France requires all new buildings to have green roofs or solar panels

eiffel-tower-803488_1280This is excellent news. The article is from inhabitat.com via the Guardian

“France just passed a trailblazing new law that requires that all new buildings constructed in commercial areas to be partially-covered by either solar panels or green roofs. Not only will this bring dramatic changes to the nation’s skylines and bolster the efficiency of all new commercial construction, but the law will help France pick up the pace the solar adoption—which has lagged behind other European nations in recent years…”

Read more: France requires all new buildings to have green roofs or solar panels | Inhabitat – Sustainable Design Innovation, Eco Architecture, Green Building

Advertisements

17 thoughts on “France requires all new buildings to have green roofs or solar panels”

  1. Hi Pam,
    So what’s the naws ? Was I right and saying the truth about this never being a law, or was I not ?
    Would love to have your opinion …
    Sincerely,
    JK.

    Like

    1. Apologies JK I’ve been unable as yet to devote time to this. Would you be interested in writing something with links disproving the item? You’re clearly pretty au fait with the whole thing.

      Like

      1. Very interesting, and thank you for that link. Will set up a google alert and watch this one for more developments. As the article says they’ve jumped the gun.

        Like

  2. JK you seem intent on attack. I actually am for truth, and am very well aware that msm is biased & controlled. I am puzzled as to why you have singled only my site for this correction of the facts. Praps you can answer that for me, or have you literally contacted the dozens of others as well as the Guardian? And can you praps enlighten us all as to the agenda of the distortion of facts in the Guardian article in the first place?

    Like

    1. Hi Pam,
      First, thanks for your reply, I’m glad if this is a genuine dialogue.

      Second, sorry if it seems that way, but I didn’t single out your site. In fact, I started pointing this out where I first read it : on facebook. Apparently, I shouldn’t have. Do you guess what happened there ?
      Yep, MY profile was blocked, and EVERY comment I had ever written was ERASED. No, this is not a joke.

      I tried to write a comment on the Guardian’s site but, like I said, the comments on that article were closed on the 23rd of March 2015, only 3 days after they published it.
      As for other sites, of course, anywhere I could easily write a comment, I so did, with the link(s) to french official governmental websites where you can very easily see that the article in question was repelled for numerous (and valid) reasons.

      Pam, I am not the propietor of the Guardian. So only he/she/they can enlighten you all as to what agenda they are carrying out.
      I have my idea and I think I clearly stated it already : marketing disguised as information.

      To be clear, I couldn’t care less whether the law was voted or not. I have no stake in this, one way or the other.
      However, I dislike very much being “pigeoned”. IOW, “being taken for a ride”. For example, if the car was blue and reporters say “the car was blue”, no problem. If the car was orange and reporters say “the car was orange”, again, no problem. But if the car was blue and reporters say “the car was orange” : BIG PROBLEM.

      Let me just say this. It is very clear for anyone who knows how to “read” the sequence of statements and “events” during the public discussion of the proposed article in question (36 quinquies A), and moreover the way it was redacted, that it was never meant to be accepted and part of the final law.
      Here is the article in question, taken from the senate’s official ‘statement of acceptance for review’ of the project of law, coming from the lower chamber (house of representatives) :
      (Taken from : http://www.senat.fr/leg/pjl14-359.html)

      Section 6 bis

      Biodiversité en milieux urbain et péri-urbain

      (Division et intitulé nouveaux)

      Article 36 quinquies A (nouveau)

      Après le premier alinéa de l’article L. 111-6-1 du code de l’urbanisme, sont insérés deux alinéas ainsi rédigés :

      « Pour les projets mentionnés à l’article L. 752-1 du code de commerce, le document autorise la construction de nouveaux bâtiments uniquement s’ils intègrent sur tout ou partie de leurs toitures, et de façon non exclusive, soit des procédés de production d’énergies renouvelables, soit un système de végétalisation basé sur un mode cultural garantissant un haut degré d’efficacité thermique et d’isolation et favorisant la préservation et la reconquête de la biodiversité.

      « À compter du 1er janvier 2017, la surface des places de stationnement imperméabilisées compte pour le double de leur surface. »

      Now Pam, why do you join in the same article, an obligation for the roofs with how you count the authorized surface for parking spaces ?

      And here you have one of the senate’s commission’s analysis and conclusion for that article :
      http://www.senat.fr/rap/a14-549/a14-5495.html#toc70

      These works were lead and presented by senator Sophie PRIMAS (http://www.senat.fr/senateur/primas_sophie11090q.html)

      Look at the dates of these documents. Then YOU tell ME why all those sites are still writing that this is now part of french law.

      If you need anything translated, just say so.

      JK.

      Like

    2. Hi Pam,
      First, thanks for your reply, I’m glad if this is a genuine dialogue.

      Second, sorry if it seems that way, but I didn’t single out your site. In fact, I started pointing this out where I first read it : on facebook. Apparently, I shouldn’t have. Do you guess what happened there ? Yep, MY profile was blocked, and EVERY comment I had ever written was ERASED. No, this is not a joke.

      I tried to write a comment on the Guardian’s site but, like I said, the comments on that article were closed on the 23rd of March 2015, only 3 days after they published it.
      As for other sites, of course, anywhere I could easily write a comment, I so did, with the link(s) to french official governmental websites where you can very easily see that the article in question was repelled for numerous (and valid) reasons.

      Pam, I am not the propietor of the Guardian. So only he/she/they can enlighten you all as to what agenda they are carrying out.
      I have my idea and I think I clearly stated it already : marketing disguised as information.

      To be clear, I couldn’t care less whether the law was voted or not. I have no stake in this, one way or the other.
      However, I dislike very much being “pigeoned”. IOW, “being taken for a ride”. For example, if the car was blue and reporters say “the car was blue”, no problem. If the car was orange and reporters say “the car was orange”, again, no problem. But if the car was blue and reporters say “the car was orange” : BIG PROBLEM.

      Let me just say this. It is very clear for anyone who knows how to “read” the sequence of statements and “events” during the public discussion of the proposed article in question (36 quinquies A), and moreover the way it was redacted, that it was never meant to be accepted and part of the final law.
      Here is the article in question, taken from the senate’s official ‘statement of acceptance for review’ of the project of law, coming from the lower chamber (house of representatives) :
      (Taken from : http://www.senat.fr/leg/pjl14-359.html)

      Section 6 bis

      Biodiversité en milieux urbain et péri-urbain

      (Division et intitulé nouveaux)

      Article 36 quinquies A (nouveau)

      Après le premier alinéa de l’article L. 111-6-1 du code de l’urbanisme, sont insérés deux alinéas ainsi rédigés :
      « Pour les projets mentionnés à l’article L. 752-1 du code de commerce, le document autorise la construction de nouveaux bâtiments uniquement s’ils intègrent sur tout ou partie de leurs toitures, et de façon non exclusive, soit des procédés de production d’énergies renouvelables, soit un système de végétalisation basé sur un mode cultural garantissant un haut degré d’efficacité thermique et d’isolation et favorisant la préservation et la reconquête de la biodiversité.

      « À compter du 1er janvier 2017, la surface des places de stationnement imperméabilisées compte pour le double de leur surface. »

      Now Pam, why do you join in the same article, an obligation for the roofs with how you count the authorized surface for parking spaces ?

      And here you have one of the senate’s commission’s analysis and conclusion for that article :
      http://www.senat.fr/rap/a14-549/a14-5495.html#toc70
      These works were lead and presented by senator Sophie PRIMAS (http://www.senat.fr/senateur/primas_sophie11090q.html)

      Look at the dates of these documents. Then YOU tell ME why all those sites are still writing that this is now part of french law.

      If you need anything translated, just say so.

      JK.

      Like

      1. Thank you for your apology JK … appreciated & yes am also pleased this is a dialogue. All I can say just now is it gets curiouser & curiouser as the saying goes, especially given there are multiple other countries with green roof policies. I need to have a better read of all the background links & info you’ve provided. It being in French makes it a bit harder to do with all the translating but I will do so over the next week & come back. I’d really like to get to the bottom of it.

        Like

  3. Hi all,
    Please do some research or stop the marketing propaganda : THIS WAS NEVER A FRENCH LAW AND NEVER WILL BE.
    Proof ? Just consult France’s official senate websites where you can VERIFY that proposed article 36 QUINQUIES A was repelled on the 6th of July 2015 by the first senatorial hearing commision.
    And who is stupid enough to think that big distribution firms are ever going to let any government tell them how to construct their outlets …
    I’m not against solar energy or going REALLY green, but I am a proponent of the truth. And this is just another media lie.

    For those who don’t believe what I have just wrote, do your OWN research. Go to your favorite search engine and type :”Loi biodiversité” + “article 36 QUINQUIES A” + “sénat” …
    And if you can’t find anything, read here (go down to the 3rd amendment) : http://www.senat.fr/amendements/commissions/2014-2015/359/jeu_complet.html

    Like

    1. … in fact, this article was repelled 5 times, by amendments :
      – N° COM-3
      – N° COM-5
      – N° COM-7
      – N° COM-15
      – N° COM-319

      Like

    2. Well thank you for your attention to truth, I too am for truth Josef Kurtz. However, in your zeal for truthful media, it would be more useful for you to go to the source of this citation, ie the Guardian, and tell them it is BS, rather than just one of the dozens of ‘stupid’ sites that have cited the same article. I can find none that have retracted the info. Guardian included.

      Like

      1. @Pam Vernom.
        The “stategy” which consists in diverting the readers attention to attempt to have them (the readers) focus on a not even remotely connected item (as it happens, if I did/should tell the Guardian about “their” BS) clearly shows that you too have no problems conveying lies or BS. “If you want to dilute bad info, ostracize the critic”.

        The pseudo-info conveyed here is so easily verifiable that it doesn’t take much effort to figure out why it was published. Of course this was cross checked. Thus, whoever publishes this and whoever republishes it knows it’s total BS….
        So why do they publish it ? Well let’s check who gets to talk in this CBS News “ad-interview” :
        http://www.cbsnews.com/news/france-passes-new-law-to-cover-rooftops-with-plants-or-solar-panel/
        Oh WOW !! That’s astonishing ! It’s “James Watson, CEO of the European Photovoltaic Industry Association”. And I wonder what his agenda is …

        So Pam, do you really think governmental websites publish BS ? Do you really think that public documents and parlementiary and/or senatorial commissions’ PUBLIC hearings transcripts are tampered then published on official national websites ?

        Also Pam, if you are so “for truth” as you say, why didn’t you mention that, (for that article) on the Guardian’s website, the “discussion [was] closed for comments” on the 23rd of March, only 3 days after the “article-infotisement” was first published on the 20th of March 2015 ?

        J.K

        Like

Your comments are welcomed

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s