Do we need a Carbon Mandate? In other words, following the conspicuous success of the 2016 BIM mandate in kicking off a sector-wide culture change, would a direct link between performance on carbon reduction and public sector procurement boost our current poor performance on cutting directly-controlled carbon emissions? The question arose from this month’s cover story, which reveals that the industry’s on-site emissions in England actually rose by 13% between 2008-12. It’s a pretty shocking statistic.
Not everyone we spoke to, both for the article and in this month’s vox pop, agreed that this was the right approach, while some preferred to link the idea to embodied carbon and buildings’ fabric. But what was striking was the readiness to discuss the issue: hardly anyone felt that we had all the tools, levers and legislation in place to effectively manage the industry’s performance on carbon – or indeed hit the Construction 2025 targets.
It’s generally agreed that carbon and sustainability have fallen off the agenda in the past five years. The beginning of the credit crunch in 2008 coincided with what you might call “peak sustainability”, when everyone was flocking to “green” seminars and events, Halve Waste to Landfill was a popular rallying cry and of course the 2008-12 target to cut emissions by 15% was born. Then came 2008-10, the era of Paul Morrell and the Innovation and Growth Team reports, which had a strong “cut the carbon” dimension.
But after that, with the industry weary from redundancies, recession and austerity, there seemed to be a collective agreement that sustainability had been “mainstreamed” so we didn’t need to talk about it so much. Construction Manager was as much part of this as anyone else, giving the topic less editorial focus. But now, the Green Construction Board reports reveal that “mainstreaming” was a myth: we let onsite carbon emissions increase, and it also looks as if we didn’t hit the Halve Waste to Landfill target that once seemed so achievable. It’s clearly a wake-up call.
So how do we go forward now? Of course, the industry exists to build buildings, not to single-handedly save the planet, or render itself uneconomic by adopting unfeasible targets. But the evidence of 2008-12 is that adopting voluntary targets doesn’t embed the behaviour change deeply or widely enough to make a lasting impact. By implication, it’s perfectly reasonable to have doubts about the new WRAP/GCB Built Environment Commitment.
However, a procurement-led approach might well work: just look at the Olympic Park, and now at Crossrail. That would obviously require a commitment from government, and here the coalition has manifestly failed to deliver a green agenda. The one silver lining in this worrying scenario is at least we have a General Election, and quite possibly a change of government, coming up.
Elaine Knutt, editor
