19.1.2012

When ‘zero’ means nothing

A panel debate at the Building Centre in London this week saw a fascinating range of views – including ‘no’, ‘maybe’, and a compelling argument from one speaker that the concept of zero carbon homes should be ditched altogether. 

The debate was a reminder that the definition of a ‘zero carbon home’ has changed substantially in the past few years. The Government has even said that “the way we define zero carbon will have a big impact on the achievability and cost of the project”.

Correct, but meaningless. For example, travelling from London to the north of England becomes cheaper and more easily achievable if you define St Albans as a northern town. But you won’t be arriving at the right destination.
So when a ‘zero carbon’ home isn’t necessarily one with zero carbon emissions, does it mean anything? If it’s not meaningful, will people believe in it? And without belief, what will be the ultimate success of the project?

Of course, zero carbon homes are part of a bigger agenda to reduce the UK’s carbon emissions. They will play a role but, more important, is persuading the public and industry to reduce its energy consumption. That’s a massive task requiring huge attitudinal change and clear, strong communications behind it. 

The ‘zero carbon’ example is a reminder that confusing terminology and changing definitions will always make the PR and marketing challenge harder. Clarity is the key.