Local architect Dominic Manning gave a well-attended talk on sustainable architecture to the Rother Environmental Group (REG) at The George on Tuesday March 27.
He said that buildings are resource intensive, using up significant amounts of energy, water, materials and land, both in the construction and in their day-to-day use. In particular there is a need to stabilise and reduce fossil-fuel emissions, make them proportionate to the population and contract them down to 20% of current emissions by 2080 to limit the increase in global temperature.
Sustainable architecture can help by minimising the negative environmental impact of buildings through efficiency and moderation in the use of materials, energy, development space and the ecosystem at large. Amongst the most important considerations for the architect are the envelope, the cross section and the orientation of the building. If these are correctly considered at the design stage, many of the issues about daylight, energy and ventilation can be successfully addressed.
Dominic then gave working examples from architects Feilden Clegg Bradley, as well as Bill Dunster of ZED Factory. The talk was followed by a lively Q&A session.
The next REG event will be on Wednesday April 25, 10am-12pm. This will be a guided tour of Brede High Woods at bluebell time with David Bonsall of the Woodland Trust. Booking is essential, please contact Stephen Clift at s.clift@btinternet.com
Editorial comment: An extract transcript from Dominic Manning’s talk is reproduced below for the benefit of readers interested in the debate on global warming:
“I would like to talk about sustainable architecture today and how we can attempt to build a low-carbon society. Sustainable architecture is architecture designed to minimise the negative environmental impact of buildings through efficiency and moderation in the use of:
- materials
- energy
- development space
- the ecosystem at large
Buildings and other construction are resource intensive, using up significant amounts of energy, water, materials and land, both in the construction and in the day-to-day use. Buildings contribute to pollution in many ways, be it through air pollution, greenhouse gases, waste water or landfill waste.
Arguably the biggest challenge is the emission of CO2 and the ensuing climate change. This is the classic hockey-stick graph, which shows that the current concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is at 403 ppmv – last seen 4m years ago, when sea levels were 20m higher than now. The predicted concentrations could be stabilised at about 550 ppmv (last seen 40m years ago) if emissions are reduced by 80%, otherwise they will climb to 700 ppmv by 2100 and could rise further up to 2000 ppmv.
Different countries have quite different carbon footprints, with the UK still far exceeding its due share. When factoring in historical emissions per person, the UK is second worst, just behind Luxembourg. And when looking at consumption footprints, rather than production, the UK is sixth worst, after Belgium, USA, Ireland, Finland and Australia. We need to stabilise and reduce our fossil-fuel emissions, make them proportionate to the population and contract them down to 20% of current emissions by 2080 to limit the increase in global temperature.
The Paris agreement of 2016 was almost the first clear consensus from the majority of the human race about planetary scale governance. It is no longer clear that either the existing industrial base or national politicians are able to bring about the change required fast enough. A bottom-up approach is needed in light of failure of leadership.
Returning to the specific task at hand, it is worth drawing attention to the fact that different building types have very different levels of fossil fuel and electricity use. The measure used on this table is kgCO2/m2/year. Within each type, there are very different emission patterns. Take for instance schools, where the best performing exemplars including pv use about 10% of the energy compared to a typical school. There are big discrepancies, too, between office buildings. Swimming pools use the most fossil fuel for space and water heating, whereas supermarkets use far more electricity than other building types, mainly due to refrigeration and lighting requirements.
There are 12 steps that are needed to improve the situation, these are:
1. Stop runaway climate change.
2. Leave all fossil fuels in the ground. By removing them, sooner or later they will be burned (even as waste from useful oil-based products).
3. Replace fossil fuels with progressively viable alternatives. Nuclear remains controversial, others we will look at later.
4. Make any human activity climate-neutral. This is ambitious, as it requires a surplus of renewable energy to be created to ‘repay’ the carbon required for construction, the so-called ‘embodied’ carbon.
5. Use carbon as the new currency. Carbon footprint and overall environmental impact are closely correlated, similarly the cost of conventional goods and activities.
6. Do not export your problems off-site. Again, very ambitious, but necessary if local communities are to benefit from the energy, especially as renewable energy is harder to store and transport.
7. Maximise energy efficiency. This relates not just to insulation, but to the durability of construction materials, due to the embodied carbon.
8. Minimise delay. The longer we wait, the worse the situation gets.
9. Reduce land footprint. Biodiversity is already greatly under pressure from human expansion. As you know, we are now in the so-called Holocene or sixth mass extinction, caused by the global superpredator – man. The northern white rhino is just a more visible manifestation. Also though, we ourselves need the land we have for the ‘natural capital’, fresh water, clean air and food. London alone requires productive land equivalent to the rest of the UK – we import 70% of resources.
10. Reduce resources consumption. Adopt the ‘cradle to cradle’ approach of the circular economy. Sandy Rogers has previously talked to this group about this.
11. Clean sky, clean water. By reducing pollution to our environment.
12. Ensure everyone has a fair share. Inequality leads to conflict and social division.
Is the green battle winnable?
The UK construction industry accounts for nearly 10% of GDP and is tied in closely to the conventional business model. It operates with small profit margins and has high levels of internal instability. This militates against investment in sustainable design and construction.
There is little evidence that homeowners and tenants are willing to pay significantly more for sustainable buildings. Nor is the Government inclined to push for greater or quicker change. The last amendment to Part L of the Building Regulations (which deals with carbon emissions) called for only a 6% improvement in efficiency compared to the 2010 version. The intention to aim for zero-carbon homes by 2016 was quietly dropped and the Code for Sustainable Homes was abolished. There is no timetable for improving standards.
The replacement rate of existing buildings is about 1.5% per year, which would take us until next century to replace all buildings other than those of historical merit. Most building stock is unsuited for low-carbon living and difficult to upgrade. Most buildings are in the wrong place, with inadequate density leading to low density sprawl as well as functional zoning that leads to too much travel and difficulty in forming district heating potential.
Too many people are unmotivated to address climate change or reduce their level of resource consumption. There is no strong economic argument to shift attitudes. However, environmental education can lead to an enlightened self-interest to achieve a carbon neutral, predominantly urban, infrastructure in the UK.”
Photo: Zed Factory
Here in the UK, we contribute scarcely one per cent to the global total of emissions. Conversely China, the main emitter, contributes about 27 per cent, and the amount is predicted to double by 2030. The emissions by India, the third largest emitter, are predicted to triple over the same period. It would clearly be honourable for us, as a gesture, to proceed gently in the direction indicated by my son Dominic but, recognising that the global total of emissions will rise significantly, I respectfully feel that it would be unwise for us to proceed so energetically that we risk damaging our economy.
There were similar views expressed at the time of the banning the slave trade. The ban did have serious economic consequences for towns like Bristol and many parts of the UK but nevertheless it was morally the right thing to do.
Reducing human impact on the planet is now also a moral imperative as the future of the human race depends on it. It is the right thing to do and we have to do it now no matter what anyone else is doing.
This moral imperative would be denied by a dwindling minority who still do not believe the scientific evidence on global warming and the contribution made by burning fossil fuels. They may assert that there have been warming periods like this before and that the planet will somehow correct the changes itself. Some of the people who hold these views have loud voices – like Nigel Lawson and his “Global Warming Foundation” but we can hope that they will gradually accept the facts.
Britain has led the way before in the first industrial revolution using brilliant technological innovation to exploit the energy from coal and oil. The UK could and should lead again as we replace fossil fuels with renewable energy.