Reduction of operational carbon emissions from buildings is the primary sustainable construction driver in the UK. Through the Climate Change Act, the Government has set an ambitious and legally binding target to reduce national greenhouse gas emissions by at least 80% by 2050 with an intermediate target of a 34% reduction by 2020 (against a 1990 baseline). In addition, the Energy performance of buildings Directive (EPBD) requires all new buildings to be 'nearly zero energy' by December 2020.
The operation of buildings currently accounts for nearly half of the UK's greenhouse gas emissions and therefore significant improvement in new and existing building performance is required if these targets are to be met.
This article describes operational carbon assessment and targets, energy efficiency measures and low and zero carbon technologies and presents results from a recent study. The focus is on new non-domestic buildings.
Operational carbon is the term used to describe the emissions of carbon dioxide during the operational or in-use phase of a building.
Emissions arise from energy consuming activities including heating, cooling, ventilation and lighting of the building, so called 'regulated' emissions under Part L of the Building Regulations, and other, currently 'unregulated' emissions, including appliance use and small power plug loads such as IT. These appliances are not currently regulated because building designers generally have no control over their specification and use and they are also likely to be changed every few years. Although building operation can include other activities including cleaning, maintenance, repair and replacement, etc. these activities are not generally included within the definition of operational carbon. It is noted however, that robust building Life Cycle Assessment and carbon foot-printing studies do include these activities.
It should also be noted that operational carbon emissions are generally measured in terms of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, rather than greenhouse gas emissions that include a basket of greenhouse gases which are measured in terms of carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e). Embodied carbon impacts are generally measures in terms of carbon dioxide equivalents.
In 2007, UK Government has announced its aspiration for new non-domestic buildings to be zero carbon in operation by 2019; since that time, Government has investigated and consulted on the definition of 'zero carbon' for non-domestic buildings. As a minimum, Government stated that the zero-carbon destination for non-domestic buildings will cover 100% of regulated emissions, i.e. a Building Emissions Rate (BER) of zero.
Energy Efficiency measures - to ensure that buildings are constructed to very high standards of fabric energy efficiency and use efficient heating, cooling, ventilation and lighting systems. The current proposal for non-domestic buildings, following the precedent set for domestic buildings, is to set a minimum standard for energy efficiency based on the delivered energy required to provide space heating and cooling (kWh/m2/yr). The level for this standard has currently not been set for non-domestic buildings.
Carbon Compliance on or near site. This is the minimum level of carbon abatement required using energy efficiency measures plus on-site low and zero (LZC) technologies or directly connected heat or coolth. The level for this standard has currently not been set for non-domestic buildings.
Allowable Solutions – a range of additional beneficial measures to offset 'residual emissions', for example exporting low carbon or renewable heat to neighbouring developments or investing in LZC community heating.
The most recent government sponsored research into carbon compliance targets for new non-domestic buildings suggests that the average reduction in regulated emissions (via energy efficiency and on or near site LZC technologies, i.e. Carbon Compliance) required to achieve the 2019 'zero carbon' target will be between 44% to 54%,(relative to Part L 2006) although this is likely to vary greatly between different types of building, with the balance achieved via the use of allowable solutions. It is noted however, that these reduction targets are not definitive government policy.
In July 2015, the UK Government announced that, as part of its Productivity Plan, the zero carbon buildings policy was to be dropped to reduce regulation on house builders. In particular, government has stated that it 'does not intend to proceed with the zero carbon Allowable Solutions carbon offsetting scheme, or the proposed 2016 increase in on-site energy efficiency standards. Government will keep energy efficiency standards under review, recognising that existing measures to increase energy efficiency of new buildings should be allowed time to become established". This effectively means that the 2016 zero carbon homes target has been dropped, as has the 2019 target for non-domestic zero carbon buildings. It also means that there will be no further changes to Part L in 2016.
It has been clear for some time that the offsetting elements of the Allowable Solutions scheme did not fulfil the requirements of the EU Energy Performance of Buildings Directive, under which the UK has to deliver 'nearly zero' energy buildings from 2021 (and 2019 in the public sector). The challenge for UK Government therefore is how to comply with the requirements of the Directive in the absence of any policy.
The London Plan requires each major development proposal to submit a detailed energy assessment. The purpose of an energy assessment is to demonstrate that climate change mitigation measures are integral to the scheme's design and evolution, and that they are appropriate to the context of the development.
The Greater London Authority (GLA) provides guidance to accompany strategic planning applications. Each assessment is required to demonstrate how the targets for regulated CO2 emission reduction over and above 2013 Building Regulations will be met using the Mayor's energy hierarchy.
In October 2016 the GLA introduced a zero carbon standard for new residential developments. The Housing SPG defines 'Zero carbon' homes as homes forming part of major development applications where the residential element of the application achieves at least a 35% reduction in regulated carbon dioxide emissions (beyond Part L 2013 requirements) on-site . The remaining regulated carbon dioxide emissions, to 100%, are to be offset through a cash-in-lieu contribution to the relevant borough to be ring-fenced to secure delivery of carbon dioxide savings elsewhere.
For commercial development whilst the GLA target sets the Building Regulations as the target, Part A of the policy seeks to minimise carbon dioxide emissions and GLA monitoring indicates that a 35% reduction target is achievable for new, non-domestic buildings. Given this evidence, GLA will continue to require that non-domestic development seek to achieve a 35% reduction against Part L 2013 requirements.
The original Energy Performance of Buildings Directive (EPBD-1) was a core response by the EU to greenhouse gas reduction targets agreed under the Kyoto protocol. When the Directive was adopted in December 2002 there were 160 million buildings in the EU, and it was anticipated that the Directive could deliver 45 million tonnes of carbon dioxide reduction by 2010.
By 2007 the EU had committed to even more stringent targets - in particular to a reduction of 20% in the EU's total energy consumption by 2020, and a binding target for renewable energy of 20% of total supply by the same year. Individual Member States had also set their own national targets.
It was clear therefore that there was a need to strengthen the provisions of the Directive and have a more thorough and rapid implementation. At the same time, it was acknowledged that there had been a wide range of responses from Member States to the provisions of the original Directive, and that this variability should not be allowed to continue. Hence the second directive (known as the 'recast EPBD' or EPBD-2) was drafted and adopted in May 2010, effectively replacing the original. It generally tightened up the performance standards, reduced the building size thresholds which trigger certain actions, and strengthened the requirements for display of information and inspection of plant.
Article 27 penalties for non-compliance must be introduced.
In England, the Government issues and approves Approved Document L (Conservation of fuel and power) to provide practical guidance on ways of complying with the energy efficiency requirements of the Building Regulations. In Wales, similar Approved Documents are published by the Welsh Government.
Approved Document L has evolved over recent years to implement the requirements of the EPBD at a national level and has a key role to play in defining suitable intermediate steps on the trajectory towards zero carbon buildings. Approved Document L is currently updated on a three year cycle with the next revision due in 2016 (although a Government statement in July 2015 indicated that no changes will be made at that time).
The intention of Approved Documents is to provide guidance on compliance with specific aspects of Building Regulations for some of the more common building situations. They set out what may be considered as reasonable provisions for compliance with the relevant requirements of the Building Regulations to which they refer. If Approved Documents are followed then there is a presumption that the requirements of the Building Regulations have been met, although this can be overturned. Approved Documents generally include a disclaimer that they may not be suitable for unusual buildings and also state that there is no requirement to adopt the solutions if it can be shown that the requirement of the Building Regulations can be met in other ways. Nevertheless, the great majority of buildings are designed to comply with the Building Regulations via the processes outlined in Approved Documents.
Checks to ensure control of solar gain and overheating.
Throughout the remainder of this article, it is the English versions of the Approved Documents (or ADs) that are referred to.
It is noted that under the 2013 Part L Regulations, the Approved Document covering new, domestic buildings in England (Part L1A, 2013) includes Fabric Energy Efficiency Standards (FEES) alongside the existing CO2 emissions targets. This FEES target is set at approximately the interim FEES level as recommended by the Zero Carbon Hub. It is not clear whether this approach will be extended to non-domestic buildings in the future. Government currently considers that the range of non-domestic building types is too large to develop absolute or mandatory fabric energy efficiency targets at this stage.
Part L criterion 1, compliance modelling is not meant to accurately predict the energy consumption of a building, but rather to assess its carbon emissions on a comparative scale. The modelling method that must be used is prescribed by the National Calculation Methodology (NCM).
The NCM allows the calculations to be carried out either by dynamic simulation software approved by the Department of Communities and Local Government (CLG), or the Simplified Building Energy Model (SBEM), a simplified tool developed by the Building Research Establishment (BRE) purely for Part L compliance analysis. The purpose of SBEM is to produce consistent and reliable evaluations of energy use in non-domestic buildings for Building Regulations Compliance and for Building Energy Performance Certification purposes.
The selection of tools is open to the designer but it is recognised that SBEM is relatively limited and is unable to model a number of options.
The main requirement is that the calculated (predicted) CO2 emissions rate from the building as built (BER), is less than or equal to the Target CO2 Emissions Rate(TER).
The calculated emission rate of CO2 is based on the annual energy requirements for space heating, water heating and lighting, less the emissions saved by renewable energy generation technologies and makes use of standard sets of data for different activity areas and call on common databases of construction and service elements.
For non-domestic buildings, the Building CO2 Emissions Rate (BER) must be less than the TER. The BER and TER are calculated using a monthly quasi-steady state energy balance methodology SBEM (Simplified Building Energy Model) based on BS EN ISO 52016-1, with lighting from BS EN 15193, or by using approved dynamic simulation modelling software such as IES-VE or TAS.
The SBEM software package produces a virtual model of the building. Standard operating conditions for each building type are defined in the National Calculation Methodology (NCM) and are applied to the building being assessed.
The 2006 revisions to Approved Document L2A required a 23.5% saving (in regulated emissions) over the 2002 standards for fully naturally ventilated spaces and 28% savings for mechanically ventilated and cooled spaces. Revisions to Part L2A in 2010 required a further 25% (average) reduction in regulated emissions over the 2006 requirements for non-domestic buildings. In recognition of the variation in energy demand profiles in different non-domestic building types and hence the cost-effectiveness of achieving carbon emission reductions in different building types, Part L2A (2010) adopted an 'aggregate' approach for non-domestic buildings. Under this approach, different building types are required to achieve larger or smaller operational carbon emission reductions than the 'average' 25%. Targets are set based on predicted new build rates for different building types over the assumed 10-year policy period.
The carbon reduction targets in the 2013 (England) regulations are less than initially proposed during the consultation period. For new homes, Part L 2013 represents a 6% aggregate uplift in CO2 targets compared to the 2010 requirements. For new non-domestic buildings, the regulations represent a 9% aggregate uplift, significantly lower than the 20% improvement initially proposed (mainly in response to Government's deregulatory and growth agendas).
Although the aggregate CO2 emissions uplift or improvement for new non-domestic buildings is 9%, this varies, by building type, between 3% for small warehouses to 13% for a shallow plan office.
Air permeability 5 m3m-2hr-1 in side lit and 7 m3m-2hr-1 in toplit buildings for buildings with a gross internal area of less than 250 m2 – air permeability targets for larger buildings are lower.
Energy efficiency measures can be broadly defined as changes to the building which will reduce the demand for energy and in so doing reduce operational carbon emissions. In general, they include measures to improve the thermal performance of the building envelope and improvements to the buildings services. The table gives an overview of the various types of energy efficiency measures most often considered for improving the operational energy efficiency of new, non-domestic buildings.
The graph shows the predicted (modelled) reductions in operational carbon dioxide emissions achieved by introducing a number of individual energy efficiency measures into a large, air-conditioned, city centre office building. It is noted that the measures yielding the greatest reductions are not necessarily the most cost effective. The results are from the Target Zero research programme.
The graph shows that, in this case, the measures with the greatest predicted impact are those related to space cooling and fan and lighting efficiencies. Most of the building fabric improvements are predicted to yield only small reductions in carbon dioxide emissions.
The pie chart shows the predicted breakdown of carbon dioxide emissions, by energy demand, for the same office building.
Energy efficiency measures which affect the heating/cooling balance of buildings can be difficult to optimise. This is because the proportion of annual carbon emissions from space heating and cooling are often very similar; as is the case for this office building. As a consequence, energy efficiency measures which tend to reduce fabric heat losses or increase solar gains will reduce the emissions from space heating, but also increase those from cooling. Similarly measures which increase heat loss or reduce solar gain will increase the emissions from space heating but reduce those from cooling. The net effect can be very small.
Energy efficiency measures generally incur a capital cost premium. An exception to this is reduced glazed area which can yield a capital cost saving. It is important therefore that the capital cost of energy efficiency measures is balanced against the operational cost savings, i.e. through lower utility bills. This approach is consistent with the targets being set in Government's hierarchy for defining zero carbon non-domestic buildings.
The figure shows the cost effectiveness of the same set of measures as shown above. Their cost-effectiveness has been calculated based on a 25-year NPV per kg of CO2 saved per year and measures have been ranked in order of cost-effectiveness. The NPV (Net present value) includes all capital, maintenance and replacement costs and resulting energy savings, over a 25-year period. All ongoing costs are discounted back to their current present value. A discount rate of 3.5% has been used.
The figure shows that the energy efficiency measures involving an improvement to the fabric thermal insulation performance of building elements (green bars in the figure) are generally not very cost effective, i.e. they have a high NPV cost per kgCO2 saved. This is, as has been previously discussed, largely because the addition of thermal insulation increases the cooling load in summer as well as reducing the heating load in winter. Therefore the net carbon saving from such measures is relatively small and hence their cost effectiveness is relatively low.
When a range of different energy efficiency measures is to be employed, it is important that their compatibility is established. For example, more efficient lighting will generate less heat and therefore the heating demand will be increased and the cooling load could be reduced. The interaction of these different effects is complex and therefore expert advise, supported by dynamic thermal modelling, should be employed.
Further, more detailed, information and guidance on energy efficiency measures is provided in the Target Zero design guides.
Low and zero carbon (LZC) technologies can be broadly defined as technologies which meet building energy demands with either no carbon emissions, or carbon emissions significantly lower than those of conventional methods. There are, however, a number of grey areas in this definition such as ground source heat pumps which are generally classed as low carbon technologies but which can be less efficient than modern high efficiency conventional cooling plant.
An overview of the various types of generic LZC technologies most often considered for use on new, non-domestic buildings is shown.
The suitability of different LZC technologies to different building types and locations can vary significantly and, as for energy efficiency measures, it is important that whole life costs are assessed to arrive at optimum solutions for a specific building. This assessment is further complicated by the introduction and changes to subsidies such as Feed-in tariffs (FITs) and the Renewable Heat Incentive (RHI).
It is important, when choosing on-site LZCs, that their compatibility with energy efficiency measures and any other LZCs is probably considered.
The Target Zero programme gives detailed guidance on the most cost effective routes, i.e. combinations of energy efficiency measures and LZC technologies, to achieve future likely Carbon Compliance targets and true net zero carbon buildings.
An understanding of the breakdown of operational energy use (and associated carbon emissions) in buildings is important to focus the designer's attention on where the greatest improvements or savings can be achieved. Although all buildings are different and actual performance will differ from predicted performance, the pie charts give the breakdown in operational carbon emissions (by energy use) in four of the five non-domestic buildings studied in the Target Zero programme. The 5th (office) building breakdown has been previously described. All buildings were designed to meet the minimum requirements of Part L2A 2006.
Heating and cooling emissions are very similar in the office, supermarket and mixed-use buildings.
Further, more detailed, information and guidance on the breakdown of operational carbon emissions in non-domestic buildings is provided in the Target Zero design guides.
Development of optimum solutions for low and zero carbon non-domestic buildings is complex. Optimum solutions require collaborative and early involvement of all parts of the design team. The flowchart gives guidance on how to develop cost-effective solutions for low or zero carbon buildings. This example is specifically tailored to commercial office buildings but is equally applicable to other non-domestic building types.
The Target Zero design guides provide detailed guidance and information on optimum solutions to achieve current and future possible low and zero carbon targets.
Key recommendations for developing low and zero operational carbon solutions are set out below.
Client commitment to achieving sustainable and low and zero carbon targets should be captured in terms of a clear brief and target(s), for example, a 70% improvement in regulated carbon emissions or an Energy Performance Certificate (EPC) A rating.
The brief, and any operational carbon targets, should specify the contribution to be made from on-site LZC technologies and whether the client is prepared to connect to offsite technologies. This should also take account of any funding or local planning requirements, such as a policy requiring a minimum proportion of a building's energy needs to be met using renewable energy.
Undertaking the relevant analyses and integration of design early enough on a project is key to ensuring that the design is maximising its potential for low carbon emissions at minimum cost.
The provision of easy-to-understand, accurate cost advice early in the design process is key to developing the most cost-effective low and zero carbon solution for any new-build building.
The cost implications to the building structure/fabric are considered. For example, a PV array installed on a flat roof requires additional supporting structures whereas PV laminate on a low-pitch roof does not.
All members of the design team should understand the operational carbon targets set for a project and their role in achieving them. Targets should be included in their briefs/contracts with a requirement to undertake their part of the work necessary to achieve the target. It can be useful to appoint a 'carbon champion' on the project who would be responsible for delivering the target. This is often the role taken by either the building services engineer or the BREEAM assessor.
It is important to understand the breakdown of energy use within the building so that measures can be targeted where the greatest reductions are achievable.
The likely occupancy pattern of the building should also be considered early on in the design process since this will affect the energy demand profile of the building. For example, a large commercial office building operating 24 hours a day will have a far higher lighting and heating demand than one only operating during normal business hours. The National Calculation Methodology (NCM) which is used for Part L compliance, applies a standard activity schedule to different building types and therefore cannot take into account different occupancy patterns. This is a limitation of the NCM and is an example of where operational carbon compliance modelling is not able to accurately model/predict actual emissions.
Site constraints, including building orientation, can have a major effect on a building's operational energy requirements and on the viability of integrating LZC technologies. Site selection can therefore be a key issue. Most site constraints for large city centre buildings are far more onerous than for other non-domestic building types such as schools, retail, industrial and leisure buildings which are more typically (although not exclusively) located outside city centres.
The design team must therefore be fully aware of the viability of available LZC technologies and the constraints imposed by the site. They will also need to look beyond the site boundary for opportunities to integrate with other offsite LZC technologies and other buildings and networks.
The ability to integrate into (or initiate) a low-carbon district heating system, for example, may have a large positive impact on the cost-effectiveness of constructing low carbon, city centre commercial buildings and therefore should be given due consideration early in the design process.
Although energy efficiency measures can deliver significant carbon savings, in most new non-domestic building types, the glazing and solar shading strategy is likely to be the most effective means to deliver cost effective carbon savings.
The glazing strategy will have a significant impact on the cooling load, the requirement for artificial lighting and the energy required for space heating. East and West facing glazing should be minimised with an emphasis on North and South facing glazing. Glazing with a sill height less than around 1m does not generally provide much useful daylight, but does increase the cooling load in summer and heating requirements in winter. South facing glazing should have external solar control measures to block high-angle sunlight in summer whilst allowing the useful low-angle sunlight to enter the building in winter.
Improving lighting efficiency is often important to deliver cost effective carbon savings. Lighting typically contributes over a quarter of the carbon dioxide emissions of commercial buildings and over 70% in warehouse buildings. Therefore optimising the lighting design in conjunction with the glazing strategy can reduce energy use significantly without major capital cost implications.
Lighting energy use can be dramatically reduced through good design involving efficient lighting layout and use of low energy lamps and luminaires with high light output ratios (LOR). Lighting controls should also be carefully designed in order to facilitate efficient use of the system. Well placed user controls combined with automatic controls including daylight dimming and occupancy-sensing controls can have a dramatic impact on lighting energy use particularly when combined with a well-designed glazing strategy. It is important however that these systems are designed to suit the building users otherwise there is a tendency to override automatic controls, leading to greater energy consumption.
Using waste heat from space cooling to provide hot water.
The energy required by ventilation systems can be significant in commercial buildings. This can be reduced through the use of low energy fans and pumps. The positioning and size of plant rooms can have a dramatic effect on the energy used in ventilation systems.
The amount of energy used by fans increases as ductwork becomes longer, narrower and includes more bends and therefore structural and M&E engineers have a role to play in designing more efficient ventilation systems.
The choice of delivery system for heating and cooling can have a dramatic effect on the performance of a building. Chilled beams lend themselves to the thermal characteristics of heat pumps allowing the two technologies to offer a greater overall efficiency when linked together than when used separately.
An alternative to chilled beams is to integrate the heating/cooling system into the structure of the building, so called water-cooled/heated slabs. By embedding the pipework into the floors, a similar performance to chilled beams can be achieved without the visual intrusion.
Once energy demands have been reduced and efficient baseline HVAC systems selected, the introduction of LZC technologies should be considered. The Target Zero guides give detailed guidance on the cost effectiveness of different generic LZC technologies for different non-domestic building types.
Many LZC technologies will require larger plant space (than conventional heating and cooling systems) and some require access for fuel delivery and storage; this needs to be considered in the design. Once LZC technologies have been selected they should be integrated into the design at the earliest opportunity to enable efficient integration and reduce capital expenditure. If the building is to be connected to a district heating system then the capital cost can be reduced if plant rooms for heating systems are kept close to street level. If biomass fuel is to be delivered to site then delivery access will be important and should be considered very early in the design process.
The cost effectiveness of LZC technologies which provide heat rely on there being a sufficient heat demand. Therefore the effectiveness of low carbon heating technologies is reduced when they are used on highly insulated buildings.
The size of wind turbines that can be installed on-site will be restricted by site and other, e.g. planning, constraints. As a general rule however, where on-site wind turbine are viable, the most cost effective approach will be to install the largest possible turbine.
The impact of structural form on the operational carbon emissions from non-domestic buildings is generally small. The table gives the results from dynamic thermal modelling of different structural forms of five different non-domestic building types. The perceived wisdom is that heavy weight solutions are generally more energy efficient, however the variation is 1% or less in all cases.
Buildings with high thermal mass are constructed from materials which have a large capacity to absorb and store heat. Careful utilisation of this effect can help to stabilise internal temperatures and reduce summer cooling loads. However, it can also have the effect of increasing the energy required for space heating if, by exposing the floor soffits, the volume requiring heating is increased. The interaction of these impacts is complex and depends on the balance of heating and cooling in the building in question.
Where it is decided to utilise thermal mass in a building, studies have shown that, at most, it is possible to mobilise about 75-100mm of the structural depth of the exposed soffit. This is available in all common steel floor systems.
Thermal mass is only really effective when it is directly exposed, most commonly by leaving the soffit of the floor above the occupants exposed. Frequently this does not occur in modern buildings which often have false ceilings that isolate the thermal mass. Exposing the thermal mass can also have detrimental impacts on aesthetics and acoustics which can be costly to overcome.
Thermal mass is only effective at providing a stable internal temperature if the heat stored in the fabric during the day is dissipated at night. Modern buildings are required to be well insulated and so this dissipation of heat cannot happen unless external air is allowed to circulate inside the building; so called night cooling or purging. If this does not take place then each morning the building will still be warm from the previous day and so a steady build up in temperature can occur during prolonged periods of hot weather.
Night cooling can be provided either mechanically or naturally. It can be as simple as leaving windows open to allow cool night air to circulate inside the building. However this approach is often difficult to achieve due to the associated security risk. An alternative is to provide mechanical ventilation which runs through the night although this can consume considerable electrical energy and hence be counter productive.
Unless the energy consumed in cooling the building is a significant proportion of its total energy demand then the benefits of thermal mass are generally small and may even increase the building's carbon dioxide emissions unless the ventilation is carefully controlled to maximise night cooling.
There are situations where it may be appropriate to consider a naturally ventilated, thermal mass solution to reduce operational carbon emissions. However, there are often other important factors that can mitigate against this. Furthermore, any presumption of improved operational energy performance of a heavyweight building should be tested using dynamic thermal modelling.
The choice of structural option often affects the envelope area of the building. Buildings with a greater surface area will experience a larger amount of heat loss; this will increase the heating energy requirement in winter, but may also reduce the cooling load in summer.
Programming implications: both on‐site and supply. CHP systems, for example, might have a long lead-in time.
Plant room size will vary according to the LZC technologies that are to be used in the building. For example, biomass boilers will require additional storage space for wood chip fuel and for ash as well as access for fuel deliveries and waste collections. For buildings connected into district heating schemes, plant room size could be much smaller than required for traditional plant particularly if no backup plant is required. Similarly, the use of on-site technologies such as ground source heat pumps can result in smaller plant rooms, if no backup or supplementary heating or cooling plant is required.
As regulations are tightened to reduce operational carbon emissions from new buildings, the relative importance of embodied carbon impacts increases.
The table shows the ratio between the embodied carbon and the annual predicted operational carbon emissions for five different non-domestic building types and for different possible future operational carbon reduction targets. The buildings are those studied under the Target Zero programme and therefore the base line is a Part L2A (2006) compliant building.
The table shows for example, that for the Part L2A (2006) compliant school building, the embodied carbon in the building is exceeded by the operational carbon emissions after 8.4 years of building operation. This ratio increases to 44.2 years under the scenario of a 100% reduction in regulated carbon emissions. These results are indicative only however since, as UK energy production is decarbonised in the future, the embodied carbon of buildings should also reduce.
The most recent government sponsored research into Carbon Compliance targets for new non-domestic buildings suggests that the averaged reduction in regulated emissions (via energy efficiency and on or near site LZC technologies) required to achieve the 2019 'zero carbon' target will be between 44% to 54% (relative to Part L 2006) with the balance achieved via the use of allowable solutions. At these levels of reduction, the predicted ratio of embodied:operational carbon for these buildings over a 60-year design life is between 1:4 and 1:8 suggesting that even in 2019, when designing new 'zero carbon' buildings, designers can still make the greatest impact by addressing operational carbon rather than embodied carbon.
A simplified carbon footprint tool for buildings is available.
↑ DFP Technical Booklet F1: 2012 - conservation of fuel and power in dwellings, Department of Finance and Personnel.
↑ DFP Technical Booklet F2: 2012 - Conversation of fuel and power in buildings other than dwellings, Department of Finance and Personnel.
↑ DFP Amendments to Technical Booklets F1 & F2: 2014, Department of Finance and Personnel.
↑ Building Regulations 2008 Conservation of Fuel and Energy - Buildings other than Dwellings Technical Guidance Document L, Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government, 2008.
↑ Building Regulations 2011 Conservation of Fuel and Energy - Dwellings Technical Guidance Document L, Department of Housing, Planning, Community and Local Government, 2017.
↑ Fabric energy efficiency for zero carbon homes - A flexible performance standard for 2016. Zero Carbon Hub.


Advising Iraqis: Building the Iraqi Army (http://usacac.leavenworth.army.mil/CAC/milreview/English/JulAug06/Grunow.pdf) by Lieutenant Colonel Carl D. Grunow, U.S. Army.
Countering Evolved Insurgent Networks (http://usacac.leavenworth.army.mil/CAC/milreview/English/JulAug06/Hammes.pdf) by Colonel Thomas X. Hammes, USMC, Retired.
Responding to Bolivian Democracy: Avoiding the Mistakes of Early U.S. Cuban Policy (http://usacac.leavenworth.army.mil/CAC/milreview/English/JulAug06/Morales.pdf) by Waltraud Queiser Morales, Ph.D.
Full-Spectrum Analysis: A New Way of Thinking for a New World (http://usacac.leavenworth.army.mil/CAC/milreview/English/JulAug06/Wolfberg.pdf) by Adrian Wolfberg.
USAF Relevance in the 21st Century: A First-Quarter Team in a Four-Quarter Game (http://usacac.leavenworth.army.mil/CAC/milreview/English/JulAug06/Kovich.pdf) by Major Andrew S. Kovich, U.S. Air Force.
Producing Victory: Rethinking Conventional Forces in COIN Operations (http://usacac.leavenworth.army.mil/CAC/milreview/English/JulAug06/Ollivant-Chewning.pdf) by Lieutenant Colonel Douglas A. Ollivant, U.S. Army and First Lieutenant Eric D. Chewning, U.S. Army.
Unit Immersion in Mosul: Establishing Stability in Transition (http://usacac.leavenworth.army.mil/CAC/milreview/English/JulAug06/Stanton.pdf) by Major Paul T. Stanton, U.S. Army.
Hezbollah's Employment of Suicide Bombing during the 1980's: The Theological, Political, and Operational Development of a New Tactic (http://usacac.leavenworth.army.mil/CAC/milreview/English/JulAug06/Helmer.pdf) by Captain Daniel Isaac Helmer, U.S. Army.
A Dragon in the Andes? China, Venezuela, and U.S. Energy Security (http://usacac.leavenworth.army.mil/CAC/milreview/English/JulAug06/Erikson.pdf) by Daniel P. Erikson.
Castro's Tactics of Control in Cuba (http://usacac.leavenworth.army.mil/CAC/milreview/English/JulAug06/Ponce.pdf) by José Ramón Ponce Solozábal.
The All-Volunteer Army: Can We Still Claim Success? (http://usacac.leavenworth.army.mil/CAC/milreview/English/JulAug06/Stewart.pdf) by Major General Walter L. Stewart Jr., U.S. Army National Guard, Retired.
Cultural Awareness and Irregular Warfare: French Army Experience in Africa (http://usacac.leavenworth.army.mil/CAC/milreview/English/JulAug06/Bore.pdf) by Colonel Henri Boré, French Army, Retired.
Our Strategic Intelligence Problem (http://usacac.leavenworth.army.mil/CAC/milreview/English/JulAug06/BoB_Insights_Reviews_Letters_JA06.pdf) by Lieutenant Colonel Ralph Peters, U.S. Army, Retired.
Book Reviews: Contemporary Readings for the Professional (http://usacac.leavenworth.army.mil/CAC/milreview/English/JulAug06/BoB_Insights_Reviews_Letters_JA06.pdf) (Scroll down past the Peters article - also contains letters to the editor).
Coucil members may be interested to know that Air Force ROTC removed the one class period devoted to MOOTW in its most recent course sylabus revisions. This is in relation to the Air Force article linked above.
My two cents on the Air Force article.
When I went through ROTC (back in 95-96, I was a "six-weeker"), they had a block of instruction for MOOTW; it was a short lesson, but at least it was an introduction. I am sad to hear that even that is going away, which runs counter to what you would expect considering our current operations. There must be a disconnect down at Maxwell.
Sad to say that IMHO the USAF pays little attention to small wars and MOOTW in its educational system (ROTC, SOS, ACSC, various FTU's, etc.)and published doctrine. To me this is a problem considering that we are more likely to be involved in a MOOTW or small war than in a major theater war. Somehow we need to balance what we teach and our doctrine so that we can better address operations at the lower end of the spectrum. We are the best when it comes to addressing conventional and nuclear war, but we need to do a better job in the realm of MOOTW, COIN, etc.
The good news is that I think we are actually doing a good job supporting real world ops (OIF, OEF, etc, etc); we are learning as we go and through OJT. Somehow, all this knowledge and experience needs to make it back to Maxwell and our tech schools.
When it comes to MOOTW and COIN most of what we bring to the fight in terms of airpower mission comes in the form of airlift, ISR, special ops support assets, some CAS (urban CAS as in Iraq, or "rural" CAS as in Afghanistan) and TST prosecution (as when we schwacked AMZ and hundreds of others). Sortie wise, the fight is mostly non-kinetic. Not a whole lot of traditional "strategic bombing" going in stability operations. But like I said, out in the field our people have adapted superbly to supporting the troops on the ground and we actually have a lot of USAF people doing jobs traditionally done by the Army like convoy duty, interrogations and PRT.
I must say that only a French colonel could say that and not choke on his snails. Execution-style was considered 1st class treatment in the genocide, especially for women who were typically raped until they were bleeding and then hacked up. Much of this happened inside the French protective zone and the French got by such "disturbing occurences" by looking the other way. "Strengthening relationships with the local military?" Hell the French trained the ex-FAR and at least part of the Interahamwe. As for the RPA, they despised the French, even more so after the genocide.
I am not a Francophobe. I generally respect the French military and I liked working with them in UNTSO and even in Goma although we did have our conflicting agendas. I even wrote about their ops in Kolwezi quite favorably. But their actions in Rwanda and their support of a killer regime and murderous army are stains that just don't wash away with crap like this.
Grunow's article is an excellent read, and again something that should be inserted into the curriculum of every advisor cadre spin-up program. Sadly though, his year of observations (which appear to have recently ended) is similar to my observations back in late 2004.
What I did find interesting and refreshing was the observation that advisors must develop a bridge to partner coalition formations, and invest time in fostering a good working relationship through education and open lines of comm. I also liked the practical words of advice that bring Lawrence into the current age - do not levy the same reporting requirements on the IA that we do ourselves.
The article reinforced my firm belief that if we are to succeed in the advisory role, the screening and selection of advisors must be taken seriously. That is only the first step, well in advance of any training regimen to prepare them for the duty. In the Marine Corps' case, the cadre must be applied for at least a year, not seven months.
Yeah, they yanked the MOOTW portion of the AS400 (senior year) lesson plan, and cut back on the AEF section as well. They are trying to add a bit more "glitz" to the cultural section, as well as a language component (finally, but it's not especially realistic in my view), but it's more Air Force theory and not reflective of the realities we currently face.
I'm trying at my Det to get some joint training stuff added, and do have the support of our current Det commander. I'm also working where I can to get some Small Wars considerations put into the one elective course we have, but it's a struggle at times.
It is interesting, and it's something that I've noticed as well. I wonder if it's a reaction on the part of the students to a lack of information they got when they were younger officers. But from what I'm seeing, this Small Wars thinking isn't really getting through to the lower levels of their education system.


text:
Palmarès
Campionati asiatici
Ulaanbaatar 2022: bronzo negli 86 kg.

Collegamenti esterni

 Risultati

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


text:
We are moving the gear shop to a new location! Orders placed between now and Dec. 10th will be shipped around the 15th. Thank you for your patience.
info@firegroove.com 844-FIRETOY (347-3869)
X Please Login, or enter your
Afghanistan Åland Islands Albania Algeria American Samoa Andorra Angola Anguilla Antarctica Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Aruba Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bermuda Bhutan Bolivia Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Bouvet Island Brazil British Indian Ocean Territory Brunei Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burma (Myanmar) Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad Chile China Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia Comoros Congo, Dem. Republic Congo, Republic Cook Islands Costa Rica Croatia Cuba Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic East Timor Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Falkland Islands Faroe Islands Fiji Finland France French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon Gambia Georgia Germany Ghana Gibraltar Greece Greenland Grenada Guadeloupe Guam Guatemala Guernsey Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti Heard Island and McDonald Islands Honduras HongKong Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran Iraq Ireland Israel Italy Ivory Coast Jamaica Japan Jersey Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Korea, Dem. Republic of Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Laos Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxemburg Macau Macedonia Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Man Island Marshall Islands Martinique Mauritania Mauritius Mayotte Mexico Micronesia Moldova Monaco Mongolia Montenegro Montserrat Morocco Mozambique Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands Netherlands Antilles New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Niue Norfolk Island Northern Mariana Islands Norway Oman Pakistan Palau Palestinian Territories Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Pitcairn Poland Portugal Puerto Rico Qatar Reunion Island Romania Russian Federation Rwanda Saint Barthelemy Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Martin Saint Pierre and Miquelon Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Samoa San Marino São Tomé and Príncipe Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands South Korea Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Svalbard and Jan Mayen Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syria Taiwan Tajikistan Tanzania Thailand Togo Tokelau Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United Kingdom United States Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Vatican City State Venezuela Vietnam Virgin Islands (British) Virgin Islands (U.S.) Wallis and Futuna Western Sahara Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe
$0 Shipping
Total shipping (tax excl.) $0
Performance Intensive Bios
> Performance Intensive Bios
Performer Intensive Instrucor Bios
Chris Filkins
Chris Filkins is a Los Angeles innovator in a number of different disciplines within circus. His emphasis is on momentum and the ways it can be harnessed in the human body through acrobatics and within human powered machines such as wheels. He has both taught and performed for movies, television, and special events through the western United States including notables such as with Tenacious D, Beverly Hills 90210, American Gladiators, the ReCircle Collective, the Super Geek League, the Do Lab, & the Vau de Vire Society, among many others. He teaches privates, classes, and workshops in the roue Cyr, traveling rings, zig rolling, & acrobatics.
Maggie Lally
Maggie Lally is a performer born and raised in Venice Beach, California. She first raided the stage during her sister's piano recital at the age of two and hasn't gotten off. She's worked with bands, circus companies, festivals, vaudeville shows and has been performing full time since 2008. Special highlights of her career include worldwide touring with singer Emilie Autumn, humanitarian clowning with Patch Adams and Gesundheit Institute in Peru, and performing the festival circuit with The Lucent Dossier Experience. Her specialties include stilt walking, singing and roving clowning. She's infamously known for her odd and distinct characters such as Captain Maggot, Tinkbot, and Floozy MaGee. She travels most of the year, performing all over the world and in her time at home she loves to cook and spend time with her two pet rats, Honey Pie and Nina.
Stephanie Jamieson
Stephanie Jamieson, better known as Steph J., has been a mover and a shaker since before she can remember. Destin for a life filled with movement, she choreographed her first solo piece at the age of three, a classic of her family home videos. Since that video she graduated cum laude from Loyola Marymount University and has performed throughout Los Angeles, in Canada and Costa Rica. Steph J. has taught dance and choreography at Renaissance Arts Academy, Idyllwild Arts High School and currently at American Musical and Dramatic Arts College and Conservatory. She is passionate about making dance that evokes a cathartic experience for the audience and pulls the viewer on a journey. Her work explores the depths of human emotion that manifests in raw natural movement. She is also a Certified Gyrotonic Instructor® and is currently working with Wilderbe, Bubble Gutter and LA Sirenes. You can also find her choreography in music video's for such artists as Puddle of Mud, Boniz Heart and Rough duchess.
Stephanie Federoff
Los Angeles native Stephanie Lynn has been dancing and performing since her very first "Baby Ballet" class the age of 3. She discovered her calling to choreography and teaching when she was 9. Ever since then she has been developing her artistic voice as a Dancer, Choreographer and Performance Artist at festival and various shows around LA. Most at home when she is pushing the boundaries, many of her pieces explore stories and subject matter that air on the mature side, both in concept and execution. Her highest goal as a performer is to make those watching or experiencing it feel something. She believes that dance is one of the strongest tools for storytelling and this is a skill she will be focusing on in her class. She has choreographed for the LA sirens, New fangled opry and is the founding member of the Bijoulettes.
Jesselynn Desmond
Jesselynn desmond Grew up in South Lake Tahoe, NV and moved to Los Angeles in 1995 to follow her dreams of living the performer life. Always knowing she had an unparalleled zest for life and the desire to explore far beyond the confines of normalcy she tirelessly dedicated herself to the study of many art forms including dance, movement, character study and stage presence. Fueled with boundless energy from sources mysterious and unknown she has been character acting professionally for over ten years with such troupes as The Lucent Dossier Experience, FireGroove and Zen Arts (to name a few) and Founded The New Fangled Opry.
Jesselynn has been teaching for over 20 years with a passion for coaching others to love themselves, seek truth and explore their highest selves. She has a mindful, nurturing, and a relaxed presence that allows her to train a variety of personalities. Her classes are known to allow students to delve into the deeper understanding of character and life.
Kamala Mathis
Kamala's loving heart, intuitive spirit, and healing abilities have drawn people to her since she was a child. Fire dancing came naturally to Kamala with her solid background in dance and yoga. Her rhythmic dance style has been described as beautiful, sultry, and exotic, manipulating every fire tool with skill, precision and grace. It's been said that we are spiritual beings having a human experience. Kamala will remind you of your spirit and guide you with patience, understanding, intuitive touch, and mellifluous words. The strength and passion that she exudes for her arts is absolutely contagious. Kamala started Fire Groove after Indra Yoga and Dance in 2005 with her siblings Lester and Hannah. With her background in marketing and public relations she skyrocketed Fire Groove into a mainstream performance troop that would rock LA and travel the world! She has collaborated on projects with HBO, Tesla, Microsoft, Google,The Black Eye Peas, Disney, Jane Fonda and Marissa Tomei and countless others. Kamala has taken her passion and made it her life, she encourages everyone to live their dreams!.
Helen Olds
Helen Olds is a fashion and beauty photographer based out of Los Angeles, California. She has been published internationally and been in the fashion business as a designer and photographer for over 20 years. She spends her personal time making custom clothing, going to festivals and performing as a dancer, burlesque, clown, fire dancer and all around entertainer. Her work can be seen at http://www.helenolds.com
Anthony Greenz
Anthony Greenz was born a mile high in the fantastic city of Denver, Colorado where he trained tirelessly in the art of class clowning and tomfoolery. He quickly became aware that body manipulation and dance were at the forefront of his talents. In high school Greenz began street dancing and battled at b-boy events all over the country. Deciding to choose dance as a career he moved to California where he attended Chapman University and received a BFA in dance performance. Although freestyling and hip hop dance are his foundation, Greenz is proficient in many dance styles, including ballet, jazz, and modern. Since graduation Greenz has worked in the commercial dance industry in LA, he has worked with several dance companies, and been a primary dancer and choreographer for the Lucent Dossier Experience for the last four years. With Lucent and other companies Anthony Greenz has traveled all over the world performing at major music/art festivals. Now Greenz is working on fire dancing and aerial arts to expand his skill set. Although Anthony is very serious about developing mastery in various performing arts he is still more dedicated to being a full fledged buffoon and a clown of incredibly silly antics. The three major projects where you can see Anthony Greenz in action are, Wilderbe: a dance troupe utilizing video mapping, L'Unkels Boink: an adult clown troupe, and Lucent Dossier: a neo circus performance art group.
Copyright © 2006-2014 Fire Groove, Inc. All rights reserved
Sign up for fiery hot deals and product updates!

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


It is driving me crazy since this should work.
So, I gave up on this problem and did the work to load the mp3 files from the "res/raw" directory. Frustrating that mp3 files in assets folder don't seem to work right though.
While converting to using "res/raw", I had a problem with createMusicFromResource() failing due to .prepare() being called on twice. Once in MediaPlayer.create() and once with mediaPlayer.prepare().
One other thing -- in createMusicFromAsset(), I'm not sure if assetFileDescriptor.close() should be explicitly called?
I've just commented out the "mediaPlayer.prepare();" in the related loading methods inside the MusicFactory.java class and the problem resolved; at least when I've used the "createMusicFromResource" method.


← Getting Started in 2013, Part #5, 'Allan Able' short block.
Now we get to the second engine builder, "Bob Baker." He elects to use a Weseman prepped crankshaft with a Gen 2 bearing hub installed. He is going to keep his used gear from his crank. He is going to get a Clark's standard cam gear that he is going to put on a re-ground cam himself.
Here is the logic in his decision making: He knows he is going to have a 5th bearing on his engine, so he wants to do it in the easiest way possible. He is also interested in condensing orders, so having the Wesemans take care of the crank prep and install the Gen 2 hub in one shot is appealing. The Weseman crank process takes care of removing the gear and replacing it for the builder, so he doesn't have to track down a 20 ton press like Allan Able did. Later, Bob will have less work than Allan putting his 5th bearing on because the Gen 2 eliminates the most technical part of the installation. Even though Bob is looking to save the work on the crank, he still is willing to install his cam gear at home. If he changes his mind about this, Clark's only up charges about $25 to install the gear for him.
The total of Bob's parts is $1,766. A first, this seems like a really big bump from Allan Able's $1012. But it really isn't an apples to apples comparison. Heres why: Bob is already part of the way to his 5th bearing being done, because the Gen 2 hub is already on his crank. To complete his 5th bearing, he will need to order the $750 housing/bearing/seal from the Wesemans. Thus $1,766 + $750 = $2516. Allan Able is eventually going to get a Gen 1 bearing, and the cost is going to be $1050 for the whole bolt on kit. Thus Allan's cost to the same point of completed case with operational 5th bearing is $1012 + $1050 = $2062.
So to get to a case with a 5th bearing Bob is only spending $454 more than Allan. He has less work, but to get to the point of closing the case Bob has to have about $750 more handy at the same stage.
Options Bob may consider: For $100 more he can get a new crank gear. For about $50 more he can have a "fail safe" cam gear. If Bob is looking for a running start at the next College, he can send his case to my hangar, and for a modest charge I will assemble the bottom end and put the Gen 2 bearing in place. This is an efficient process because I can pick up the builder's crank and bearing from Dan after it is processed. Even with these options Bob can get his fully assembled case for less than $3,000. This is often the running start that makes the difference on getting an engine running at a 3-day College. We have presented builders with two options that are very different, yet we have only looked at 2 of the 5 examples. When you consider the sub options, we are looking at perhaps 50 different paths for builders to select.
Take a moment and think: How many different ways are there to buy an imported engine? In most cases, just one. How likely is this single configuration to be the perfect match for an individual builder's budget, learning goals and project plane? Not likely at all. Almost all of those manufacturers offer their engine in a single configuration, not because it is the best for builders, but because it has the highest total revenue to their company. That isn't evil, it's capitalism. Works for them, and it works for any person who is willing to subjugate their own personal goals and individual plans to the available product.


text:
White House: Democrats Criticizing Iran Deal Are "Principled" But Republicans Are Trying to Sabatoge
As negotiations between the United States and Iran continue over the terror regime's nuclear program, the White House is arguing any criticism about Congress not being involved in negotiations is coming from Republicans with political motives.
But a closer look at members of Congress criticizing the White House deal with the Iranians shows it isn't just Republicans who are concerned about being frozen out of the process. A number of Democrats have also voiced their concerns. In fact, Democrats in the Senate are so skeptical of the White House refusal to involve Congress that Republican Bob Corker may have enough votes to override a deal should the President sign one at the end of June.
Regardless of bipartisan opposition, the White House is pinning opposition and criticism of the current deal and process on Republicans. The administration is painting Republican concerns as illegitimate while at the same time entertaining the same concerns of "principled" Democrats.
"My view is that there are a number of members of Congress that have considered this in a principled way. And those are members of Congress with whom we can have legitimate conversations about our efforts to try and prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon," Earnest said Monday afternoon.
"There are a substantial number of members of Congress, all of them Republicans as far as I can tell, who have engaged in an effort to just undermine the talks from the very beginning."
Earnest once again slammed Senator Tom Cotton (R-AR) and other Republicans who sent a letter directly to Iran's Ayatollah last month explaining how any deal reached by the White House without Congress will be temporary.
It has come to our attention while observing your nuclear negotiations with our government that you may not fully understand our constitutional system. Thus, we are writing to bring to your attention two features of our Constitution—the power to make binding international agreements and the different character of federal offices—which you should seriously consider as negotiations progress.
First, under our Constitution, while the president negotiates international agreements, Congress plays the significant role of ratifying them. In the case of a treaty, the Senate must ratify it by a two-thirds vote. A so-called congressional-executive agreement requires a majority vote in both the House and the Senate (which, because of procedural rules, effectively means a three-fifths vote in the Senate). Anything not approved by Congress is a mere executive agreement.
Pantsuit Presidency Last Thing America Needs
Nick Adams / Townhall Columnist
You can guarantee it.
When Hillary Clinton becomes the Democratic nominee next year, she and her team will frame the election as "historically significant". In doing so, they will ignite a great social movement to elect the first Madame President.
In the last twelve months, Secretary Clinton's public speeches and commentary have discernibly shifted in focus and content, to female empowerment, pay equity and her "grandmother glow".
Never far away with a ready and helping hand, the media are showing their intent to advance the Clinton 2016 narrative. Just last month, following the conclusion of her prepared remarks at her own press conference addressing the email scandal, her first exchange with the media began like this:
"It's wonderful to see you here again. Why did you opt out of using two devices at the time?" the Turkish reporter asked, after Clinton spoke at the United Nations in New York. "My second follow up question — if you were a man today, would all the fuss being made, be made?"
The question prompted Bill O'Reilly to tell Factor viewers that night: "Now, I truly hope this bogus sexism business is not going to be part of Hillary Clinton's campaign. I mean, that would just be awful."
But I know it will, as I suspect O'Reilly probably does.
As I hear the chatter about an impending Clinton announcement and see the signs, it feels like déjà vu.
I've been there. I've experienced it. So has my country. And I'm here to tell you: it is awful.
In 2010, Julia Gillard knifed an elected prime minister in his first term to take on the job of Prime Minister of Australia. A few months later, she went on to form a minority government after an election.
Gillard was possibly the worst Prime Minister Australia ever had: dishonest, incompetent and unworthy of the job. But the greatest damage she wrought was on the national culture with her poisonous war on men.
wins the NCAA College Championship...WOOOOHOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!
White House: Democrats Criticizing Ira...
Pantsuit Presidency Last Thing America Needs Nick...
DUKE wins the NCAA College Championship...WOOOOH...


Guardian Protection Products provide furniture protection that covers fabric, leather, wood, mattresses, and more. Their furniture protection products do not contain bleach, other harsh chemicals and work safely on a variety of materials.
We also have Guardian Furniture Care Products to keep your furniture protected and looking new. Call today to learn more!
During the first part of October, our daughter was here. She was in the loveseat and put it up and down. Then we went to use it in the morning and the left side wouldn't work. We didn't know what happened. I knew we had the protection plan and so I went to the outlet store, but they said they couldn't help and gave me the name to call. It was the wrong company though and I went back again. Then they changed the service plans of the company and the help wasn't really happy. They finally got ahold of Guardian Protection Products, which was the company that fixed the loveseat. It went fairly smoothly, after quite a bit of time.
From when I filed the claim to when somebody came out, it took over a month. A lady from Minneapolis came and did an excellent job. She was very qualified, knowledgeable and even had a sense of humor. We tipped the loveseat over and her first response that it was really serious. Then she smiled and said that tie strap underneath had come unplugged. The tie strap underneath was too tight against the spring, so it unplugged itself after the loveseat was put up and down I don't know how many times. She was surprised herself. I could've done it myself but I didn't know what was wrong. I expected the motor or the electronics to be out. I'm glad we had Guardian Protection Products. I'm very satisfied with the experience.
Thank you for taking the time to share your positive experience with Guardian! We look forward to continuing to provide you with a 5-star experience.
Bought a bedroom set from a large furniture company in our area and they offered a protection plan for stains, scratches, etc for the furniture. We purchased the plan because the furniture was for my brother who was moving into a group home for mentally & physically disabled and were concerned that it might get scratched or damaged there. 20 months after the purchase we filed a claim for a damaged footboard - we weren't sure of the exact date of the damage and the claim ended up being denied because the date that I put for when the damage occurred was more than 30 days past by 4 days. The customer service person said that our policy and denied the claim. What a waste of money.
Purchased 2000.00 sectional, was told protection plan would cover us for 4 years from tips, tears, stains etc. While moving the sectional we noticed 2 tears on the top back. Called in, filed a claim, denied due to abuse. I guess sitting on your furniture is abuse. Thanks un-Guardian.
The plan I got from Guardian was good for the indoor furniture. At the beginning, I got a cleaning kit too, but maybe Guardian can also offer some type of thorough cleaning. Nonetheless, the plan has met my expectations so far. I filed a service request for some urine on the couch and when I spoke with Guardian representatives, they took my data and processed it. Two days later, they were back there at the house.
Do not get the protection plan from Ashley Furniture. After 3 years of purchasing the plan, they did not register me with Guardian Protection. After several weeks of trying to get a hold of someone from Ashley, they finally registered me with Guardian. Also, after several attempt, Guardian finally reached out to me to file my claim. I filed it and 3 weeks, no response after submitting my photos. I called them to follow up and they declined my claim. My claim was loose seam coming apart and broken sofa board. They claim it was not accidental. Guardian is not reliable and will do everything on their power to decline you instead of offering your help. It's better to save your money and do not buy the protection plan.
Our less than 2 year old Baxter Leather sectional had sporadic electronic recline success in one of the middle armless recliners. There are 4 buttons in between the cushions that are VERY sensitive and I thought we were just pressing the wrong button. It was the back of the cushion that failed to recline so it has gotten stuck in a very upright position. The foot recline works fine. I submitted a claim with a picture of how the upright position is different than the other sectional chairs.
My claim was denied because it was outside of 30 DAYS of reporting it. So, you purchase a 5 year, $500 protection plan and if you don't report within 30 days, you are denied. So when you are submitting a claim, make sure you do it within 30 days or you too, will be denied. So when they ask you in the online section when this first occurred, make SURE it's within 30 days. This is exactly why they want you to do an ONLINE form rather than call Guardian to request a tech so they can weed out anything over 30 days and DENY it. I will NEVER purchase another protection plan and have already warned others of my experience.
How do I know I can trust these reviews about Guardian Protection Products, Inc?
We have a Guardian protection plan for our indoor sofa and it was pretty easy to make a request for service although I didn't realize the depth of what was required. They were showing me the copy of the agreement and the furniture purchased but I really didn't know about that. The young man who came out was very pleasant though. He arrived on time and did a great job in cleaning my cushions.
The request was really for the cushions because I have four dogs. But my impression was that the entire sofa was gonna be cleaned. However, when I asked him if he could spot-clean something on one of the arms of the sofa, he said he couldn't do anything that wasn't listed on the actual work order. Since I had called specifically about the cushions, that was the only thing on the work order and that was the only thing he was allowed to touch. That was kinda weird and I was surprised by that. But maybe that's their policy. Nonetheless, I was very pleased with the service and the young man who did the cleaning.
I purchased a Goof Proof on a recliner. According to their warranty policy it covers accidental damage. I have submitted a claim and it's basically being ignored for 2 weeks. I tried contacting them but they keep saying it's on review. It's been 2 weeks and they are still on the same status of review. Don't spend money on the warranty. They are as bad as those used car dealer warranties. The paper it's written on is worth more.
Bought a couch and loveseat from Williams & Kay in Anchorage in July 2015. Purchased the Guardsman Protection plan which supposedly covers "everything". One of the cushions is very worn.... The leather looks like it's coming off. This has happened gradually. We called Guardsman and got the same runaround as other people in these reviews. Call them, they'll send a claim form, return it to them, they'll process it and get back to us. After several calls to find out the status of our claim we're told it was denied as it wasn't reported within 30 days. It was gradual!! This company is a scam and just looks for ways to deny claims. Do not purchase their warranty unless you want to be stress saturated.
We are truly sorry to hear of your experience. However, your complaint is for Guardsman, which is a separate company than Guardian Protection Products. We are very sorry for the confusion in this matter.
So after having a $2000 cloth couch for about 2 years I go to sit down in the couch and notice a rip on the back cushion of the couch. No clue how it happened but I thought no worries, that's why I got the extended coverage on it. Call Guardian up and submit the pictures to start the claim then it gets denied because we have a dog and it "could have" been caused by the dog. We call back and explain to them it's on the back cushion and not a seat cushion so there's no way it "could have" been caused by the dog. Although since we don't know how it was caused it still isn't covered. If I would have sat down with a knife sticking out of my pocket, it would be covered but since we don't know what the cause was it's denied. This was never explained to me when I purchased it. I was told it covered rips, tears, stains, etc. even if caused by the pets.
We have two Guardian Furniture protection plans and we have both of them on our couch. The armrest in one of our couches broke off, so I called Guardian for a service request. Everything was good, although the only thing I didn't like was that there wasn't communication after I sent the paperwork. It would've been nice to get a confirmation saying, "We got your thing, somebody will be in touch." It took around two weeks for them to call and let me know that they were coming to fix it after I submitted everything. Nevertheless, everything met my expectations. Everybody should use them.
We purchased a Guardian warranty on our sectional through Roomplace a few years ago. Long story short, the couch was a piece of crap and has ripped, sagged, and fallen apart in less than 3 years. I have tried to file 4 different claims through Guardian and they have come back all 4 times saying they won't cover it for some reason or another. They have wasted my time and money. Their warranties are a waste of money and their business is a waste of space. They write their warranties so that they can loophole their way out any claim. This company infuriates me to no end. NEVER BUY FROM THEM.
I have Guardian Protection Products for protection against stains. When I fell and I hit the back of my head, I laid it on the back of the chair. I didn't know it was bleeding and it stained the chair. I filed a request on the phone with Guardian and the rep was very nice. The technicians called me the next day and came out the day after. They got the majority of the stain out. I was then told that bloodstains are hard to get out and to let it go for four months. The tech also told me that if the stain doesn't go all the way out, then I should call back and they would come back out.
Wood and Hard Surface Furniture.
• Accidental Breakage of Wood Frame or Structure or Other Hard Surface from a specific incident.
• Accidental Gouge, Heat Mark or Liquid Ring from a specific incident.
• Accidental Chip, Scratch, or Breakage of Glass, Mirror Components and Loss of Silvering on Mirrors.
However Guardian denied my claim informing me that they have processed my service request and has deemed this damage to be ineligible for coverage. The reason for this determination is that water damage is listed as a specific exclusion to the plan your purchased. From reading the reviews they sent the same email word for word to over 200 other people. This company is a complete scam, and I would not trust positive reviews positive reviews. I wish I had reviewed this company prior to purchasing the bogus warranty. Stay far away from this company. Should I mention that they sent me an email not to respond, but at the very bottom they said to respond. Which is it?
I filed a claim with them 3 weeks ago for spilled nail polish on a table. The process started off with them being really difficult to work with. Now after finally getting everything as requested I get an email saying to wait 15 business days to get an answer about this claim. Because of the difficulty in registering the claim I decided to try checking the status of my claim online. When I get to their website they claim I cannot register my email address which means I cannot see the status of my claim. It is clear that the way they deal with customers is to make it as painful as possible until they give up.
I will never buy a warranty from Guardian again and I am disinclined to use Bob's Furniture again due to their dishonest way of selling this protection plan. Bob's claimed that no questions asked and it will be fixed, yet all I have gotten so far are questions and deflections. I will repeat again, do not pay extra money for a protection plan from Guardian. You are better off winging it.
I usually do not give businesses a negative review, but this one beats my imagination. We bought a really beautiful leather livingroom set in 2017 for $1700 from Bob's Discount Furniture in Springfield, PA. 5 star customer service in store, but their Goof Protection is the worse in the world. We struggled to file a claim through Guardian Protection. They find every excuse in the book to deny your claim even though our kids accidentally spilled hot liquid on the sofa. The sales reps are rude and unprofessional. In fact, the reps will imply on the phone that your claim is denied before you send any photos to prove any damage to your furniture. Never pay for Goof Insurance unless you want to be frustrated if your furniture gets damaged. Waste of time and money!!!
I would strongly advise against this company. I submitted my claim March 10. I was informed in a e-mail I would be contacted in 3 business days, but never was! I had to make a phone call for follow up before I was provided with the decision. You take out protection plans for accidents that happen, and then when you make a claim it's "non covered plan exclusion." They informed me the plan would include a rip, which is false because I was told by a customer service representative and the supervisor I spoke to that the rip wouldn't be a covered service either. Very dissatisfied.
I purchased the Guardian furniture protection warranty when I bought my new sofa and loveseat and registered the warranty as requested. I called to report a claim, was told they couldn't find my warranty (despite the fact I had the #) and eventually they said they located it "on another computer". I submitted requested photos multiple times to receive no response.
After multiple calls and emails, I finally filed a complaint with the Better Business Bureau. I then got a call, only to experience the same runaround about not being able to find info, then finding it. After again not receiving a response when promised, I called and was told that the furniture was ineligible because it required a "general cleaning". I explained again that I didn't want a general cleaning, but wanted the couple of stains out (which is what the policy clearly says it will do!) Do NOT do business with this company!!! After over a month of unreturned calls and emails, then they use an illegitimate reason to deny claim.
Tried to call company with no response. Left call back with no response. This company is a joke. Do not spend money for warranty with them. It's impossible to get anything from them or even get them to respond to a claim. Worse come I have ever tried to deal with.
I have kids and it's always good to have protection. I had a puppy that urinated on the rug accidentally. The rug costs a lot of money and I called Guardian to file a claim. It was a headache at first because Bob's themselves never registered the insurance and I had to call twice. So, it took almost about 10 days to do the whole process but by the time I finally was able to put it through, it was fine. I didn't know how the technician was gonna clean the carpet because it was almost like a fuzzy and decorative carpet. So, when he put the machine to it, I thought he was gonna ruin it. However, he did it a few times and the smell came off.
Bought $480 worth of warranty coverage for a leather sectional. Had an accidental tear occur during the holidays. Brought the cushion to LA-Z-BOY to get it repaired. They kept it for a few weeks then returned it without repairing it, so we contacted Guardian. They said the claim wasn't valid because it wasn't reported within 30 days, some fine print in the contract supposedly. Nice way to get out of providing the service I paid for. Never again will I spend a dime at LA-Z-BOY or with Guardian. Scammers hiding in plain sight.
We are truly sorry to hear of the experience you have had. We would like to inform you that we are currently reviewing this matter. We have emailed your Retailer requesting confirmation and documentation showing that they did keep your cushion for several weeks, which caused a delay in you reporting this damage to Guardian. Once we have received the requested information from the Retail store, we will review all available options in hopes to provide assistance with your claim.
I purchased a Guardian furniture protection plan with Bob's furniture. I received a cleaning kit together with the purchase which I've used on my blankets. It works good. I also had a good experience with Guardian when I submitted a request to have my rug cleaned and it took them not even a week to send someone. Their reps came and cleaned it. So far, I'm satisfied with the service.
This place is an absolute JOKE!!! They have terrible customer service, I bought a 5 year protection plan, lo and behold IT DOESN'T COVER ANYTHING!!! So they told me to contact the place I bought the furniture and take it up with them. It was no longer their problem.
We purchased nearly $3,000 worth of furniture and bought a Protection Plan thinking it was a good protection for our furniture investment. One year later the bottom drawer gets stuck and the wooden board cracked when trying to open it. Thinking everything was okay, I called Guardian to file a claim since it says in the contract that "accidental breakage of wood frame or structure or other hard surface from a single incident" is covered; however they denied my claim with no grounds. First saying it had to be related to one incident which it was, then changing their reason for denying it after I didn't just accept the generic copy and paste email they send to everyone denying their claim. From reading the reviews they sent the same email word for word to 100 other people.
This company is a scam, and I would bet that any positive reviews come from employees or hired actors. I wish I had reviewed this company prior to purchasing. I will be canceling my plan and using the pro-rated reimbursement to fix my furniture. And I will NEVER purchase from this company again. I will also be filing a complaint with the BBB, Attorney General and write a letter to the governor, and my state's congressmen to inform everyone I know of this company's unethical business practices and taking people's hard earned money while offering no value in return. It is like stealing from people. Stay far away from this company.
We've used Guardian several times and it has been wonderful. They were able to send a technician in less than a week. Their technician came out recently for a loveseat that was peed on by a child. He came in a timely manner and did a great job. It worked well, so we've been pleased.
Submitted my claim a week ago. The pretyped response was sent almost immediately stating I need to provide a copy of the receipt of purchase and a picture of the furniture. Upon receipt of the required items, they would respond within 1 business day with an update. I did both. Provided both requested items within 24 hours. Two business days went by and I heard nothing. Sent the info again. Two more days and still nothing. It's been a week and there is NO EXCUSE to not respond to a customer who has paid for a warranty expecting professional mannerisms when dealing with a claim. I will definitely hit all medias to report this company regarding lack of following through. Considering legal action as well. Doesn't deserve a star, but this review site requires at least one.
DO NOT BUY THIS 'Protection Plan'. I purchased $3,500 worth of furniture from Ashley Furniture in Pensacola, FL. and was told by my salesperson, Danah, that this warranty plan covers everything except for pet stains/damages. WHAT A SCAM. They denied my liquid ring claim because the furniture is now starting to lift and chip off DUE TO THE WATER DAMAGE FROM THE LIQUID RING but they state that it is due to "wear and tear" and refuse to honor the warranty even though in the contract it states that they will cover "accidental gouge, heat mark or liquid ring from specific incident. Accidental breakage of wood frame or structure or other hard surface from specific incident." Good luck getting anyone on the phone, I waited over an hour and got nowhere.
I wish I had thought to look up reviews on this company before getting their warranty for our sectional. The store that sold us our couch sold us on the warranty raving about what a great deal it was and since we liked and trusted their products I assumed they would only offer the same quality protection plans...wrong! I called in on a Monday morning to start a claim since we had gotten a tear in a couch cushion cover, simple fix right? I was then sent an email that I was supposed to respond to with picture proof of my warranty purchase and my damaged cushion and I would be contacted back within 24hrs.
Fast forward to Wednesday I decided to give them a call since I hadn't heard anything and was told by the rep that she couldn't talk to be without talking to my boyfriend first. I asked why since I'm the one who called Monday and started the claim, I purchased the furniture and warranty, and I gave them my email and contact info and that he wasn't even home. She refused again so I told her I wanted a manager and then magically she was able to speak to me. I was told they never received my email and she gave me another email address to try. Big shock to get a response the next day with them denying the claim...NOT! Thankfully it's an easy fix that we can repair elsewhere but what is the point in purchasing a protection plan that specifically covers rips and tears if they won't help you. I will be giving them and anyone else who sells their warranties horrible reviews and letting everyone know of this scam!
My child urinated on the couch and when I filed for a service request with Guardian, their customer service reps were very attentive. They set up the appointment right away. And the person who came out the next day and cleaned it was very good. He did what he had to do. He answered all my questions and anything that I needed. Guardian gave us the Goof Proof Plus thing and I have tried to use it. But I felt like it didn't clean as much as I thought it would.
I filed a claim with Guardian Protection Products a couple of weeks ago for my bed that was losing its firmness and the springs that were starting to become loose. A couple of days after, they came out and looked at it. But, they did nothing and then left. It wasn't fixed and I very much didn't appreciate the service. I was informed to file a complaint because I didn't appreciate that.
On Christmas time, we had an issue with some spilled soft drink on the cushions. I didn't wanna void the warranty, so I called Guardian for stain removal. The tech came within the week and he did a fine job. It took him 20 minutes to get the stain out. So far, my Guardian Protection plan has met my expectations.
Guardian Protection Products was founded in 1977 and is owned by RPM International Inc., which produces specialty coatings and sealants. Guardian offers furniture protection plans in addition to several furniture protection products for consumers.
Protection plans: Protect your indoor and/or outdoor furniture with a protection plan from Guardian. Their plans cover accidental damage, including rips, heat marks, glass breakage, dirt stains and more.
Mattress protection: Guardian's EveryBed mattress protectors prevent liquids and allergens from touching the mattress with their waterproof and breathable barrier. The protectors are machine washable, and they are designed to maximize the comfort and longevity of your mattress.
Care tips: Learn how to keep your furniture looking and feeling like new by reading Guardian's extensive care tips resource center. They have information for fabric, leather and wood furniture.
Care products: Consumers with or without a Guardian protection plan can enjoy the cleaning power of Guardian's care products. Their lineup includes products for fabric, leather and wood.
Safer Choice fabric and rug cleaners: Guardian's Safer Choice line of cleaners is made according to EPA standards and have ingredients that are less harmful to the environment than traditional cleaners.
Best for: Homeowners who want to protect their new indoor and/or outdoor furniture.


Sure, we've all seen, A Beautiful Mind and felt inspired to help those who are suffering from Schizophrenia. Axiomatically so, however, Hollywood has glorified the reality of those who are schizophrenic. Schizophrenia is a very severe, brain disabling disorder that affects 1% of the nation's population, roughly 3 million people. People who suffer from this disorder often report on hearing voices that others cannot hear. They might start to believe that others are reading or controlling their minds, or plotting to harm them. This can terrify people with the illness and make them withdrawn or extremely agitated. People with schizophrenia may not make sense when they talk or may sit for hours without moving or talking. Sometimes people with schizophrenia may seem to be perfectly fine until they talk about what they are really thinking.
The origin of schizophrenia in a person is unknown. However, according to Dr. Irving Gottesman, "The disorder can be understood only by considering both the genetic evidence and the familial and societal pressures associated with schizophrenia's onset and course". In other words, people who suffer from the illness are either born with it, or environmental pressures cause them to see or hear things. Building off of that, according to the National Institute of Mental Health, "The risk is highest for an identical twin of a person with schizophrenia. He or she has a 40 to 65 percent chance of developing the disorder". However, genetics and environment do not account for all the schizophrenics. Scientists predict that another cause would be an imbalance in the complex, interrelated chemical reactions of the brain involving the neurotransmitters dopamine and glutamate, and possibly others, plays a role in schizophrenia. The chart below shows probability of developing schizophrenia in relation to familial genetics.
Electroconvulsive therapy: This involves passing an electrical current through the patient's brain while under mild anesthesia. This is generally reserved for patients who refuse to cooperate with the medication.
Psychotherapy: This is a way for the therapist to be able to connect with the schizophrenic patient. It also focuses on present issues, which helps develop social skills, and teaches them how to cope with their disorder, possibly introduce techniques that would last a lifetime.
Behavior Therapy: People with schizophrenia may develop behaviors that would raise some concern by family and others. Behaviour therapy addresses the patient's strengths and weaknesses. Token economies are where desired behaviours are reinforced by praise or tokens. These tokens relate to benefits the patient may desire. It is believed that social skills can be re-taught through role plays and such.
Cognitive Therapy: Cognitive therapy may be used to improve cognitive impairments associated with schizophrenia such as distractability, poor attention and memory impairment.
Family Therapy: Family support plays a significant role in helping to reduce relapses. Families need to be educated about the illness and taught to identify and avoid problematic situations. Families are in a pivotal position to discern signs and symptoms of an impending relapse and thus prevent them from being full blown.
Group Therapy: People with schizophrenia can reduce social deprivation and isolation and improve relationships by seeking solutions for their problems through group therapy. This allows them to listen to others' problems as well as figure out their own. It creates a sense of community.
It may be challenging to understand what may be going through a schizophrenic's mind, but because they think differently, sound differently, it doesn't make them different. They are people, just like you and me, and they deserve happiness as much as the next person. This is what we're all about here in MedEq, we give people opportunities to better their health for those who cannot do so.
George, P. P. "Current Trends in the Management of Schizophrenia." Med J Malaysia 56.1 (1999): n. pag. Mar. 2002. Web. 21 Nov. 2015. <http://www.e-mjm.org/2002/v57n1/Schizophrenia.pdf>.
Treatment Advocacy Center. The Risks of Getting Schizophrenia. N.d. Schizophrenia.com, n.p.
Gottesman, Irving. "Schizophrenia Genesis: The Origins of Madness." APA PsycNET. N.p., 1991. Web. 21 Nov. 2015. <http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=search.displayRecord&uid=1990-98902-000>.
National Institute of Mental Health. "Schizophrenia." NIMH RSS. N.p., 2015. Web. 21 Nov. 2015. <http://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/topics/schizophrenia/index.shtml>.
Greene, Jay. "Mental Health Cuts in Detroit Have Increased Law Enforcement Problems, Flooded ERs and Created General Misery." Crain's Detroit Business. Crain's Detroit Business, 06 May 2011. Web. 21 Nov. 2015. <http://www.crainsdetroit.com/article/20110506/BLOG010/110509920/mental-health-cuts-in-detroit-have-increased-law-enforcement-problems>.


Before the introduction of the Geico gecko—the animated lizard introduced to signal to consumers how to pronounce the company's name—most advertising for insurance companies was somber, responsible, and a little boring, rather like the products they sold. But the little green gecko also introduced the idea that serious products do not necessarily demand serious marketing, and nothing has been the same since.
Most insurance companies today rely on humor in their marketing communications, whether that involves a humanized version of "Mayhem" describing the things that can go wrong or Peyton Manning singing the Nationwide jingle in a variety of cute contexts. This trend reflects the massive success that Geico achieved through its marketing strategy; the company went from a tiny player in the U.S. insurance market, with less than 2 percent market share, to the second-largest car insurer in just a few years.
The use of humor likely has been so successful because it achieves two key objectives. First, it makes the cumbersome, somewhat grim, and not especially fun process of searching for and purchasing insurance a little less unpleasant. By letting people laugh about their need to protect themselves from the risks of terrible things happening, the insurance companies create a compelling emotional appeal.
Second, humor resonates well with younger consumers, who may tend to be more sophisticated or cynical than previous generations. Thus, traditional advertising that highlighted heartwarming stories of parents with insurance taking good care of their children (or sad narratives of what happens when they don't) no longer compels buyers to initiate a new insurance policy.
But ultimately, that is the goal of all of these communications, whether they are heartwarming or humorous: to get people to buy insurance. Thus, every Geico advertisement ends with the same tagline that encourages consumers to spend 15 minutes to save 15 percent, regardless of the absurdity that might have preceded that call to action.
How did Geico change the way insurance companies advertise?
How do humorous advertisements help insurance companies sell to younger people?


A vessel sink sits on the bathroom counter or vanity, instead of being set down into it. A vessel sink can also be set on a pedestal for a dramatic variation on the pedestal sink. A semi-recessed vessel sink features the bottom of the vessel set partly into the counter, while the rim sits a few inches above counter level.
Vessels are also sometimes called countertop sinks. Vessel sinks in jewel-like glass, hand cast bronze, or sculpted stone continue to be extremely popular. The glass vessel sink, with light shining through the glass, is a particular favorite. Display an artisan crafted vessel sink and make your bathroom sing with one of the best art sinks in the world.