The tyranny of energy conservation in the workplace

Abstract

This editorial is taken from a British perspective, but it may chime a little with those in other countries. In 1974, a BBC Horizon programme investigated how new technology was impacting on people’s lives. A modern movement building in the North East of England had recently been completed. Its function was to house a computer, which was a very large piece of equipment. The computer was also very delicate – prone to draughts, changes in temperature, humidity and sunlight. It was also indifferent to the view. Thus, the building was sealed, with constant temperature, dry atmosphere, little natural light and no sunlight. The employees, on the other hand, craved variation from their indoor environment and a view to the outside. The employers could not understand why the staff always felt demotivated, listless and unwell, while absenteeism and staff turnover were well above the norm. It was little surprise, even Le Corbusier, the doyen of the modern movement had stated that people had to learn the spirit living in mass-production buildings. 1 The implication being that buildings would be constructed in accordance with worthy principles, and users would have to change their behaviour to fit the buildings. However, in the 1970s, there was little energy conservation. U values had been introduced to the building regulations, but they were easily achieved with cavity wall construction. Nevertheless, the buildings inspired by modernism presented new challenges. Regardless of whether they were living accommodation or workplaces, concrete frames and concrete cladding were prone to condensation and cold bridges. This generated an industry of insulation production that would become increasingly significant towards the end of the 20th century. The 1970s were significant in other ways. Indeed, the Horizon programme itself was responding to the global oil crisis in late 1973 and the three-day week (January to March 1974). The Heath Government had taken this dramatic action to avoid Britain’s industry grinding to a halt as a result of a combination of the oil crisis and an impending strike by the National Union of Mineworkers. It involved cutting electricity supplies to three consecutive days a week to conserve coal stocks. This was observed by an up and coming thrusting politician named Margaret Thatcher, who vowed that if she ever became Prime Minister, the Country would never be placed in this position again. Her actions in the 1980s included reform of the Unions and promotion of energy conservation. The most significant legislation was the 1984 Building Act that produced a new generation of Building Regulations. These seemed to be revised almost on an annual basis, and of all the sections, part L – Conservation of Fuel and Power was changed the most. First, U values were radically reduced to combat fabric losses, then the whole system for evaluating building designs was totally changed, and air infiltration was targeted, with the progressive sealing of buildings. During this period, the 1992 Rio Earth summit on climate change and reduction in use of fossil fuels introduced Agenda 21, part of which was to conserve resources. It was followed by the Kyoto Protocol, which started in 2008, as an international agreement linked to the UN convention on climate change. It was based on the premise that global warming exists, and man-made CO2 emissions have caused it. All of these provisions were generating an unstoppable momentum. The proponents of the measures would state that they are all totally reasonable, and the only failing was that they should have been introduced earlier. This is a justifiable position, but as with all evangelical movements, the lack of challenge is unsettling. Local authorities from the north of Scotland to the Tropic of Capricorn in Australia were making similar proclamations. Aberdeenshire Council, for instance, pointed out that reducing energy has many advantages. It saves money, reduces carbon emissions, can improve a working environment and will enhance the Council’s reputation. The Authority’s solution was to appoint energy champions from the staff, to carry