Advocacy or Action?
I was asked three interesting questions on AIA COTE's forum about the potential impact from the world’s 1.3 million architects. One architect expressed that architects are "not" in a position to impact embodied carbon significantly over the next ten years by championing specific materials for their projects. He stated that “More important is our advocacy with our elected leaders and governments: significant changes in the amount of embodied carbon in the built environment will only come through government regulation, i.e. changes to the building codes . . .”.
My edited response:
Q #1) What percentage of the world's new and renovated buildings are actually specified by those 1.3 million architects?
A significant percentage—enough to make a big difference.
Most human generated emissions emanate from industrialized nations—built environments designed by an AEC industry. And not solely from large buildings and infrastructure. 1.2 million single family homes are built annually in the U.S. alone. Significant change requires change in building codes. But the sheer number of architects, interns and designers can make a difference—with or without regulation.
Q #2) What percentage of the 1.3 million architects actually know or care enough to advocate for alternative materials on the basis of embodied carbon?
Not enough.
That's why we must shed light on misinformation, and the feckless use of "sustainable design" as a mere label—and the need to act this decade. Part of the problem—we lack the tools for easy action. Check out the AIA CES Course "Reducing Embodied Carbon, to Reduce Global Warming", addressing that reality. Available on YouTube: https://lnkd.in/eYjNVRe4 .
Yes, we must "advocate", but that alone just passes the buck. Architects and designers are in a position to influence, and should act now. We face an irreversible calamity that cannot await government action.
Q #3) What percentage of those architects' clients would actually heed an architect's advice?
With choices that suit a client's program and budget—likely most of them.
Numerous ways exist to achieve a client's goal while maintaining a low carbon footprint. It does not require a client's commitment to thwart climate change. It's not about "advocating", it's about "selecting" low carbon choices from numerous commercial options available. That's where this begins.
Awaiting new regulations, technology and zero-carbon energy to gain traction requires time. We must keep the window open for 2 more decades without exhausting the remaining CO2 budget—by reducing emissions now. Simply reducing cement use by 15% eliminates 1 Gigatonne of CO2 every 3 years. Let's start with overabundant use and aesthetic embellishment. Reduce the mass of materials used for buildings and infrastructure, fittings and furnishing—it will reduce embodied carbon. How about thinner brick for cladding? The list is long and doable. Let's act now.
Bill Caplan
