But, is it scalable?

September 30, 2022 Kiran Pereira

'But, is it scalable?' is one of the frequently asked questions whenever the topic of solutions to the sand crisis comes up. There are many solutions, especially when one considers place-based solutions. But as Recommendation 3 in the UNEP's 2022 ‘Sand and Sustainability’ Report highlights, unless systemic barriers to any alternatives are addressed, we will only see pockets of hope instead of widespread change.

One of the key barriers in many regions is a lack of regulation on embodied carbon in construction. In plain terms, embodied carbon is all the carbon emitted behind the scenes to extract materials, process them, and build, maintain, repair, demolish and dispose of a building.

Why does this matter?

Embodied carbon often represents around 50-70% of a new building’s lifetime emissions. Lack of regulation on embodied carbon is a glaring omission that favours the status quo of building with high carbon materials like cement, steel and glass despite overwhelming evidence of the climate crisis, the biodiversity crisis and the toxic trail of pollution. Alternatives such as retrofit efforts or low-carbon materials often face regulatory hurdles and misaligned tax incentives, which makes their uptake challenging. Of course, as stated in a previous piece, focusing on low-carbon cement alone is insufficient. These solutions do not explicitly address the looming sand crisis. Nonetheless, it is certainly one of the steps in the right direction.

Let’s examine the context in the UK. The Government aims to build 300,000 new homes a year. It has also recently relaxed planning regulations to permit the demolition and rebuilding of vacant and redundant residential and commercial buildings - a move that has been criticised widely. The built environment is responsible for approximately 25% of total UK greenhouse gas emissions. But the UK also has a historic role in increasing global emissions through industrialisation. The country has a legally binding target to reach net zero by 2050 and at COP26 the Government committed to achieving 68% reductions in carbon emissions by 2030. In terms of biodiversity, the 6th National Report to the Convention on Biological Diversity shows that the UK fails to meet 15 out of 20 of the targets and notes that “There is an overall picture of ongoing species decline, although perhaps not at the rate seen in previous decades”. Some UK species have declined by over 90% since 1970. There are also huge implications for people in the country. The UK’s building stock remains one of the most inefficient in Europe. Poor building design and the cost of living crisis are compounding fuel poverty. The list could go on.

Yet, as the UK Green Building Council states, ‘there is currently nothing in national policy that requires embodied carbon emissions to be measured, let alone reduced’. Several industry leaders have been calling on the government to update building regulations. (See links to Part Z and written submissions from LETI, Architects Declare, UKGBC and ASBP below.)

In May 2022, the Environmental Audit Committee (EAC), tasked with monitoring and auditing policies, programmes and the performance of government departments and non-departmental public bodies vis-a-vis sustainable development and environmental protection targets, published a report titled ‘Building to net zero: costing carbon in construction’. The report highlighted 5 broad themes on how the sustainability of the built environment in the UK could be improved. The summary explicitly states:

“…there is availability of low-carbon building products to meet current demand, however, there are insufficient incentives to develop and use these materials…
• Thirdly, the Government states it is promoting the benefits of re-using and retrofitting buildings ahead of demolition, but we have seen insufficient evidence of this being the case. The expansion of permitted development rights to allow for demolitions was introduced without proper consideration of its potential impact on carbon emissions and is resulting in buildings being demolished without understanding the whole-life carbon impact. To address these issues, the single most significant policy the Government could introduce is a mandatory requirement to undertake whole-life carbon assessments for buildings. This requirement should be set within building regulations and the planning system…”.

The Government published its response to the report on 30 Sep and the good news is that they appear willing to explore whole-life carbon assessments and introduce progressive targets to reduce emissions. They will also consider the role of circular economy principles while reviewing national planning policy. So ‘Carbon assessments of buildings and targets to boost low carbon construction could come within years.’ It should be interesting to see how these changes influence the use of alternatives.

What might our answer be to the question ‘But, is it scalable?’?
Is ‘scaling up’ in terms of promoting a uniform material choice, the right goal? Is there scope to embrace diversity in our material choices instead of seeking a wonder material/silver bullet/one-size-fits-all kind of solution?
What might that look like?

References: