How easy is it to reduce your carbon footprint?

Take a homeowner, for example. Existing planning laws can make it problematic (to say the least) if you would like to install a domestic wind turbine, which could supply up to 40% of a typical household's energy needs. This is a substantial amount when you consider that approximately 40% of the UK's carbon emissions come from domestic households.

The UK government issued a planning white paper on 21 May entitled 'Planning for a Sustainable Future' which sets out to reform the planning system. Amongst the recommendations are proposals to simplify planning for householders by removing the requirement to seek planning permission on small extensions and conservatories as well as microgeneration schemes (ie solar panels, wind turbines, etc).

Whilst laudable in theory, the proposals may not improve the situation. In fact, they may make them worse. Apart from the obvious shortcoming that there is precious little said about good design (a problem with so much contemporary domestic architecture in the UK), the proposals introduce the concept of an 'impact test' on neighbouring properties, potentially opening the floodgates to unreasonable objections from other householders in the area. Although nobody would disagree with the need for people to object to developments which are inappropriate to their situation, where does that leave domestic wind turbines? A recent example in Kingston upon Hull illustrates the potential problem: despite talking to neighbours and providing them with information about the proposed turbine (which the manufacturers claim makes no significant noise), a local man faced four objections from householders who claimed that it would spoil their view and create noise. Under the new system, would the 'impact text' have created a different result? Probably not.

Much of Kingston upon Hull is between only two and four metres above sea level; some of it is even lower. With the projected rise in sea levels in the next generation being far higher than this, can we afford to hold back zero-emissions microgeneration projects on the basis that they spoil the view? After all, the view isn't going to be very good if the houses are underwater.