The premise that the Grenfell tragedy somehow reflects poorly on the energy efficiency community is totally absurd. The author herself completely undermines her own thesis with the following: “there’s plenty of insulation that resists burning”. The problem was not that the tower was insulated, but (if early accounts are correct) that the insulation selected was flammable. Saying energy efficiency is somehow at fault at Grenfell is like blaming the presence of roads for drunk driving.
Despite multiple paragraphs proclaiming that this tragedy somehow impugns the efforts of green building and sustainability advocates the author provides only a single piece of evidence that even vaguely supports this thesis, a quote from Andrew Warren that “this could put people off insulating.” Leaving aside the vagueness of this quote, which in different contexts could have very different meanings, I guess we’d have to say he’s right. If authors with no sense of professionalism concoct spurious articles lamely conflating saving energy with the use of flammable materials that could definitely put people off.
“Meanwhile, the building regulations have, over the past decade, emphasised the importance of sustainability, and experts say flammable materials have often scored best on energy efficiency.
Against this background, the construction industry concluded that, in England, it could use cladding such as that installed on Grenfell, and its adoption became widespread.”
So, that’s it? I mean, assuming it’s true (and I don’t) then that’s the defence? We just stopped caring, didn’t we.
The article was originally titled, “How the U.K.’s Tower Blaze Could Affect the Fight Against Global Warming” when published by Bloomberg. The material the author cited as being banned in France is also illegal for this use in the UK every used above a certain height, which this was. I wonder if IJ changed the title to placate 3-4 loser trolls who post hundreds of lies on every story of the environment.
I think they should mention it when they change titles or add to stories, as I’ve seen them do in the past in a manner that summarizes studies or parts of the story incorrectly.
In the 4th paragraph of the article, Mr. Nick Molo is quoted as saying “What we don’t know is how on earth that was allowed to happen in the first place.”
There was a time that I can vaguely remember when insurers had large engineering (loss control) staffs that would be charged with reviewing materials used in major renovations or new construction projects. Sadly, those days seem long gone because, as I’ve heard so many times, “Engineering doesn’t produce income” – therefore, engineering staff gets cut to the bone while underwriters keep putting business on the books without the kind of engineering review that has the dual benefit of assuring a safe building and assuring that the underwriting company realizes a profit on the contract.
I’m guessing that the same “cost reduction” strategy that insurers have used with regard to engineering likewise applies to building official offices in many parts of the world. I’d like to think that isn’t true, but, the evidence seems to be pointing in that direction.
The tower was plagued with Electrical surges as stated by the residents. Council did nothing. The prepayment meters and their lack of Surge arrestors have links to a number of electrical problems was this the real cause of the fire?
The premise that the Grenfell tragedy somehow reflects poorly on the energy efficiency community is totally absurd. The author herself completely undermines her own thesis with the following: “there’s plenty of insulation that resists burning”. The problem was not that the tower was insulated, but (if early accounts are correct) that the insulation selected was flammable. Saying energy efficiency is somehow at fault at Grenfell is like blaming the presence of roads for drunk driving.
Despite multiple paragraphs proclaiming that this tragedy somehow impugns the efforts of green building and sustainability advocates the author provides only a single piece of evidence that even vaguely supports this thesis, a quote from Andrew Warren that “this could put people off insulating.” Leaving aside the vagueness of this quote, which in different contexts could have very different meanings, I guess we’d have to say he’s right. If authors with no sense of professionalism concoct spurious articles lamely conflating saving energy with the use of flammable materials that could definitely put people off.
The article should be retracted.
Superb comment. The question is: why is flammable cladding even made and considered for use in the UK, when non-flammable cladding is an option?
I note this from the FT (Judith Evans and Robert Wright, 29 June 2017)
http://on.ft.com/2uJ7rzm
“Meanwhile, the building regulations have, over the past decade, emphasised the importance of sustainability, and experts say flammable materials have often scored best on energy efficiency.
Against this background, the construction industry concluded that, in England, it could use cladding such as that installed on Grenfell, and its adoption became widespread.”
So, that’s it? I mean, assuming it’s true (and I don’t) then that’s the defence? We just stopped caring, didn’t we.
The article was originally titled, “How the U.K.’s Tower Blaze Could Affect the Fight Against Global Warming” when published by Bloomberg. The material the author cited as being banned in France is also illegal for this use in the UK every used above a certain height, which this was. I wonder if IJ changed the title to placate 3-4 loser trolls who post hundreds of lies on every story of the environment.
I think they should mention it when they change titles or add to stories, as I’ve seen them do in the past in a manner that summarizes studies or parts of the story incorrectly.
In the 4th paragraph of the article, Mr. Nick Molo is quoted as saying “What we don’t know is how on earth that was allowed to happen in the first place.”
There was a time that I can vaguely remember when insurers had large engineering (loss control) staffs that would be charged with reviewing materials used in major renovations or new construction projects. Sadly, those days seem long gone because, as I’ve heard so many times, “Engineering doesn’t produce income” – therefore, engineering staff gets cut to the bone while underwriters keep putting business on the books without the kind of engineering review that has the dual benefit of assuring a safe building and assuring that the underwriting company realizes a profit on the contract.
I’m guessing that the same “cost reduction” strategy that insurers have used with regard to engineering likewise applies to building official offices in many parts of the world. I’d like to think that isn’t true, but, the evidence seems to be pointing in that direction.
The tower was plagued with Electrical surges as stated by the residents. Council did nothing. The prepayment meters and their lack of Surge arrestors have links to a number of electrical problems was this the real cause of the fire?