Down to Earth

What was striking about the number of responses (Letters, page 30) was that regardless of whether the forecast is right or wrong, engineers have a duty to adopt a pragmatic approach to the issue and should aim to pursue a low energy and sustainable design strategy regardless. As one author succinctly puts it "let's just admit that the job has to be done and get on with it".

Surely engineers would have the same "roll up your sleeves" philosophy if the government's proposal for all new homes to be zero carbon within a decade were to be introduced. As we report (News Analysis, page 14), most people in the industry acknowledge this venture into the unknown is hugely ambitious and difficult, if not impossible with current planning rules and technologies. However, that is no reason to respond negatively to the consultation. As long as there is a goal to be aimed at, rather than a target to be met, the same pragmatic attitude would ensure cost effective schemes are developed which go most, if not all the way to meeting the zero carbon target.

Given the industry's practical philosophy it is disappointing, therefore, that the Olympic Delivery Authority's strategy for "the greenest Games ever" has failed to lead the way in low energy design (News page 9). What is more of a disappointment is that the same government that proposed the construction industry build zero carbon homes by 2016 gave its support to plans, which call for nothing more ambitious than the Olympic village to meet the building regulations that will be in force at the time. Is this failure to pioneer low energy housing because the ODA now takes the view that green construction is an expensive luxury? If so, it is a shame that the games' organisers do not have the same pragmatic sense of duty to sustainable design as that held by our letter writers.