Powering the future: 5 innovations of interest

A version of this article first appeared in a Special Report on ‘Powering the Future’, published in The Times, 1 May, 2013.

BIOFUELS FROM ALGAE

A near-perfect poster child for sustainable energy, algae is both a biodegradable living organism and literally green. Cultivation is possible on lands unsuited to traditional agriculture and with minimal demand on freshwater resources.

Research and development funding for farming (algaculture) has flowed into institutions around the world, including the US National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) and the EnAlgae project, a strategic initiative supported by the INTERREG IVB North West Europe programme.

The world’s first algae-powered demonstration building has also been constructed in Germany, featuring bio-reactive louvres, yet, whilst promise and expectation run high, commercialisation is still work in progress, as Laura Stowe of EnAlgae, confirms:

“Algae has great potential, not only as a source of bioenergy, but also for products including pharmaceutics, food and cosmetics. However, more research and development is needed to create a viable marketplace.”

Exxon Mobil has already invested $600M in motor fuels from algae with human-genome scientist J Craig Venter, however CEO Rex Tillerson also acknowledged recently that development success was “probably further” than 25 years away.

PETROL FROM AIR

Generating energy from nothing more than air would seem another utopian vision, however several successful related initiatives have already been brought to market. These include air-source heat pumps for domestic installation and compression technologies, such as that deployed in the brand new car from Peugeot Citroën, the Hybrid Air, in production 2016.

For industrial-scale applications, offering closed-loop generation opportunities at facilities such as distilleries which produce ‘waste’ CO2, there is also now a renewable energy solution for liquid fuels from Darlington-based Air Fuel Synthesis (AFS).

The AFS system uses renewable energy to capture carbon dioxide and water from the air, electrolyses the water to make hydrogen and reacts the carbon dioxide and hydrogen together to make hydrocarbon fuels.

Whilst very different in origin from traditional fossil-fuel products, the resultant ‘petrol from air’ is perfectly compatible in use, performing in a manner similar to standard 95 octane fuel. It is a renewable hydrocarbon and can therefore can be blended in any proportion with normal petrol, easily stored, transported and used in existing vehicles.

ENERGY FROM CHANGE

Phase Change Materials (PCMs) are capable of transforming from solid to liquid and vice versa to absorb or release large amounts of latent heat at relatively constant temperature. Whilst PCMs have been around for over 50 years, only in the last decade have they been microencapsulated and incorporated into building products such as commercial ceiling tiles and wall panels.

On installation, total energy demand for mechanical heating and cooling from existing HVAC systems can be reduced by up to 60 percent. PCMs are compatible with renewable generation and offer win-win efficiency by helping flatten both high- and low-temperature energy-usage peaks, as Mike Berry, MD of UK producer, Datum Phase Change, explains:

“We are working on solar-thermal systems which require zero energy and provide duel benefits. They utilise hot water through a radiant ceiling system for free heating during winter months and also deliver radiant cooling during summer periods.”

Growing mainstream interest in PCMs is evidenced by the recent investment in Datum Phase Change made by Sir Terry Leahy, former CEO of Tesco.

POWER FROM PEOPLE

Kinetic energy, produced by acts of motion, has seen numerous applications in road and rail transport, powering street lights and monitoring systems via energy from cars passing over ramps and from track vibrations or regenerative braking systems on trains.

Through human footfall it has also recently been generating excitement of Olympic proportions. For the London 2012 Games, energy-harvesting floor tiles were installed along the temporary walkway from West Ham Station to the Olympic Park, providing people-powered illumination, around the clock, thanks to millions of spectator footsteps.

The tiles, manufactured by Pavegen Systems, have also been utilised by Japanese retailer Uniqlo, in a campaign to raise awareness of an innovative clothing range. For Uniqlo, ‘Heat Spot’ games in UK shopping areas generated thousands of both joules of renewable energy and Facebook ‘Likes’.

The importance of human engagement is echoed by Mark Randall, Founder and CEO, Renaissance Capital Partners, who installed Pavegen at the company HQ:

“Our experience is that this footfall harvesting technology really engages staff and clients with issues of sustainability.”

FUTURES FROM WASTE

Public engagement of another kind is driving the market for advancements in waste-to-energy solutions, as local opposition to incineration projects and their emissions opens the door to alternatives.

Key solutions are pyrolysis and plasma gasification, both thermal processes employing high temperatures to break down waste, without combustion. They produce synthesis gas, or ‘syngas’, predominantly formed of hydrogen, which can then be used to generate electricity either via a turbine, or hydrogen fuel-cell technology.

John Hall, MD of Waste2Tricity, is working with Alkali Power & Energy on the significant next phase in development. He said: “The latest concept is to link alkaline fuel cells to the process, using hydrogen from syngas to increase electrical output by over 40 per cent compared to traditional internal combustion.”

At present, the world’s largest energy-from-waste plant, capable of powering 50,000 homes, is under construction on Teesside. As opposed to being seen only as part of the problem of our resource-consuming past, waste is now fast being recast as part of the solution for our energy-generating future.

To view the Special Report in full online, please click here.

Author: Jim McClelland

Sustainable community: It’s a people thing

A version of this article first appeared on the Sustainability Talk & News website, published 23 April, 2013.

What is a sustainable community? Some might say there is no such thing. I would counter, in fact, that there is no such thing as an unsustainable community: Once it becomes unsustainable, it is no longer a community. It is about people, not place. Once the people are socially disconnected, community is lost, regardless of proximity.

How we understand and use the word ‘community’ is more than simply a matter of semantics, it impacts on the systemics of sustainable development, especially in relation to the future of the built environment. So, what do we mean when we talk about community?

Positive images of community in the mind of the general British public perhaps picture hearty sing-songs in the local pub, cricket on the village green, or street parties with homemade buns and bunting.

Negative perceptions are also readily referenced in popular culture. Fiction is full of dark visions of dystopian futures, played out in societies and communities short on human values, but long on rebel mavericks: From Oceania and rat-fearing resident Winston Smith, in George Orwell’s 1984; to Los Angeles 2019 and Richard Deckard, fighting his way across and out of town in Ridley Scott’s Blade Runner.

Real-life cases of unsustainable social collectives might include the ill-fated inhabitants of Easter Island and even the Big Brother House. By contrast (and to the delight of wildlife documentary filmmakers and viewers), the natural world provides us with many examples of successful community models, habitats and homes – from ants in hills and bees in hives, to termites engineering and living in mounds.

In its broader, proper sense, ‘community’ should refer to a group of individuals united by common social structures, relationship bonds, interests or beliefs. We see this definition applied widely and diversely across geographic boundaries, whether via social media networks such as Facebook groups, or international Star Trek conventions.

As used in the term ‘sustainable communities’, however, the word often takes on a much narrower urban-planning and local-government definition. It typically denotes a body of people primarily identified and defined by their locality. For built environment professionals, this subordination of the needs of people to the deliverables of place is part of the problem, not part of the solution for sustainability.

Moreover, it is only likely to get worse with the quickening pace of urbanisation as a global pressure-pot phenomenon.

According to data from the United Nations, in 2008, the proportion of the world’s population living in urban areas passed the 50% mark, heading for 70% by 2050. With 5M new residents arriving every month, the global city-dweller total is estimated to hit around five billion by 2030. These inhabitants already consume 75% of the planet’s natural resources and contribute to urban activities responsible for 80% of all greenhouse gas emissions. All this happens on a mere 2% of global land mass.

Winston Churchill said: “We shape our buildings; thereafter they shape us.” The challenge for built environment professionals is to respond in a creative and dynamic way to opportunities for neighbourhood, town and city planning, development, design and construction, such that communities can inhabit the space sustainably, on an ongoing basis. In short, creating places where people want to live.

As the success of sustainable development can only be measured in relative terms over time, adaptability is critical, both for resilience planning and responding intelligently to patterns of social change.

A people-centric approach provides an organising principle for strategic development. Quality of life is driver number one and putting people first key to meeting aspirations for places. The physical environment is where we live, but a sustainable community is who we are.

To view the original article in full on STN, a Carillion PLC initiative, please click here.

Author: Jim McClelland

Race against time for future cities

A version of this article first appeared in a Special Report on ‘Future Cities’, published in The Times, 26 March, 2013.

According to data from the UN, in 2008, the proportion of the world’s population living in urban areas passed the 50% mark, heading for 70% by 2050. By 2030, the total for city dwellers globally is estimated to hit around five billion. These inhabitants already consume 75% of the planet’s natural resources and contribute to urban activities responsible for 80% of all greenhouse gas emissions. All this happens on a mere 2% of global land mass.

The numbers are daunting.

The future is not for the faint-hearted, but neither is it for the disjointed, or disconnected. Shaping cities is a team game, as Jon Lovell, Director and Head of Sustainability at Deloitte Real Estate, explains:

“Without a serious shift in urban thinking, the consequences of escalating climate change, pollution and resource depletion pose an ever-more serious threat to the resilience of cities right around the world.

“This requires much more than, say, integrating solar panels into buildings, and needs all elements of the urban jigsaw – buildings, infrastructure, communities and institutions – to be much more integrated and better adapted to future challenges.”

In response, there is a spirit of cooperation and collaboration in evidence, with peace breaking out between public and private sectors. Austerity has heralded in a new development pragmatism, as Hugh Roberts, Practice Leader, Urban and Regional Planning, at SKM Colin Buchanan, observes:

“Among more enlightened authorities and developers, there is now greater realisation that ‘they need each other’ – municipalities need the private capital and profit motive to drive projects forward to acceptable deadlines, whilst investors realise that suitably consented schemes will only come through full consultation with public agencies.”

As public/private partnerships become increasingly common, so too do issues of hybrid governance. There are investment implications and reputational risk/benefit impacts for established urban centres to consider when entering into commercial contractual arrangements, in a bid for global competitiveness.

The dangers of ‘branding or blanding’ of cities, either through overt corporate badging of service solutions, or (inter)national homogeneity of offerings, can threaten or diminish cultural heritage and conservation of marketable local and community character.

Ultimately, though, the guiding principle for uses of the public purse remains constant and simple: Improving the quality of life and wellbeing of citizens. Understanding how best that can be achieved, working against the clock, calls for smart thinking, as much as smart technology.

There are well over 1,000 cities in the world with populations in excess of 500,000. The opportunities are limitless for experience to be shared and knowledge transferred between countries and even continents.

One of the key lessons coming out of new-build urban development in Asia and especially China is that energy is not the only game in town. H2O is rapidly becoming the new CO2 of future-city metrics, as Director of Wilder Associates and Associate of BRE, Landscape Architect Peter Wilder explains:

“Water quality is now a key indicator for all cities, not just Eco-Cities, mainly because the availability of drinking water is a limiting factor in a city’s ability to grow.”

As well as too little water, he adds, cities are increasingly having to deal with incidences and impacts of too much. Water Sensitive Urban Design offers a custom-fit climate-risk strategy, readily transferable from new to old metropolitan settings.

“The approach to adapting the environment within our new cities to accommodate extreme events will need to filter down to our existing cities through integration of rain gardens, disconnection of homes from stormwater sewers and conversion of open spaces into stormwater wetlands to promote the re-charging of abstraction aquifers and reduce the burden on already-overloaded piped networks.”

Whether investment is in blue-green infrastructure, smart buildings and grids, or the ‘Internet of Things’, connectivity is key. The figure involved could come in as many forms as the measures of improvement.

It could be the £24M awarded to Glasgow in The Future Cities Demonstrator competition, managed and funded by the UK government innovation agency, the Technology Strategy Board. Or it might be 6,700, which is the total number of traffic lights in Quito, Ecuador, covered by the real-time adaptive control system, from Schneider Electric.

The true number crunch for cities though is time. What timeframe should be used when talking about the sustainability of smart development fit for the future? The longer, the better, would be the advice from Andrew Comer, Managing Director Environment and Infrastructure, Buro Happold.

“The timeframe to judge any development in terms of its true sustainability has to be over a long period,” he says. “Investment in buildings should be viewed over 40 to 50 years. Similarly, many major infrastructure programmes being undertaken today will be impacting on the UK economy and its carbon footprint for the next 50 to 80 years. But how much attention is given to making the right choices or decisions on this basis?”

Back in 1963, the influential urban planning report and book ‘Traffic in Towns’ was published by Professor Sir Colin Buchanan. Now, 50 years on, with ‘Transport in Cities’, SKM Colin Buchanan aims to revisit the issues and produce a fresh vision and blueprint for the next 50 years.

To put that challenge into perspective, consider stories of the day from 1963: Martin Luther King announced having a dream; putting a man on the moon still seemed like one; the first mobile phone was a decade away; and £1 would buy 60 loaves of bread.

Things change.

Predicting the future calls for the art of the improbable, if not impossible. Cities are in the business of planning, designing, engineering and building the future; not to mention, facilitating, transporting, generating, heating, cooling, draining, feeding, watering, greening and connecting; and all so that 50 per cent and more of the word’s population can get on with the living, sustainably, healthy and happy.

For cities, the future is going to be big and it is going to be clever. Scale matters. Smart wins. The future is now.

To view the Special Report in full online, published in The Times newspaper and Guest Edited by Jim McClelland, please click here.

Author: Jim McClelland

Urban Greening: Nature is back in town

A version of this article first appeared in a Special Report on ‘Future Cities’, published in The Times, 26 March, 2013.

According to received wisdom, it is not possible to put a price on Nature, however, to much debate, that is exactly what has been happening increasingly of late, as policymakers and markets strive to develop robust metrics to determine the value of living-planet assets and liabilities.

The UN has estimated world ecosystems deliver essential services worth in excess of $70tn a year. In the UK alone, the National Ecosystem Assessment generated figures claiming responsible stewardship of green spaces could be worth at least £30bn a year to the economy, in health and welfare benefits. With a view of green space worth up to £300 per person, provision of good access to same for every household in England could knock £2.1bn off the country’s annual healthcare bill.

Against this backdrop of efforts to draw up an eco balance-sheet for the world, perception of climate risk has been rising dramatically, with fears for associated species loss and habitat degradation; plus, spiralling population growth viewed manifest in increasing urbanisation, both in terms of development sprawl and density. To have any prospect of being thought part of the solution, rather than part of the problem, the future city can only come in one colour: Green.

The biennial World Green Roof Congress took place recently in Copenhagen and for the Danish capital, described as one of the five most sustainable cities in the world (along with San Francisco, Vancouver, Oslo and Curitiba), the future is most definitely green, as Lord Mayor, Frank Jensen explains: “For quality of living and working environment, for social equity and economic prosperity, the smart cities of tomorrow will be green cities, in every sense. Across the globe, from Portland to Paris, and Christchurch to Copenhagen, Mayoral offices understand urban biodiversity and green infrastructure are essential elements of any city vision.”

Copenhagen itself suffered badly in 2011 from torrential storms and extreme flooding impacts. As a result, civic authorities are acutely aware of the need to invest in climate change adaptation as as development priority, with urban greening a cornerstone of resilience planning.

For cities in general, risk is the dominant policy driver at present, as the author of ‘Ecosystem Services Come to Town: Greening Cities by Working with Nature’, ecologist Gary Grant, explains:

“The most powerful argument for urban greening currently is dealing with climate change, which is leading to heatwaves and flash flooding. There is money available for this because of the economic damage being caused. When all other benefits are considered, the argument becomes even stronger.”

With enhanced amenity space and aesthetics, biodiversity and wildlife gains, plus positive contributions to health and wellbeing perhaps listed only in the ‘additional benefits’ column, it is easy to see why urban planners might be persuaded by arguments for greening. Core benefits include reduction in urban heat-island (albedo) effect, stormwater attenuation and runoff management, plus cuts in costs of drainage. In addition, greening brings potential for noise and sound insulation, building-energy conservation and fuel savings, as well as improvements in air quality.

As evidenced by much-photographed smog in Beijing, air quality is proving more of a concern and factor in Asia than elsewhere, with urgent implications for ongoing and future development of green cities, as Director of Wilder Associates and Associate of BRE, Peter Wilder observes:

“There is an immediacy to respond to the impact of flood and climate change resilience, mostly driven by the investment sector, that requires action on the part of developers. However in China, where development is often facilitated by central government, there is a growing concern over long-term effects of urbanisation on public health. In recent years, China has experienced a hike in the number of mental illnesses and respiratory diseases related to rapid growth of cities and breakdown of the traditional family unit. Healthcare and aged care is now a major focus for China and green space is being seen as a key performance indicator for sustainable cities.”

Around the globe, for future cities evolving out of major existing urban centres – such as Beijing, Singapore, Delhi, New York or London – a vital selling point for ongoing investment in greening is its flexibility and suitability for retrofit scenarios, as Gary Grant explains:

“City farming and urban food production are getting all the headlines, but the real excitement and growth is in retrofitting existing buildings with features like green roofs and living walls, and in the greening of the ground-level curtilage of buildings with pocket parks and rain gardens. As more and more existing building stock is examined, we are coming to realise much more can be achieved than was first thought.”

As a basket of benefits, the concept of Green Infrastructure (GI) for future cities highlights importance of the natural environment in decisions about land-use planning and brings together a mix of ecosystem services to support both the life of a future city and lifestyle of its residents. GI interconnectivity links environmental concerns such as soil and water quality, with social issues such as recreation and amenity, plus economic factors including healthy growth and tourism.

Taken in the round, the green agenda is a marketable differentiator for world cities, as illustrated by its ringing endorsement from Mayor Vincent Gray, in Washington DC, at the launch of the long-awaited Sustainable DC Act of 2012. With packages for such as the planting of some 6,400 trees to form part of 40% canopy-cover targets, the stated and much-publicised ambition of the Capital is to become “the greenest, healthiest, and most liveable city in the US”.

One phrase employed in connection with plans for Washington DC has been ‘Winning the future’ and for urban environments, it is plain to see there will be no victory without achievement of green goals, assisted by ecosystem services. There may not be consensus yet on the merits and methods of calculating the value of ecosystems, but the cost of investing nothing in green infrastructure is in no doubt. The only future city is a green city. Nature is back in town.

To view the Special Report in full online, published in The Times newspaper and Guest Edited by Jim McClelland, please click here.

Author: Jim McClelland

Sustainable farming futures: Fields of hope

A version of this article first appeared in a Special Report on ‘Sustainable Agriculture & Food Security’, published in The Times, 25 March, 2013.

“The key statistic is that we are producing 260% more food with 2% less inputs versus 20 years ago”, declares Rich Kottmeyer, Global Agriculture and Food Production Leader at Accenture. “No other industry, I can think of, can almost triple production and decrease inputs at the same time!”

The first question such a bullish statement prompts is obvious: How is this level of growth being achieved and is it sustainable? Not surprisingly, there is no simple answer: Farming comes in many forms, as do best-practice guidelines and advocates. Intensive, or extensive, agricultural system options range from crop improvement, use of biotechnology (including GM), GPS, GIS, planting, picking and spacing technology, water management and irrigation; through agroecology, agroforestry, soil conservation, enhanced grazing, plus a System of Root Intensification (SRI), integrated pest management, compost and organics; on to fertilisers and pesticides, aquaponics and hydroponics.

Bundled as a package, precision agriculture describes a suite of IT-based tools which allows farmers to monitor soil and crop conditions electronically and analyse treatment options, targeting delivery and minimising waste.

In effect, integration of ICT has seen the ‘agribiz’ image evolving to the extent that the idea of a farmer in a field with an Apple, probably means something entirely different nowadays. ICT in 21st-century farming is all about decision-making impacts, as described by Rich Kottmeyer:

“Think of a seed as having a maximum potential yield. As a farmer, decisions you make, if incorrect, reduce that potential. Data allows you to create better decisions. Its importance can be seen as a 5-10 bu/acre advantage (minimally) on a large commercial corn operation, or a pork producer getting $6-$11/head more by ‘hitting the grid’.”

The case for data with smallholders is arguably even more dramatic. Recent World Bank studies found simple agronomy support increased yields by up to 50% in some cases, with innovations such as livestock traceability systems rolled out across African countries, utilising RFID on plastic ear tags for automated data input, coupled with provision of tablet and mobile hardware.

It is almost impossible to discuss changing trends in farming and relative merits of best practice approaches without talking about scale: To put it crudely, size matters. Andrew Wraith, Head of Agribusiness, Savills UK, assesses implications for existing, developed business models:

“It is probably safe to say that the ability to invest in technology advances is a function of size of business. The cost of equipment is significant and to spread it over a larger area is generally important, to justify investment.

“Typically, the scope for a business to take on additional land through contracting or alternative joint venture can create the opportunity to reinvest, to the benefit of both parties in an agreement. There continues to be a reduction in the number of farms and farmers, as smaller units find it uneconomic to own or reinvest in equipment.”

Whilst this redrawing of the agricultural map is largely driven by economics at large, rather than particulars of technology demands, there is a knock-on effect in evidence.

Promoting ‘appropriate-scale’ farming on rather different best-practice principles is the agroecology approach, centred on simple techniques that increase yield through the interrelationship between soil, nutrients, crops, pollinators, trees and livestock.

In the UK, agroecology remained a relatively unknown and unused approach until only a few years ago, but is now rapidly rising up the mainstream farming agenda. It is currently more widespread in less industrialised regions of the world, where comparative costs of chemicals and labour create a strong business case, as Dr Julia Wright, Deputy Director at the Centre for Agroecology and Food Security, Coventry University, England, explains:

“Agroecological approaches have shown to triple yields over traditional farming methods. As well as yield increases, production costs are reduced because of the high costs of chemicals compared to lower costs of human labour (which is the converse in industrialised countries).

“One of the key barriers to wider uptake of best practice in agroecology is the disconnect from nature of industrial societies, and the reductionist mindset: We focus only on yield maximisation without realising this comes at a very high cost – this is like working a donkey to death.”

Harnessing the power of biology, rather than chemistry, is also a driver for dairy farmer and Nuffield Scholar Rob Richmond, from Gloucestershire, England, who explains why his research into soil carbon supports creation of diverse pastures for enhanced grazing:

“Crops, microbes, animals and humans need about 60 nutrients in balance. As a consequence of the last half century of NPK thinking, soil organic matter has been lost, resulting in a lack of many minor minerals, which gives rise to hidden hungers, leading to disease. Humus, the stable form of soil carbon, acts as the soil’s flywheel, absorbing water and nutrients when present in excess, and giving them up to the plant as required.

“The use of compost to restore microbes to the soil, biodiverse pastures to allow these populations to get established and rebuild soil carbon, under a mob-grazed system are the most important criteria. Ruminants should be outside grazing grass – not in a shed eating grain!”

Few would argue against the urgent need for systemic change, from farm to fork, if countries are to find ways together to feed nine billion people a day by 2050. However, best practice in sustainable agriculture is out there in many shapes and sizes, as illustrated by the recent ‘rice revolution’ in Darveshpura, India, where a young village farmer shattered the world crop record.

Using only manure, no herbicide and a System of Root Intensification (which involves fewer seeds, less water, more spacing and better husbandry), he produced a bumper one-hectare rice crop of 22.4 tonnes. By comparison, average yields for India as a whole are relatively low at just 2.3t/ha, against a global mean of 4.374t/ha.

For world farming, this achievement serves as a spectacular reminder that there is still success to be unearthed, with simple lessons learned.

To view the Special Report in full online, please click here.

Author: Jim McClelland

Energy: How low can we go?

A version of this article first appeared on the Sustainability Talk & News website, published 28 February, 2013.

Smart-city strategies are rethinking the rôle of buildings in terms of their ability to generate, share and store energy, rather than just consume. In addition, energy efficiency and carbon offsetting are shrinking footprints ever further. As a result, the ultimate built-environment question of the carbon era seems to be:

‘How low can we go?’

In February this year, construction voices followed the lead shown by the UK Green Building Council in calling on government to provide clarity on plans for changes to building regulations and to confirm its support for zero carbon. In commercial markets, delay is the enemy of investment and without a strong policy steer, there is a fear innovation could stall, as business confidence falters.

Ever since government ambitions were announced back in 2006, the zero-carbon target has proved the subject of much debate. Many supporters argue that as the pin-up for the overall campaign to decarbonise the built environment, a ‘zero hero’ project exemplar inspires achievement across the board, fuelling demand for excellence and boosting belief in delivery. Energy efficiency meanwhile seemed the Cinderella of the low-carbon story, until, with austerity biting and pragmatism on the rise, a nascent retrofit revolution began to weave its magic wand, bringing belated transformation of existing stock.

Helping construction to cross the low-carbon finishing line has been the impact-minimising rôle of carbon offsetting. Once every effort feasible has been made to reduce consumption and emissions, then it appears perfectly reasonable to offset the unavoidable remainder. The key word in that sentence, though, is ‘feasible’: Who or what decides what is feasible?

Typically, cost is the determining factor and so the extent of what is ‘feasible’ is not a technical matter, rather a business decision. Profit margins are dependent on where the line is drawn between the feasible and the commercially uneconomical, or undesirable. Lack of transparency in this grey area is arguably the cause of much of the concern about abuses of offsetting as a means of managing impacts responsibly.

The carbon scale does not however start, or even end with zero. Never mind impact-neutral solutions, a number of structural building materials billed as carbon-negative have been available on the UK market now for some time: These range from hemp-based blocks, to prefab straw-bale panels.

At project level, the built-environment sector has also witnessed a flurry of below-zero ‘firsts’ in recent months alone: Australia has seen completion of its first carbon-negative commercial building, in Melbourne, for example; whilst in South Shields, England, the tenants have moved into Britain’s first carbon-negative street. It is fair to say, that the rôle of (successful) high-profile projects in driving forward the agenda for a low-carbon built environment has almost as much to do with media coverage, as it does design excellence, or build quality – aspiration is, in part, a function of awareness.

Taken out of context, however, carbon targets can lead to cases of unintended consequences, or even be used to justify false accounting for building impacts. In effect, marketable ‘zero-carbon’ status has sometimes been pursued at the expense of broader sustainability goals and metrics, as Ant Wilson, Director, Building Engineering, Aecom, explains: “You could almost say it is dishonest of designers to pass the buck back in time to earlier materials and construction phases of development, loading buildings with embodied energy in order to minimise performance-in-use figures and get carbon ‘off the books’, so to speak, in the operational phases.

“The new, true focus should be on energy reduction, not just zero carbon. In reality, lower-carbon buildings sometimes use more energy, not less. Overall resource efficiency is the key to sustainability in the built environment.”

In built-environment parlance, the terms energy and carbon are often erroneously used as if interchangeable. They are not: Energy is a resource or an asset; carbon is an impact or a liability.

In the race to zero and below, low-carbon ends do not justify high-energy means.

Mindful of this maxim, the true sustainability question seems not to be ‘How low can we go?’, but rather, ‘How can we best go low?’.

To view the original article in full on STN, a Carillion PLC initiative, please click here.

Author: Jim McClelland

Community Resilience: From Sandy to Sustainability

A version of this article first appeared on the Sustainability Talk & News website, published 18 December, 2012.

At every level, Hurricane Sandy represents a wake-up call for the sleeping giant of community resilience that is the built-environment sector. It is time for Construction to engage both with the (inter)national debate on climate-change risk and global-warming impacts, plus local discussions about resource mobilisation, security provision and preparedness.

In order for Construction to be cast a lead rôle in climate-change adaptation, it must be able to see both the Big Picture and the Local View: The Big Picture provides the backdrop to the global stage on which nation states perform, populated by protagonists in politics and pressure groups; the Local View is characterised by community scenes, where dialogue is more about resilience and resource.

At the macro level, the business community is becoming increasingly concerned about climate risk and the urgent need to be proactive. Ahead of the UN COP18 talks in Doha, over 200 of the largest investment fund managers and institutions – with more than £13tn in assets and including the likes of Scottish Widows, Aviva and HSBC – issued an open letter to the UK government and other administrations, advocating an escalation in action on climate change. Take heed: These signatories petitioning are establishment and mainstream money men and women, not greens, or alternative-energy geeks.

With The City worried and vocal, the onus is on leading market sectors such as Construction to listen and respond, not least because much of the investment involved carries core-business implications for the built environment: Infrastructure, property and climate defences are the physical building blocks of the (re)insurance industry assets and liabilities, portfolio and policies. In short, Construction is in the climate business, whether it likes it or not.

Zooming in to focus on the Local View, the Strategic National Framework on Community Resilience for the UK outlines how public, private and third sector organisations, plus individuals, might work together with responders and service providers in the event of an emergency, such as Sandy. Part of the Big Society commitment, the programme seeks to promote confidence and preparedness at community level, creating a degree of embedded self-sufficiency, security and, ultimately, sustainability. The framework provides direct assistance in the form of Emergency Plans and Toolkits, plus a library of illustrative case studies tackling scenarios ranging from flu pandemics to snow clearing. Of paramount importance is the pooling of knowledge and resources to enable swift effective response.

Here again, there can be seen a clear opportunity for Construction to engage and, arguably, an obligation to do so. The industry boasts a unique and highly valuable bank of relevant knowledge and resource ideally suited to localised emergency response: Plant and equipment, from caterpillar-track off-roaders to high-vis safetywear; raw or manufactured materials, from walling and piping, to boards and sand; plus human resource with appropriate skills and trades. Whilst perhaps no flashing blue light is expected atop every white van, the sector fit is perfect for the part of the fourth emergency service.

Maybe the moment has finally come, therefore, for the industry to get up on its hind legs and demand the attention it craves by engaging actively in the debates around climate change in general and resilience planning in particular. Historically, Construction has been proud to quote the statistics for its significant contribution to GDP (even when markets are tough), but often bemoans the perceived lack of recognition and appreciation for its efforts. Today, with influence to be won, if the sector has a mind to move the agenda forward, it certainly has the muscle.

Now is the time for Construction to play its true part in the communities it serves: Stand up; speak up. An audience awaits…

To view the original article in full on STN, a Carillion PLC initiative, please click here.

Author: Jim McClelland