Bold intentions for parliament that went up in smoke

• Project curtailed by cost and impact on building• Eco-targets being missed, warn government advisers
Robert Booth
The Guardian, Tuesday 23 December 2008

As a statement of political determination to turn Britain green it could not have been clearer. In 2006, Palace of Westminster officials commissioned plans that would see the Houses of Parliament powered by a giant 35-metre wind turbine in Victoria Gardens, solar panels on the roof and devices to use energy from the flow of the Thames. The intention was to make "a bold statement to the nation on government commitment to renewable energy".
But now the plans are being scaled back and none of the carbon-saving ideas will be included in the forthcoming overhaul of the complex's energy systems. Even an apparently simple proposal to install double glazing in the building's draughty windows looks in doubt.
The high cost of greening the buildings, the lack of wind and sun and concerns that the historic importance of the buildings could be compromised by the alterations all contributed to the decision to take more modest measures, which will include taking parliament partly "off-grid" with a biomass power station in the cellar and a borehole to supply fresh water to avoid the need for carbon-thirsty bottled water.
It is a strategy that exemplifies the public sector's struggle to cut greenhouse gas emissions from its vast estate, which, according to figures revealed yesterday, has a bigger carbon footprint than the whole of Kenya. It is estimated the public sector spends £4bn a year on energy, yet even the government's own advisers admit officials are not doing enough to reduce the environmental impact that represents. "The majority of government departments are still failing to make their new buildings and refurbishments sustainable, and many of those using and operating public buildings have little idea of their energy efficiency or how to improve it," the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment said in a statement earlier this year.
Government targets set in 2006 state that carbon emissions from government offices must be cut by 30% by 2020, relative to 1999-2000 levels. On 1 December this year, Lord Turner's climate change committee, which acts as an independent adviser to the government on climate change targets, announced that greenhouse gas emissions across the UK economy must be slashed by 34% by 2020. In addition, all new public buildings should be zero-carbon by 2018.
"Emissions reductions from buildings, and public buildings in particular, will be essential to meeting those targets," said John Alker, director of public affairs at the UK Green Building Council, which is lobbying the government to slash the carbon footprint of the public estate. He added that the public sector was responsible for more than a third of new buildings and large-scale refurbishments.
The Palace of Westminster is one of the most polluting public buildings in the country. It pumps out 11,983 tonnes of CO2 a year, and has been awarded a G rating - the worst possible under a system that became mandatory for public buildings on 1 October.
Even the office of Ed Miliband's Department for Energy and Climate Change on Whitehall Place in central London was given a G rating. "DECC's energy efficiency is limited by the fact that the department's building is a grade II listed heritage building, circa 1900," said a spokeswoman. "Its age and design makes it inherently difficult to match the energy efficiency standards of modern buildings."
Even new buildings perform badly. The Imperial War Museum North in Manchester, which was designed by the architect Daniel Libeskind and opened in 2002, scored a G, the same as the museum's 91-year-old London headquarters. London's City Hall scored E despite opening just six years ago, when its architect, Foster & Partners, claimed it would be a "virtually non-polluting public building".
The director of estates at the Palace of Westminster, Mel Barlex, said some of the more ambitious proposals for cutting the complex's carbon footprint had been dropped because they would not pay back quickly enough on the investment. He said a new policy on carbon footprint reduction would be drawn up in the new year, and options included acquiring "green" energy from the national grid and experiments with tidal turbines.