.

“I wasn’t expecting to feel too much difference but having moved into the building it’s surprising how much more natural light there is and how much better you feel generally working in a naturally ventilated building,” 25-year-old lawyer Aman Saxena said.

Colleague Jemma Rowe, 26, shares his enthusiasm for the ultra-modern building, adding that there had been an obvious “positive impact” on staff since the move.

The pair’s sentiments are backed by an increasing body of evidence, including a detailed study with another law firm, Oakley Thompson, after it recently moved into a newly refurbished green building in the centre of Melbourne.

The study, conducted with the University of Melbourne, found sick days had fallen 39 per cent and the lawyers’ billings ratio rose 7 per cent despite the overall hours worked falling 12 per cent.

The survey even found the firm’s secretaries were typing 9 per cent faster in the new building and with greater accuracy.

Professor Deo Prasad of the University of NSW’s faculty of the built environment points out that keeping employees healthier and happier is a major financial incentive for businesses considering going green.

“In the lifecycle of a building the salaries of the people working in the building is by far the single largest cost,” he said.

“If you can improve productivity by, say, 2-3 per cent you are making a huge difference.”

Professor Prasad added that employers are also finding that providing green offices was helping them recruit and retain younger workers from Gen Y and beyond.

“There’s increasing evidence that working in a greener building is more attractive to a certain type of younger occupant,” he said.

Click here to read more

Story source: www.yonderr.com.au

Australia’s biggest office landlords are switching off lights and installing more efficient air conditioners ahead of rules demanding reporting of energy use in the nation with the developed world’s second-highest greenhouse gas emissions per person.

The largest property managers are ahead of legislation which comes into effect Nov. 1 requiring owners to reveal office buildings’ energy efficiency to tenants and buyers, according to Simon Wild, Sydney-based principal at sustainable design consultants Cundall. Cundall worked with the U.K. Green Building Council on a study of the nation’s sustainability rating tool, the results of which were released in August.

“The industry, particularly the tier one landlords, have been disclosing for a long time,” Wild said. “Australian companies are very much market-driven about how they can attract the big players in town to reside within their buildings.”

GPT Group, Australia’s second-biggest diversified property trust by market value, cut its buildings’ greenhouse gas emissions by 28 percent between 2005 and 2009 by installing more efficient air conditioners and recycling more waste. Morgan Stanley-backed Investa Property Group’s 21-story Ark building in North Sydney can generate electricity, recycle rainwater and recharge electric cars.

Australia boasts some of the most environmentally friendly real-estate groups in the world, a survey of global companies by Netherlands-based Maastricht University found this year. Sydney- based GPT heads the Dow Jones Sustainability Index’s 21-company real-estate leader list, a third of whose members are Australian, more than any other country.

Energy Efficiency

Australia had the second-highest carbon dioxide emissions per capita among developed nations, according to 2008 figures from the International Energy Agency, the latest data available from the group. Only Luxembourg’s emissions were higher.

The legislation requires owners of office buildings leasing or selling more than 2,000 square meters (21,528 square feet) to reveal their day-to-day energy efficiency on the five-star National Australian Built Environment Rating System. Companies pay A$770 ($752) for a rating to New South Wales state’s Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water, which administers the program nationally, and about A$3,000 for an assessor to review documents including the previous year’s bills, said Yma ten Hoedt, the department’s principal program manager.

The rules will affect 10 percent of office buildings nationally every year, DECCW estimates. Companies must also disclose tenanted areas’ lighting systems’ performance and provide a statement on buildings’ efficiency from Nov. 1, 2011.

Smaller owners, who may not have ratings or necessary documents, will be most affected, said Rebecca Pearce, Sydney- based head of sustainability at CB Richard Ellis Group Inc., the world’s largest commercial property broker.

Tenants

Government agencies, which occupy about a third of offices nationally, will require buildings they lease or own to have a minimum 4.5 star energy rating by next year. The national average is 2.5 stars, with the biggest landlords targeting 4.5 over the next two to four years.

“To have a building vacant because it’s not efficient or rated so tenants don’t want to go into it, we don’t even want to go there,” said Rowan Griffin, head of sustainability at Colonial First State, the asset management arm of Commonwealth Bank of Australia. Colonial manages 34 office properties, valued at about A$4 billion.

Almost 300 tenants occupying about 1.5 million square meters, have committed to the CitySwitch Green Office program, including accounting firm PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, property broker DTZ, and Commonwealth Bank of Australia, the country’s biggest bank, pledging to achieve at least a four-star tenancy rating.

Improving Performance

PricewaterhouseCoopers has spent A$800,000 replacing light switches in its Sydney office with sensors, according to the CitySwitch website. DTZ is saving A$3,500 a year on the energy bill at its Sydney headquarters by introducing steps such as installing shared printers and setting computing equipment to turn off automatically, the website said.

A one-star efficiency gain means A$2 to A$4 in annual savings per square meter, a Citi Investment Research study in January found. For a 10,000-square-meter office building, that equates to savings of as much as A$40,000 a year.

A University of California, Berkeley, study found buildings rated under a U.S. plan similar to the system used in the incoming Australian rules commanded rents of about 3.5 percent more than comparable properties, and sale prices rose as much as 16 percent. A similar Australian study is expected to be completed in the second quarter of 2011.

Building Management

Companies reach up to four stars by better timing lights and equipment use, installing more efficient systems during upgrades, and better training staff, said Craig Roussac, general manager for sustainability, safety and environment at Investa. The company improved one of its building’s performance by 1.5 stars more than expected by adjusting the way it was run by its manager, he said.

“You can have an efficient car, but you can be driving it with the handbrake on and completely stuff things up,” Roussac said. “Conversely, you can have someone who’s passionate and skilled, and see an increase in returns.”

To contact the reporter on this story: Nichola Saminather in Sydney at nsaminather1@bloomberg.net.

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Andreea Papuc at apapuc1@bloomberg.net.

View the original article here

Would you pay more for an energy-efficient house? Or one that was water-wise? When we polled our readers 62 per cent said they wanted the house they were buying to be eco-friendly, my first reaction was to ask; Are people just saying that? Or are they following through and voting with their wallets.

Here is what you told us. The question posed was: Is the eco-rating of a home a major factor in your buying decision? And the answers were …

Yes, absolutely: I would only buy a house that is designed to have minimal impact on the environment (27%);

Yes, it would be ideal if the house had some energy efficient measures installed such as solar panels or solar hot water: You can really make some good savings on your bill power bill and it also helps the environment (35%).

No, it’s considered after other factors: A good eco-rating is nice to have however I will always first consider price and location (25%);

No, not at all: It’s hard enough to find the right property without considering a property’s eco-rating (12%).

Like I said it got me wondering. My feeling was that with the cost of housing having just leapt ahead in many parts of Australia, and the strong conservatism that has swept through consumer spending, many people would simply be happy to find something they can afford.

Then again, you only need to look at the votes the Greens party received in the last election to know there is concern about the environment out there, so maybe that is translating to housing choice?

The whole question of eco ratings is pretty pertinent, given there’s a move on to make energy rating mandatory across Australia for homes that being sold or leased. It’s already in play for commercial spaces.

See page 26 of this Council of Australian Governments’ document where the council says it wants to "Phase in mandatory disclosure of residential building energy, greenhouse and water performance at the time of sale or lease, commencing with energy efficiency by May 2011." The group reasons that would make credible and meaningful information "publicly and readily available to market participants to assist them in making lease/purchase decisions." The mandatory disclosure process could be modelled on that already enforced in the ACT.

If you take a look at houses for sale in the ACT you’ll see that every one has an energy rating from 0-10. It’s been that way since 1999. A 0-star rating is very poor and means the building shell does practically nothing to reduce the discomfort of hot or cold weather. A 5-star rating indicates good, but not outstanding, thermal performance. People living in a 10-star home are unlikely to need any artificial cooling or heating.

All good but will people pay for more efficient houses? There’s an interesting government study, Energy Efficiency Rating and House Price in the ACT, which found that if you’ve got two houses on the market that are pretty much the same except for their energy ratings, the house with the higher energy efficiency rating will command a higher price.

The study was based on 2005 and 2006 data, and ran various models. One found that "if the energy performance of a house improves by 1 star level, on average, its market value will increase by about 3 per cent (2.5 per cent in 2005 and 3.8 per cent in 2006). Therefore, if a property owner installs R4 ceiling insulation at an approximate cost of $1200 they will, on average, improve the energy performance of a poorly insulated home by at least 1 star. This means that a detached house sold in 2005 for $365,000 could fetch an additional $8979 with only a 1 star improvement in energy rating".

That was before the surge in eco awareness of the last five years, and pre Al Gore’s climate documentary, which seemed to have a big impact on the Australian psyche.

In older areas many buyers accept the houses will have a poor rating, but in newer spots where neighbouring homes tend to perform well, a poor rating will raise eyebrows. You can see why it would be important in Canberra – it gets pretty hot and cold there, and would be an expensive place to keep a draughty house comfortable.

Coventry goes so far as to suggest to vendors, that if they need to do anything to smarten up the home, they considering adding some energy efficient measures as they go. It could be something as simple as rubber-backed curtain and pelmets.

Angus Kell, NSW/ACT manager of building advisory service Archicentre, says its commonsense now that now people are more aware of environmental issues, and the rising cost of energy and water, that it would affect their property choices. He’s says a well-designed house can slice a family’s energy bill by one-third. Energy-saving bells and whistles can shrink the bills even further.

Original story from Carolyn Boyd www.domain.com.au

LABOR’S push to cut greenhouse gas emissions through the use of energy efficiency schemes was yesterday dealt another blow when building industry heavyweights discredited the star ratings being applied to hundreds of thousands of homes.

Investigations by the building industry have found that the mandatory star ratings scheme is inaccurate and fundamentally flawed.

The Housing Industry Association and Master Builders Australia yesterday joined scientists in calling for urgent action by the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency to resolve problems that are potentially having an impact on more than 100,000 houses built each year.

They said owners were not aware that mandatory software tools — used to calculate whether a planned new house could achieve the minimum five-star energy efficiency rating necessary to obtain approval for construction — gave vastly different results for the same house under identical conditions.

It is another setback for the government while it is still trying to quell criticism after the shelving of its emissions trading scheme, the disintegration of the home insulation program and green loans scheme, and the subsequent findings that both were fatally flawed, costing lives and taxpayers’ money due to poor planning and execution.

It also comes after Labor’s latest environmental announcements — the 150-person citizens assembly to forge a national consensus on action on climate change and the cash-for-clunkers green car replacement scheme — were widely criticised.

Opposition climate change spokesman Greg Hunt said last night that the government could not get its environmental programs right.

"We saw that with pink batts, green loans and cancelled solar programs," Mr Hunt said.

"They need to explain why home owners and builders face this confusing and potentially costly mess.

"They should release all material on this to the public before the election."

Flaws in the star rating system emerged after industry bodies, private companies and scientists commissioned independent studies showing significant variations were being calculated by the three different software tools when tested on identical dwellings.

The results show that the three software tools, including the original model designed by the CSIRO, were inherently unreliable.

The star ratings system was rolled out nationally several years ago and recently extended to older houses.

The findings mean that in some cases houses that should be failing the energy efficiency test are being approved and built, while identical houses are going back to the drawing board for changes and costing their owners more time and money to get right.

It also means the stated objective of the federal government to cut greenhouse gas emissions in houses is in serious question.

Faulty software tools will have a greater impact from next year when the federal government’s national energy strategy requires all homes being sold or leased to be star-rated and for the rating to be disclosed.

Older dwellings, which will not achieve the five- or six-star minimum, may be punished financially by buyers and tenants.

The findings add weight to the concerns of energy efficiency experts that star ratings are a multi-billion-dollar debacle.

Peter Jones, chief economist of Master Builders Australia,

said yesterday: "We have independent expert evidence showing us this is a real concern and it needs to be brought to light and addressed.

"There are unacceptable differences between the star ratings produced by the software tools when assessing the same house.

"We are drawing a line in the sand and saying, ‘Look, the research is overwhelming now; something must be done’, Mr Jones said.

The authorities need to come up with a solution so that consumers can be confident in the star ratings and the tools.

"As builders, we do not really care (what the tool is) but we think it is bad policy when it is not working properly."

Housing Industry Association senior executive director Kristin Tomkins said the association’s independent testing, which showed significant differences in energy ratings, including a variation of 3.2 stars for the same Brisbane house, were troubling and undermined the scheme’s credibility.

She said builders and home owners needed confidence in the mandatory energy efficiency programs that cost them time and money.

Industry sources called for an Australian Competition & Consumer Commission investigation and said some savvy energy assessors were "gaming" the star ratings and making a mockery of the scheme by switching software tools until one delivered the required result.

The Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, which has recently joined the CSIRO in investigating problems with the gauges, has said it was "premature to say there is any significant impact on overall house ratings or compliance costs".

Source: The Australian newspaper