Kirsten Henson, director, KLH Sustainability
A carbon mandate for construction companies that focuses on reducing emissions generated through site activities would feel like a political statement, rather than a drive for real change.
The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills reports that operations on site account for only 1% of a building’s lifecycle carbon footprint. There is a growing trend towards design-and-build contracts and, as a result, principal contractors have significant influence over a lot more than just the power used on site.
Manufacture of building products accounts for 15% of the building carbon footprint, and distribution a further 1%. Therefore, reducing the quantity of cement in concrete, challenging waste on site beyond the ubiquitous statements of waste reduction, optimisation of steelwork and careful selection of building products is the best way to deliver carbon saving.
Stephen Wielebski FCIOB, divisional development director, Miller Homes
While carbon counting is probably a worthwhile endeavour, it needs to be considered in the round.
For example, we have been looking at some recent research and it seems water companies are losing around 23% of water through leakage. If we extrapolate, the carbon footprint associated with this level of lost water is considerable. One could argue that any change to Part L of the Building Regulations will have a minimal impact compared with the carbon footprint attributable to water leakage.
There are checks and balances with everything we do, and I’d like to see a coordinated approach to carbon. Housebuilders, utility companies and contractors all need to be focused on the issue. Infrastructure that supports a development also has a big role to play in reducing the carbon footprint of housing and other buildings.
Elrond Burrell, associate, Architype
Originally the government’s focus on BIM, which led to the BIM mandate, came out of a desire to help “green” the construction industry. The intention of BIM was to reduce carbon emissions by 20%, as well as costs, but austerity led to a focus on saving money. Now there is definitely a need to refocus on creating genuinely sustainable buildings.
However, I am not convinced carbon targets are the way to achieve this. Carbon is slightly abstract, there are a variety of ways of measuring it and you can play accountancy games with renewables. What we have to do is focus on deep energy reduction and create homes that are energy efficient, no matter where the power comes from. BIM has a place to play in this, and can help put carbon on the agenda.
Bill Butcher ICIOB, director, Green Building Company and Green Building Store
Carbon reduction is too vague for most people in the industry. It is easy to sprinkle a badly designed and constructed building with expensive renewables. However, a fabric-first philosophy, such as Passivhaus, provides real results and is understandable by all involved.
I would like all buildings to be built to this standard or at least informed by the methodology. The government could procure using Passivhaus as a benchmark and have this integrated into the Building Regulations. It may be more expensive in the short term, but we need a focus on quality of build. A Passivhaus-benchmarked mandate could work.
Simon Green, head of sustainability, Lakehouse
In theory we already have a carbon mandate: the Climate Change Act 2008 enshrines in law a target of an 80% cut in the UK carbon account from 1990 to 2050. However, we’re at risk of missing our 2020 target. We need better integrated public policy and investment.
The Committee on Climate Change has highlighted good progress in the automotive and wind power sectors, but less on energy efficiency. The Energy Companies Obligation and Green Deal debacles show we must join up our thinking on climate change, energy efficiency and fuel poverty. We need the government to deliver a mandate that reinvigorates market transformation.
Professor Chris Gorse, director of the Leeds Sustainability Institute
The directives, legislation and regulations are on their way and will get much tougher. Eventually the legal procedures will develop teeth and there will be consequences. As an industry we are being given a little time to respond, but persistent failure to embrace necessary changes will affect us all and our reputation. We both supply a service and product and both aspects of our work need addressing.
As an industry we must prepare for change, those at the helm, the major players, are already positioning themselves so that they can demonstrate that their practices are socially, ethically and sustainably responsible; reducing emissions is integral in their approach. While the industry establishes sustainable practices, clients are also increasing their demands.
We don’t want a system imposed that is overly bureaucratic so as an industry we need to move quickly to adopt practices that deliver buildings that are designed to be energy efficient and perform. Practices such as Integrated Reporting will eventually inform others of our financial position and responsible practice. Where practices adopted appear to be unethical and unsustainable, companies will increasingly find it difficult to be invited to tender, become part of a supply chain or receive funding from the major banks. We should change now, without having change dictated.
Dr Martyn Kenny, sustainability director, Lafarge Tarmac
There are a number of existing initiatives that are already supported by industry leaders, which we shouldn’t ignore. As recently as 2013, the Green Construction Board published the Infrastructure Carbon Review and the Low Carbon Routemap for the Built Environment to help meet national carbon reduction targets.
Rather than launch a mandate, it might be more useful for industry and government to continue to work collaboratively to fully understand what is needed under the Climate Change Act 2008, and agree practical ways to reduce our carbon footprint. We need more practical, cross industry dialogue. At the moment, there is also an overt focus on “capital carbon” up to the point of construction – this is oversimplistic and fails to account for the carbon emissions over the entire lifecycle of a structure. Measuring whole-life sustainability performance should be the priority.
