The built environment industry needs to undergo radical change to effectively respond to the climate emergency – how should that happen?
CISL's Director and CEO Clare Shine was invited to take part in a recent discussion from the Edge's "Big Issue" webinar series. The webinars focused on materials, the real impact of climate change on human health and culminating in the degree of radical change which the construction/built environment industry must undergo to respond to the climate and ecological emergency. This event summary focuses on the ways in which the built environment industry must undergo radical change to effectively respond to the climate emergency.
The UK government has set clear targets of energy efficiency improvements to all buildings by 2030, net zero carbon emissions by 2050 and a 12% reduction in heat demand every year to 2050. But these targets represent the least that we must do.
Despite clear guidance from the IPCC and others, we have not over the last twenty plus years achieved the rate of decarbonisation required and indeed the curve to do this is getting ever steeper. So, given that this is an emergency and that every tonne emitted is making matters worse with increased environmental, social and economic impacts, can the industry accelerate its projects into a radical change of the design and implementation process with a primary design parameter of CO2e?
This is a responsibility for all working in the built environment.
Chair: Keith Clarke, Chair Active Building Centre and Constructionarium
Advising on Change - leadership and behaviour: Clare Shine, Director & CEO, Cambridge Institute for Sustainability Leadership (CISL)
Planning for change: Emma Davies, Principal Sustainability Consultant at Greater Cambridge Shared Planning Service
Investing for change: Alexandra Notay, Placemaking and Investment Director, PfP Capital
A changing industry: Mark Farmer, CEO, Cast
There was unanimous agreement from both the panel and all participants in the chat room that the construction industry was not fit for purpose to get us to a net zero solution in time or in a manner that would minimise the carbon impact. Whilst not unexpected, this broad consensus that the industry is failing clearly only goes to reinforce the need for radical change.
In terms of leadership, wider skills are clearly required at every level to look at more complex issues posed by decarbonising supply chains, projects or policies. It is recognised that rapid decarbonisation will have significant impacts on social and indeed governance systems and whilst the emergency is widely agreed to be a time sensitive emergency requiring action now, that action needs to be taken with knowledge and consideration of the associated impacts. This requires additional skills, more T-shaped people in leadership with additional skills than are currently evident in the industry. Clearly these additional skills need to be addressing the transition on a systems basis rather than insular projects.
With regard to planning, it’s clear there is considerable very thoughtful work at local authority level despite the Government, but is hindered significantly by the amount of resources available to address this. With skills being still critical but second to actually having bodies available to address the complexity of these issues. Clearly empowering local authorities with correct resources is an urgent requirement since planning gives the context for the projects and projects is where carbon sits.
The impact of transportation modes and choices were seen to have a radical impact on carbon in operational terms, probably not as yet reflected in Highways England’s building plan which, it would seem, is not yet aligned with local authorities. In terms of finance, ESG (Environmental, Social and Governance) whilst now a massive sector with trillions of dollars invested, is at the very early stages of maturity and definition with considerable greenwash and indeed, lack of coherent investment policies that end up supporting decarbonisation. It was noted however, that this sector is trying to change its practices rapidly. Whilst there is considerable work being done through TCFD (Task Force on Climate Related Financial Disclosures) that’s at a very high level of global equity and debt and the penetration down to meaningful local investment decisions remains obscure. It was noted this ability for change is far quicker than anything evident in the construction industry.
Re the likely changes, it was noted how obdurate the industry is and phenomenally resistant to change unless hit with blunt objects. Whilst there are fantastic exemplar projects, the issue is one of scale and all the industry performing at a level never hereto achieved. The consequences of Grenfell and the cladding scandals have clearly not yet had any meaningful effect on the industry. There was speculation that liability changes could provide the mechanism for tracking carbon and driving it out of the design and supply chain routes.
It was noted that whilst regulation is key, the current Government has no appetite for regulation of any sort. It was clear the industry if it is to perform its role in decarbonising a significant part of the UK economy, will not be the same industry that we see today and there will be significant casualties and winners in that process. It’s arguable that until we see that sort of effect the radical changes we so desperately need are not occurring.