I'm really pleased to see you've engaged with the report and appreciate your review—this is exactly the kind of discussion we aim to mainstream, particularly as these techniques are already appearing in practice.
I agree with your emphasis on reducing emissions, and I also recognize the importance of simplicity in achieving this. This is why we are careful in recommending how these methods are applied (as outlined on page 34). Contrary to your interpretation, we do not advocate for the broad application of these approaches in whole-life carbon assessments, precisely because we recognise the need for assessments to be simple and globally harmonised.
That said, our report aims to support industry practitioners who are forced to grapple with the trade-offs between emissions occurring at different times. Here we do advocate for using these techniques in support of specific project decision-making, precisely because they help to underscore the importance of reducing emissions sooner rather than later.
On the '4th argument' regarding tipping points, I appreciate your attention to this critical issue. While we agree tipping points should be central to the conversation, quantifying this argument is notoriously difficult—though it's a great opportunity for further exploration. Some initial thoughts:
• The scientific community acknowledges the complexity of predicting tipping points like Amazon dieback or polar ice sheet disintegration.
• These tipping points generally occur at specific 'warming levels.'
• Warming is proportional to the ppm of CO₂ in the atmosphere.
• This suggests there may be value in 'delaying emissions' if the delay can reduce the peak concentration of GHGs in the atmosphere.
• Forecasts on when the world will reach 'peak emissions' vary widely, complicating the practical application of this argument.
Despite these challenges, I believe the qualitative value of this argument is significant, and practitioners should be aware of it. In facing such uncertainty, a 'precautionary approach'—focusing on reducing emissions sooner—seems prudent.
Thanks again for engaging with the report, would be delighted to pick-up the discussion further on a call (feel free to reach out).
The whole time element really is the rub, ya? As a carpenter/designer I think about this all the time. A high carbon material that is in place for a few hundred years is potentially more sustainable than a low-carbon material that gets thrown in the landfill 10 years later because someone wants their kitchen to look different. And yet, knowing this is irrelevant because I never know how long something will avoid the landfill. Sadly, in today's wasteful culture, my assumption is always that that time will be shorter rather than longer...
>>" may be naive, but I think carbon emissions are a simple game. You do everything you can to reduce them, both now and later, both upfront and operating."
... which is why I'm pro-nuclear, and why anyone who *ISN'T* isn't serious about decarbonization but adhering vociferously to a green pseudo-religious belief system.
As far as the trip busting your 2-year 1.5°C lifestyle budget, I wouldn't worry about it. These kinds of trips are important for you, to you, and to those who will be traveling to attend. Which is also why no one else should fret about busting their carbon budget either, because life is short and some opportunities only present themselves once.
I think we have to approach it simply and clearly as you suggest, Lloyd. We need to reduce upfront emissions and we need to reduce operational emissions, and we need sufficiency to be central to it all. While it is an emergency now, we need emissions to both come down much lower and stay much lower from then on. Reducing upfront emissions while increasing operational emissions is not an option because it is not solving the emergency, only delaying or even prolonging it. That said, I think operational emissions should be driven primality by human needs for shelter, comfort, health, and wellbeing rather than emissions in abstract. People sometimes argue that low emission electricity gives us a free hand to design poor thermal-performing buildings as the impact on emissions is negligible. (Not correct anyway, but that's a different argument) This misses the point about the purpose and function of buildings, though. Back to comfort, comfort, comfort, then energy efficiency (and operational emissions.)
I, too, found the Arup report unnecessarily complex. And a major issue for all these circularity calculations is the unknowability of a building’s or its products’ lifespan and end of life, i.e., what happens at end of life. It throws a complete wrench into the concept of Whole Building LCA.
What this does further indicate, as you’ve been at the forefront of saying, is that reduced emissions now are more crucial than reduced emissions over time because we are in an emergency. If one is seriously sick, you are more concerned with getting well now than in extending your life later, especially if not getting well means not being alive or having a much worse quality of life later.
When they referred to delayed emissions, they were pitting reduced upfront carbon choices against choices that lower operating energy. Ideally, of course, that shouldn’t be an either/or issue. What they were doing, as best I could figure, is challenging conventional economics’ ‘discount rate,’ in economics parlance, of the future in order to get to environmentally meaningful whole life analyses. But it’s both unnecessary and undo-able simply because of the unknowable lifespan and end of life of buildings and products.
And this is especially true until such time as we have serious and functional circularity of materials. Right now the supply and demand system for reuse and recycling simply doesn’t exist. Creating that should be a major current goal (as well as a business development opportunity). There are indeed people working on it, e.g., the concept of materials passports, but we’re nowhere near there yet.
This is a complex issue as you suggest, Lloyd. It also involves solar gain through windows and heat loss through windows. Is the building function SF residential or multi-family or commercial? Occupancy time frame - during the day/night/season? Yes, the O&M routine also has impact. I'd suggest the building's flexibility for changes also has influence. There are systems that allow significant interior re-configuration without demo/rebuild mess and waste.
Let us know how your presentation is/was received.
This complexity is really all about money and how to delay expense or push it off to someone else.
Nature has no problem cycling carbon and we have the technology to accelerate plant life healthily through ag with natural cycles and sequester double what we emit now but there is not enough interest or money in it for certain people.
These arguments will be played out ferociously where money is to be made by winning now. Good luck, but I see a lot more frustration in your future…!
What a shame that Arups have dropped Bull Durham's ball. Conflating upfront and operational carbon (ie whole life carbon assessments) is a category error like mixing apples and oranges. Most easily understood by the fourth measure, being largely ignored or played down, as the carbon molecule emitted in building a (passiv) house that tips us over the edge could not be offset by reduced carbon emissions over the next 60 years. I don't see anybody arguing that there might be potentially catastrophic tipping points as carbon emissions increase?
Great read about the frustrations of all of this, thank you. I see an issue that we are given more and more of our responsibility to the arbitrariness of science. We made up science, we made up math, and we can make it say just about anything and not really be sure if down the line we are not to find out that the science and math of today is incorrect. It's difficult, but I think we need to turn more towards our gut feelings, does it make sense to you. Does it make sense to me to chose the 3 layer glazing in this project or not. For there will never a way to ultimately know, so how to train architects and engineers in much more than numbers? To make it also a philosophical decision.
In this sense, I think the most sustainable skyscraper in Manhattan is not the new all electric 270 Park Ave JP Morgan Chase building to come, but the Woolworth Building as it's been there for +100 years.
Hi Lloyd,
I'm really pleased to see you've engaged with the report and appreciate your review—this is exactly the kind of discussion we aim to mainstream, particularly as these techniques are already appearing in practice.
I agree with your emphasis on reducing emissions, and I also recognize the importance of simplicity in achieving this. This is why we are careful in recommending how these methods are applied (as outlined on page 34). Contrary to your interpretation, we do not advocate for the broad application of these approaches in whole-life carbon assessments, precisely because we recognise the need for assessments to be simple and globally harmonised.
That said, our report aims to support industry practitioners who are forced to grapple with the trade-offs between emissions occurring at different times. Here we do advocate for using these techniques in support of specific project decision-making, precisely because they help to underscore the importance of reducing emissions sooner rather than later.
On the '4th argument' regarding tipping points, I appreciate your attention to this critical issue. While we agree tipping points should be central to the conversation, quantifying this argument is notoriously difficult—though it's a great opportunity for further exploration. Some initial thoughts:
• The scientific community acknowledges the complexity of predicting tipping points like Amazon dieback or polar ice sheet disintegration.
• These tipping points generally occur at specific 'warming levels.'
• Warming is proportional to the ppm of CO₂ in the atmosphere.
• This suggests there may be value in 'delaying emissions' if the delay can reduce the peak concentration of GHGs in the atmosphere.
• Forecasts on when the world will reach 'peak emissions' vary widely, complicating the practical application of this argument.
Despite these challenges, I believe the qualitative value of this argument is significant, and practitioners should be aware of it. In facing such uncertainty, a 'precautionary approach'—focusing on reducing emissions sooner—seems prudent.
Thanks again for engaging with the report, would be delighted to pick-up the discussion further on a call (feel free to reach out).
Kind regards,
Will Wild
The whole time element really is the rub, ya? As a carpenter/designer I think about this all the time. A high carbon material that is in place for a few hundred years is potentially more sustainable than a low-carbon material that gets thrown in the landfill 10 years later because someone wants their kitchen to look different. And yet, knowing this is irrelevant because I never know how long something will avoid the landfill. Sadly, in today's wasteful culture, my assumption is always that that time will be shorter rather than longer...
>>" may be naive, but I think carbon emissions are a simple game. You do everything you can to reduce them, both now and later, both upfront and operating."
... which is why I'm pro-nuclear, and why anyone who *ISN'T* isn't serious about decarbonization but adhering vociferously to a green pseudo-religious belief system.
As far as the trip busting your 2-year 1.5°C lifestyle budget, I wouldn't worry about it. These kinds of trips are important for you, to you, and to those who will be traveling to attend. Which is also why no one else should fret about busting their carbon budget either, because life is short and some opportunities only present themselves once.
I think we have to approach it simply and clearly as you suggest, Lloyd. We need to reduce upfront emissions and we need to reduce operational emissions, and we need sufficiency to be central to it all. While it is an emergency now, we need emissions to both come down much lower and stay much lower from then on. Reducing upfront emissions while increasing operational emissions is not an option because it is not solving the emergency, only delaying or even prolonging it. That said, I think operational emissions should be driven primality by human needs for shelter, comfort, health, and wellbeing rather than emissions in abstract. People sometimes argue that low emission electricity gives us a free hand to design poor thermal-performing buildings as the impact on emissions is negligible. (Not correct anyway, but that's a different argument) This misses the point about the purpose and function of buildings, though. Back to comfort, comfort, comfort, then energy efficiency (and operational emissions.)
I, too, found the Arup report unnecessarily complex. And a major issue for all these circularity calculations is the unknowability of a building’s or its products’ lifespan and end of life, i.e., what happens at end of life. It throws a complete wrench into the concept of Whole Building LCA.
What this does further indicate, as you’ve been at the forefront of saying, is that reduced emissions now are more crucial than reduced emissions over time because we are in an emergency. If one is seriously sick, you are more concerned with getting well now than in extending your life later, especially if not getting well means not being alive or having a much worse quality of life later.
When they referred to delayed emissions, they were pitting reduced upfront carbon choices against choices that lower operating energy. Ideally, of course, that shouldn’t be an either/or issue. What they were doing, as best I could figure, is challenging conventional economics’ ‘discount rate,’ in economics parlance, of the future in order to get to environmentally meaningful whole life analyses. But it’s both unnecessary and undo-able simply because of the unknowable lifespan and end of life of buildings and products.
And this is especially true until such time as we have serious and functional circularity of materials. Right now the supply and demand system for reuse and recycling simply doesn’t exist. Creating that should be a major current goal (as well as a business development opportunity). There are indeed people working on it, e.g., the concept of materials passports, but we’re nowhere near there yet.
This is a complex issue as you suggest, Lloyd. It also involves solar gain through windows and heat loss through windows. Is the building function SF residential or multi-family or commercial? Occupancy time frame - during the day/night/season? Yes, the O&M routine also has impact. I'd suggest the building's flexibility for changes also has influence. There are systems that allow significant interior re-configuration without demo/rebuild mess and waste.
Let us know how your presentation is/was received.
This complexity is really all about money and how to delay expense or push it off to someone else.
Nature has no problem cycling carbon and we have the technology to accelerate plant life healthily through ag with natural cycles and sequester double what we emit now but there is not enough interest or money in it for certain people.
These arguments will be played out ferociously where money is to be made by winning now. Good luck, but I see a lot more frustration in your future…!
What a shame that Arups have dropped Bull Durham's ball. Conflating upfront and operational carbon (ie whole life carbon assessments) is a category error like mixing apples and oranges. Most easily understood by the fourth measure, being largely ignored or played down, as the carbon molecule emitted in building a (passiv) house that tips us over the edge could not be offset by reduced carbon emissions over the next 60 years. I don't see anybody arguing that there might be potentially catastrophic tipping points as carbon emissions increase?
Great read about the frustrations of all of this, thank you. I see an issue that we are given more and more of our responsibility to the arbitrariness of science. We made up science, we made up math, and we can make it say just about anything and not really be sure if down the line we are not to find out that the science and math of today is incorrect. It's difficult, but I think we need to turn more towards our gut feelings, does it make sense to you. Does it make sense to me to chose the 3 layer glazing in this project or not. For there will never a way to ultimately know, so how to train architects and engineers in much more than numbers? To make it also a philosophical decision.
In this sense, I think the most sustainable skyscraper in Manhattan is not the new all electric 270 Park Ave JP Morgan Chase building to come, but the Woolworth Building as it's been there for +100 years.