A Construction Manager survey indicates there is a huge shortfall in net zero skills training provision across the industry
The scale of the built environment’s net zero skills challenge has been laid bare by Construction Manager research which found that 86% of industry professionals consider current training provision ‘inadequate’.
The research follows a CITB study which shows the sector needs the equivalent of 350,000 new roles in the next seven years to deliver the government’s promise of net zero emissions by 2050.
But some 79% of those polled said it was ‘not easy’ to find suitable net zero training, and of those that had taken courses, almost two-thirds said they did not deliver the skills required.
“We need formally recognised qualifications following rigorous training on what net zero means in practice,” said one respondent.
“Everyone is waiting for legislation/technical standards to use as justification for training”
Courses on traditional (pre-1919) buildings and retrofit were seen as the weakest, with 35% and 29% respectively of respondents describing training they had taken as ‘not useful’.
Specialist or private training providers are the course deliverers of choice (72% of those surveyed), with product manufacturers (41%) a distant second.
One respondent said “This type of training rarely delves deeply enough into the subject to get a full understanding” while another complained “There does not seem to be consistency across the provider market”.
“There are plenty of tools online and CPD sessions if you are interested in finding them”
Another said they would be more likely to book net zero training if it “works for all, not just the big boys”.
More positively, almost half (49%) of respondents said their employers are “supportive” of equipping staff with net zero skills.
One said: “My company is fully focused on sustainability, net zero emissions and the environment as a whole.”
Another commented: “There are plenty of tools online and CPD sessions if you are interested in finding them.”
“This type of training rarely delves deeply enough into the subject to get a full understanding”
Some two-thirds of those polled said that if clients required net zero on projects, their employers would be more likely to invest in training.
“At the moment the schemes we are involved in do not require it,” said one.
Over 150 construction professionals responded to the survey last month on CM’s website.
Comments
Comments are closed.
“Net Zero” – the name says it all. It’s really just smoke and mirrors, which in effect is transferring a “problem” (that we do not have in the UK) from A t0 B.
It’s like wearing sunscreen so that the person next to you doesn’t get burned.
Does “net zero” mean no more trees will be cutdown, you know – the lungs of the planet.
Ask the question: “Who is making money from all of this?” – because it will not be anyone on here!
You all need to watch a documentary called “The Dark Side of Green Energy” before investing in this dream.
Very few people understand what net zero means, and perhaps even more can put a value on it. However ‘zero’ is clearly understood, and it can be used as a benchmark against what we are achieving. In our industry zero CO2 means we stop burning fossil fuels, and that achievement can be measured. If we fail to achieve zero, and I believe in most cases we can, then our ability to capture carbon becomes a contingency and can be clearly measured. Net zero is a fudge, which encourages us to ‘aim to miss’.
Net zero means swapping out functional equipment and systems for new equipment that is less efficient and costing a lot more. Someone will make money from the taxpayer though.
We need more CO2 not less but that conversation appears to be taboo as instructed by government and the media, who gladly approve spending trillions so they feel good and fuel poverty and Green taxes will overpower the poorest in society.
“In our industry zero CO2 means we stop burning fossil fuels,”
And use what instead? electirity, generated how? Nuclear: the site of the Dounray reactor in Scotland has been cleared – and will be habitable – in the year 2333 accoording to the BBC!
nNo one seems to think abuot the consequences of all these pipe dreams as they bow down to the green god. Shifting the problem to poorer countries is just sick – yet that is what is happening!
Electric cars, wind power etc are more polluting than the things they are meant to replace. Not that long ag diesel was the fuel to have according to a certain Gordon Brown! Not now.
Where will all the copper and rare minerals come from for the global supply of electric cars etc? This is NOT an infinite resource, far from it. They are only found in a few places and you can bet your life those places will become “hotspots” that need military intervention to keep them free – just as happens for oil at present!
Not one of these things happen for just one reason – somewhere a politician is making a killing on this!
I hope they clearly signpost buildings, ships etc made from low or no carbon steel – it will also comfort tank drivers too no doubt!!
OOOPS – sorry for all the typos, just off to Specsavers now! We need an edit facility on here please.