Elemental

Image via Archinect

There’s been a bit of a storm in the green building press stateside over the past couple of months. Frank Gehry, godlike architect in some eyes, had the tenacity to criticise LEED.

Businessweek reported:

What would you think, Pritzker asked him as they sat in hard-backed chairs on an auditorium stage, if a client said he wanted a LEED-certified building? “Oh, great,” Gehry answered in a high, mock-excited voice, as the audience laughed. Then, back in his regular voice, he dismissed environmental concerns as largely political concerns. “A lot of LEEDs are given for bogus stuff. A lot of the things they do really don’t save energy.”

He also said the expense of building to LEED standards often outweighs the benefits. On smaller projects, he said, “the costs of incorporating those kind of things don’t pay back in your lifetime.”

I would possibly caution against reading the comments after the article – some highly caustic vitriol which had me splurting coffee on my keyboard! Instead, read this comment, from another blog commenting on Gehry:

A well designed building will meet LEED easily; but there are certainly a lot of buildings designed to meet LEED that are anything but well designed.

Exactly! And the same can be said for BREEAM, or any other certification system.

LEED and BREEAM both suffer from the same bias with regards to human behaviour and our decision making ability when faced with complex issues. If we can frame a basket of issues in terms of a single score, rating or mark, we will. So LEED and BREEAM become convenient shorthand for ‘proving’ your building is green. Simplifying complex issues inevitably opens up the potential for criticism. And the criticism has been flowing recently – Freakonomics has taken a pop at LEED. This op-ed in the New York Times takes a balanced view, pointing out where the system has been ‘abused’:

Such market-driven motives wouldn’t matter — if LEED in fact measured energy performance. But it can’t: some certified buildings end up using much more energy than the evaluators predicted, because the buildings are more popular than expected or busy at different times than developers forecast, or because tenants ignore or misuse green features. Bike racks merely encourage cycling to work, and operable windows merely offer the opportunity to use less air-conditioning.

This is a valid criticism of both LEED and BREEAM and something we will continue to see more of – evidence  that the building actually performs as designed. LEED-EBOM seems to be the winner stateside – the situation is not so clear here in the UK with BREEAM In Use a contender in a rather larger field which may get sidelined by DEC’s (I will expand on this in another post sometime).

Back to the Gehry storm. Susan S. Szenasy at Metropolis magazine took great offence at Gehry’s remarks, making comparisons between environmental concerns in buildings today with the issue of disabled access 20 years ago. Fred Bernstein at ArchNewsNow.com (a resource I cannot recommend highly enough for daily global architectural digest – though they are sorely missing a trick by not including an RSS feed) countered with a very persuasive argument regards politics, planning decisions and LEED:

Using LEED as a measure of “sustainability” has allowed society to avoid tough questions – tough political questions – about what it should and shouldn’t build.

This is a danger we must at all costs avoid in the UK – and whilst the new administration has voiced a “a presumption in favour of sustainable development”, it would be a mistake to assume that BREEAM alone ensures a sustainable development.

Gehry responded to the criticism, at Businessweek:

Yes, he did say that efforts to win a Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design certification can be a waste of time and money. But he told me on the phone that what he really meant to attack was the posturing around the LEED seal of approval. He’s all for energy-efficient buildings, he said, and has been since before there was an Earth Day, in the late 1960s.

Though he reiterated that he had never designed a building just to gain a LEED tag, he noted, in fact, that his Stata Center at MIT has been awarded a LEED silver from the U.S. Green Building Council.

“I’m not against LEEDs at all,” he said. “I think it’s wonderful. I think we’ve got to do this.” But then Gehry, who acknowledged that he is something of a cranky old man, got back on a soapbox to decry today’s automatic embrace of LEED certification. “It’s become ‘fetishized’ in my profession. It’s like if you wear the American flag on your lapel, you’re an American. That’s what I was trying to say. You get people who are holier than thou. I think architects can do a lot, but some of what gets done is marketing and doesn’t really serve to the extent that the PR says it does.”

Bless him, he called it “LEEDs”, but I think he nailed the sentiment dead on. Green certification is, and never will be, a substitute for good design. And I say this as someone who makes the majority of my living from certifying “green” buildings!

admin Opinion Frank Gehry, LEED

So the election has been called for May 6th. Despite the statutory instrument being laid down before the election was called (to allow work to continue between now and the election and prevent purdah kicking in) things are still looking very quiet over at CLG.

To alleviate the drumming of fingers on tables as we all wait with baited breath, the Consultation Responses have been released. You can read the 264 page pdf here.

I won’t go into the entire detail but pick out some interesting points re: SBEM and DSM which I have pulled out below. These points won’t make it in for 2010, but perhaps 2013 will see the demise of SBEM (we live in hope).

The SBEM calculation engine is based on a monthly energy balance that can only ever be a crude approximation to how the building performs. Yet energy assessors are required to gather large amounts of data and the proposals for Part L 2010 exacerbate this. There is a mistaken belief that adding more data and complexity will improve accuracy. There are two possible alternative options:

i. Simplify SBEM and greatly reduce the amount of data required, thereby recognising it can only ever be a simple comparison tool to allow a building’s performance to be compared with a reference building. There is much data currently required that has little effect on the rating and an aim should be to reduce the information required perhaps by 50%.

ii. Recognise that SBEM was only ever going to be a stopgap measure and encourage the development of software tools that can produce EPCs and BRUKL reports from realistic computer models that can be also be used for design. These tools could be used to realistically assess the effectiveness of improvement measures which should be the main output of the recommendation report. The recommendation report needs to be made more prominent and summary recommendations shown on the EPC.

This is an important point to remember when doing concept and initial calculations – the accuracy of the calculation needs to be appropriate to the scale of the problem. If you are trying to figure out baseline figures on figures to the nearest 5kWh/m², there’s no point in calculating to the nearest 6 decimal points. I was recently reminded of the excellent book Chaos: Making a New Science by James Gleick which makes a similar point:

The choice is always the same.  You can make your model more complex and more faithful to reality, or you can make it simpler and easier to handle.  Only the most naive scientist believes that the perfect model is the one that perfectly represents reality. Such a model would have the same drawbacks as a map as large and detailed as the city it represents, a map depicting every park, every street, every building, every tree, every pothole, every inhabitant, and every map.  Were such a map possible, its specificity would defaet its purpose: to generalise and abstract. Mapmakers highlight such features as their clients choose.  Whatever their purpose, maps and models must simplify as much as they mimic the world.

I really recommend the book – it explains the pitfalls of complexity perfectly.

This is a conversation I think we need to continue to have when it comes to BIM, SBEM and DSM in the near future. The consultation responses give me heart. Here is another point which was made:

There are reservations about the ability of SBEM to model low and zero carbon buildings in a robust manner. Dynamic simulation should be more heavily incentivised and eventually made mandatory. For example, the current SBEM software is not capable of modelling fabric designs that employ passive measures or intelligent or active facades to reduce solar gains. Indicating compliance in the software with a “yes” or “no” does not provide any guidance on how fabric performance can be improved. Experience suggests that daylight savings are much more effective in reducing CO2 emissions than marginal improvements in heat loss, especially when heat recovery is implemented, but this is not reflected in the cSBEM methodology.

Whilst I’m all in favour of using simplified tools where they are appropriate (see my point about scale above), many of the current problems with SBEM* stem from the fact that it is being substituted as a design tool rather than being used purely as a compliance tool (it’s initial purpose). We can either improve the compliance tool so it can be used for design also, or rethink the entire approach. A suite of DSM tools, with differing levels of detail seem the most logical solution to me. One model gets constantly refines throughout the work flow (in an ideal world) rather than one model being forced to do tasks it was never set up for.

Thoughts anyone?

*worth reading the whole post on Pathethic Part L

admin Opinion, Regulation CLG, Part L

The BBC managed to ire me on Sunday with this news item on vocational training at 14. I was in the car and the news (on Radio 2) kept insisting on calling engineering a ‘vocation’. No wonder engineering has an image problem. They could have chosen to talk about actual vocations, such as hairdressing, car mechanics or cookery. But no, they insisted on referring to engineering.

I do think it would be a mistake to concentrate on vocational ‘streaming’ at 14 – but why couldn’t the technical colleges be for very high standards of STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics), rather than vocational? That’s what I think we need desperately.

Engineering is a profession in the UK (despite what the BBC might think). To be chartered with the Engineering Council a minimum qualification of MEng is now required.There is of course more than one route to chartership, but those have ‘come off the tools’ in a more vocational route need to pass onerous interviews and essay writing. Despite this, engineering still suffers with misperceptions such as those the newsreader was promoting.

Back in June 2009 I linked to the Engineering Council’s Sustainability Guide. It is worth reiterating the principles professional engineers are supposed to undertake with regards to sustainability:

1. Contribute to building a sustainable society, present and future
2. Apply professional and responsible judgement and take a leadership role
3. Do more than just comply with legislation and codes
4. Use resources efficiently and effectively
5. Seek multiple views to solve sustainability challenges
6. Manage risk to minimise adverse impact to people or the environment

If you are interested in voicing opinions on this and broader issues on science, I am pleased to see that science is raising it’s head in the upcoming election campaigning. Let’s all try to improve the image of engineering in the UK…

admin Opinion ECUK, Engineering, STEM

Unless you have been under a rock for the past few weeks, you can’t have failed to notice the latest undiginified mud-slinging match between parties who are all allegedly “on the same side”. Putting aside what these puerile rants do for the image of the industry (have we learnt nothing from climate-gate?), who said what and when?

I’ll start with a chronological canter through the articles in question:

1 March George Monbiot in the Guardian’s Comment is Free (CiF): “Are we really going to let ourselves be duped into this solar panel rip-off?” George rubbishes micro-generation (not the only voice to have said this, by any means) and then accuses the FiT of being a middle class salve (I think I’ve read this somewhere before – has George been ripping of Casey’s blog or are they just on the same page..). George also makes the very valid point that energy efficiency measures are not required before qualifying for the FiT, which is a massive lost opportunity (coupled with the loss of consequential improvements from Part L 2010 – maddeningly shortsighted). As usual with George, the article errs on the side of contentious, which is what we know him for.

3 March Jeremy Leggett respoonds (again in CiF) with: “Solar panels are not fashion accessories” Jeremy lobs back most of George’s criticisms (level-headedly) but as one commenter says, Jeremy sells PV. He is not exactly an independent voice. However, he does make the point that: “we would want to mix and match renewable technologies – large and small, onshore and offshore – so matching loads and compensating for the fact that solar generates by day and not by night”. I’m not sure he has the numbers entirely correct, again, one of the commenters refers to MacKay’s Sustainable Energy – Without the Hot Air. Essential reading if you are interested in this topic.

5 March George responds on his Guardian blog: “There is no ‘green treachery’ in questioning this solar panel rip-off” George reproaches Jeremy on the jobs issue and the maths of who pays what, when. It would be interesting to know if George would support PV on a PAYS system, rather than a FiT?

5 March Alan Simpson (a Labour MP) weighs in against George, again on CiF, with: “Not the great green rip-off, by George” His key point is: “The whole purpose of FiTs is to develop a momentum for renewable energy technologies that will quickly turn them from innovations to mature market technologies.”

9 March Jeremy responds to George’s wager on CiF: “I accept George Monbiot’s £100 solar PV bet” By now my enthusiasm for the debate is seriously beginning to wane and I’m not sure how much more back and froing I can put up with…

11 March George’s final piece on his Guardian blog: “Solar PV has failed in Germany and it will fail in the UK” George tries to bring the debate to a close, and my impression is that it is not necessarily the technology he has a major problem with, but the FiT mechanism. Unfortunately, a bit late to voice that one – we’ve been consulting on this for what feel like forever (I wonder if George submitted a response to the consultations…) and the FiT begins on 1 April. George’s main beef is sound economics 101: “Money spent on ineffective solutions is not just a waste: it’s also a lost opportunity”.

18 March Jonathon Porritt decides to weigh in on his blog: “The war of words over home-produced electricity feed-in tariffs could cost dearly” and doesn’t address anything except the mud-slinging, which in turn drags Monbiot out to defend himself against Porritt, which is something I never imagined in a million years.

18 March Jeremy appears to have the last say, with an article in the ‘real’ Guardian: “Feed-in tariffs are not suppressing innovation in Germany or the UK” And by now, I really just can’t be bothered and am bored by the whole thing…

Now, CiF is not exactly a hotbed of level headed debate, but some of the comments on the posts are astounding. I don’t know why I read debates like this as it only makes me cross and I end up shouting at the laptop, much to the annoyance of colleagues and loved ones who share my personal space.

I did debate what I was adding to the proceedings by blogging this. Luckily, I don’t need to work out the maths as Chris Goodall has done so here. He comes out in favour of wind (not I might add a poxy turbine attached to a roof, but a 50kW stand-alone turbine – still much small than wind farm scale). And another blog (which I’d not visited in so long I’d forgotten it existed) by David Thorpe (aka Low Carbon Kid) which again covers more maths in defence of George’s argument. And then Mark Brinkley has a sideways analysis which explores the camps in terms of their support for or against nuclear power.

I did want to make some key points:

• whilst debate is healthy and to be encouraged, doing so on the pages of CiF is (IMO) either incredibly naive or an wilfully incendiary act. I’m still trying to find out of the original Monbiot piece was commissioned or sent of his own volition…
• black and white solutions DO NOT EXIST when it comes to carbon reductions – we are going to have to do lots and lots of everything, context is relevant to which actions are most appropriate to each situation; and polarising statements, whilst easy to sell to the public and politicians, are not particularly helpful
• Carbon reduction is not the only factor in installing on-site renewables. Energy security and economic stimulation (see Alan Simpson’s statement above) are also cited (in PPS22). If the building is seeking a BREEAM rating there is a further incentive to install renewables under ENE5 (on a percentage reduction of carbon). Merton rules in planning additionally mandate the installation of renewables. Now, on occasion, Merton rules have been put in place without due thought being given to the appropriateness of what the consequences are, again stimulating the installation of PV (for example) as the only solution for a site. Not because it is the most economic, but because there is no other physical opportunity to install an alternative, but to meet the planning condition something must be installed. The FiT will probably not change this – except to make the payback better than it was before. Whilst all the sterling maths that the blogosphere have done with regards to cost and carbon stack up, there is no easy, standard way to factor in these other issues. A problem highlighted in this research. If we can crack this conundrum, the rights and wrongs of FiT won’t really matter…
• all this nonsense would be silenced by an across the board carbon tax, rather than tinkering about with tariffs and incentives (I know it’s not going to happen, but maybe if we say it often enough…)

The feed-in-tariffs come into force on 1 April.

admin Opinion FiT, George Monbiot, Jeremy Leggett

Interesting news spotted in my current issue of CIBSE Journal that the Head of Sustainability role at Buro Happold which was recently advertised has been filled by Dan Phillips of the SEA. SEA are described in the press release as a design and innovation consultancy. Dan is an engineer by background, working for Battle McCarthy back in the mid-90′s, and Arup’s prior to that.

The reason I am blogging about this is it is fascinating to me that Buro Happold have opted for someone with a broader skillset than pure technical engineering. SEA will clearly have given Dan ‘softer’ skills. This appointment is similar in some ways to BDP‘s replacement of Trevor Butler with Richard Buckingham.

This blog has always had the strapline of ‘communicating’ sustainable solutions for a built environment, and it is increasingly being the case that pure technical ability is not enough to succeed in the sustainable built environment arena. Softer skills – communication, empathy and personability – are becoming at least as important as technical knowhow. Can these skills be learned? While not all soft skills come naturally or easy to most people, over time they can be honed.

admin Opinion

There were a lot of mergers and acquisitions in the last decade. Last year alone we saw DEGW merge with Davis Langdon, Parsons Brinckerhoff acquired by Balfour Beatty and Fulcrum merge with Mott MacDonalds. Earlier in the decade Whitby Bird, Hilson Moran and RYB:Konsult all, in different ways changed company ownership, mostly in order to reward their founders.

Building services consultancy is not the place to find get rich quick entrepreneurs. If it was, founders would be targeting IPO, and companies would be floating on the stock market. This doesn’t happen because consultancy is a fairly mature market and the average profitability of companies in the sector is low – somewhere between 5-10%. Typically, founders build up their companies because they love what they do, not because they want to become a millionaire. But the day (usually) comes when they want to retire. There is nothing wrong in founders wanting to exit a business and wanting to be rewarded for the work they have done in setting it up. But in the current economic climate, what options are available to them? And what of the staff who are left behind?

The tried and tested option used to be the partnership. It’s a common model in both architecture and consultancy. But I think partnerships are increasingly a less attractive option as employees increasingly cannot afford to buy into the company (effectively buying out the top layer of partners to finance their retirement). There are plenty still around – for example Gifford has 51 working partners, and as a company is 59 years old. The expansion in number of partners took place fairly fast over the past 2 years, and in theory defends them against predators.

But what if your staff cannot afford to buy out the top layer? What are your options then?

Merging with a larger organisation (who are interested in gaining the staff and probably your reputation) seems to have been the favoured route for consultancies in the noughties. Whilst good for the exiting founders (and despite protestations that the merger is in everyone’s interests, blah, blah, blah – they do tend to exit the merged company within 3 years), is it good for the staff?

Scott Berkun has a great post on why big companies can suck:

Status quo / Follower mentality – The bigger a company gets, the more it’s main attractive power for new employees is job security, rather than opportunity to grow, learn or take risks. The Innovator’s dilemma is real, and leaders who have big success are often the last to recognize when it’s time to move on. For anyone interested in progress, risk taking, change or growth potential, a large company is incredibly frustrating, as the dominant psychology is one of play it safe and political correctness. A running joke at Microsoft used to be that the best way to get a product idea to ship at Microsoft was to have a competitor do it first.

Some figures suggest M&A successes are as low as a third. Whilst this is US data, I suspect a similar picture is found in the UK. So not only do the staff gets disillusioned and leave, but the acquirer loses the key thing he bought – in a knowledge industry – your people are your assets.

So what will the next decade bring? There will undoubtedly be more acquisitions. Some disillusioned employees will leave and set up their own practices. But company structures may have to change to reward both founders and employees. Perhaps given the very low profit margins in the industry we would be better to look at alternative forms of legal enterprise (community interest companies)?

admin Management, Opinion Balfour Beatty, Fulcrum, Mergers and acquisitions, Mott MacDonald, Parsons Brinckerhoff, Scott Berkun

One would have to be living under a rock (or at least, abroad) not to have noticed that there will be a general election in the UK sometime in the next 6 months. What will this mean for the construction industry? Plenty of speculation about, but not much talk about actual political and economic schools of thought, especially when it comes to sustainability.

First things first. There is no standalone discipline of sustainability. Basically, you have to be sustainable at something. Like sustainable construction. But even if you are committed to sustainable construction there is no ‘one correct way’ to practice sustainability. What is one man’s medicine is another man’s poison. Often what differentiates ‘flavours’ of sustainability is the economic and political beliefs and drivers of the actors involved.

Bill McKibben in a post about global warming says:

Most political arguments don’t really have a right and a wrong, no matter how passionately they’re argued. They’re about human preferences…

He does then state that we can’t afford to depend on current political processes to fix global warming, which I agree with, but I’m talking here about sustainability in it’s broadest sense rather than singly focussing on the carbon and global warming issues (the environmental leg, which we have broad consensus on). When it comes to sustainability, there really is no right and wrong. Looking at social and economic factors will inevitably bring in political beliefs.

To illustrate what I mean, and for those who haven’t come across it, there’s a lovely graphic called the Political Compass which plots both economic and politic beliefs on it. Below is the graphic for the main political parties in the UK in 2008.

The Political Compass owes more than a nod to the Nolan Chart which plots personal freedom against economic freedom. The idea of both of these is to expand the old fashioned political notions of left and right.

The usefulness of this when looking at sustainability (think of those 3 legs – social, economic and environmental) has to be huge? If we recognise this now, we will be able to have much more informed conversations about sustainability in construction over the next decade.

My hope for 2010 would be that economics and politics will no longer be neutral factors (or worse, taboo), but rather explicit within sustainability strategies. Any comments?

admin Economics, Opinion Bill McKibben, Political Compass, politics, Sustainability

Long-time friend of the blog, Andrew Kinsey, Senior Sustainability Manager at the Athletes Village for Bovis Lend Lease, kindly invited myself and a few colleagues to have a nosey around the Athlete’s Village back at the beginning of November.
We had fantastic luck with the weather as you can see from the picture, which is a view from the rooftop viewing platform. The site is quite incredible. I know some of you will have managed to see round it during Open House in the summer, but I was not prepared for the scale of the place. It’s HUGE.

It’s also one of the cleanest, best maintained and non-threatening sites I’ve ever been on. No Pirelli calendars, builder’s butt cleavage nor wolf whistles to be witnessed. And the sense of industry? It was like being in a Richard Scarry picture book – diggers and workmen scurrying around, with a recession-busting productive atmosphere all round.

Andrew introduced us to some of the initiatives he’s been pushing forward, especially with regards to supply chain management from a sustainability perspective. He has been instrumental in driving forward the Achilles Building Confidence Contractor Accreditation with great success:

“Working in partnership with Bovis Lend Lease, Achilles has developed BuildingConfidence – a supplier pre-qualification and accreditation service for the UK construction industry.

BuildingConfidence provides benefits to buyers and suppliers by using:

• Web-based technologies to increase operational efficiencies and reduce the costs associated with pre-qualification for clients, major contractors and their suppliers
• On-site audits with industry leading auditors to help suppliers measure their own performance and share this data with their clients and major contractors.

BuildingConfidence is quickly becoming recognised as the standard for supplier excellence within the industry. Major contractors are using the service to evaluate their supply chains, drive up performance and forge longer lasting relationships with key suppliers.”

My timing for this post is impeccable, as two stories are in the news which now make much more sense and impact on me, having now visited the site.

Firstly the news that Nord’s substation has been completed. This project is the backbone of the development being, quite literally, the powerhouse for the development:

Its hard, dark, saturnine surface recalls the language of 19th century bridge and tunnel construction, examples of which are still a common feature of this post-industrial landscape. It also proves highly light reflective, with the effect that the building’s chiselled geometry is transformed into a series of starkly contrasting planes of light and shadow. This effect is made richer still by the brick’s slyly differentiated detailing. What at first appears to be an unmodulated surface proves, on closer inspection, to be divided into three strata of escalating intricacy.

The comments posted to the article show equal measures of love and hate for the building itself – a marmite of a building, if you will. I like it, but then, I’m an M&E engineer at heart – and it’s a big box around some M&E kit. What’s not to love?

The second piece of news is a report from the Commission for a Sustainable London 2012. Building magazine chose to run with the (not) shocking news that Zaha’s Aquatic Centre is not a particularly green building. Is anyone surprised by this?

The Water Cube in Beijing comprised just one quarter of the materials used by the 2012 Aquatic centre, a report examining the carbon footprint of the London 2012 Games has found.

Reading the report itself, it is clear that ‘on the ground’ a lot has been achieved. Which leads me back to the title of this post. London 2012 is a massive opportunity to test and make reality checks on aspirational targets which were set before we knew what was possible. Some targets we will meet or exceed, others we will have to revise. But the petri dish we are being offered is a fabulous opportunity to make leaps and bounds forward in our collective knowledge.

Thanks again to Andrew for being a great host!

admin Opinion 2012 Summer Olympics, Bovis Lend Lease, Carbon footprint, Green Building, Supply chain management

It was a funny old week, last week.

First we have the Clive James kerfuffle, subsequent to his essay “In praise of scepticism“. There was some dissent against James on Twitter (which I am increasingly becoming disillusioned with as a tool for proper discourse and debate – 140 characters is not enough space to make points properly unless you are phenomenally eloquent). Many were equating sceptiscism with denialism, which was overegging James’ views somewhat. But I didn’t make too much of a deal about it and trundled on.

Then we had the Tim Nicholson vs. Grainger case on Tuesday, which I will say no more about, but appears to have been one of the catalysts for what happened next.

On Wednesday night, Amanda Baillieu dared to voice dissent with regards to climate change on Twitter. Her initial tweet was:

I am becoming increasingly irritated by the green lobby and the idea that its to be treated like a religion http://is.gd/4N8sH

Followed by:

Basically believing in man made climate change is a bit like hoping that fairies live at the bottom of the garden.

There followed a fair amount of toing and froing with various parties, as I gawped from the sidelines. I pondered whether Amanda was negating low carbon design and resource efficiency along with this scepticism? Luckily she redefined how she felt in her editorial for BD on Friday. And this is when the “where is the evidence you refer to?” attacks really began to gain traction.

Now, I may disagree with Amanda (I’ve covered my Pascal’s Wager here), but like I said in that post, I tend to keep out of global warming debates – in a way, I don’t really care. In fact, if I had to embark on a global warming debate with a client every time we wanted to build anything, I’d still be staring at a blank sheet of paper. And despite currently coming down on the side of the climate change scientists, I’ve actually read a fair bit of Lomborg and Crichton, to act as a counterfoil to Monbiot and Stern (an important discipline as I outlined in my how to read non-fiction post). I suspect there may be those who have attacked Amanda’s article without reading any literature on the topic at all. Not good enough.

What many of the commenter’s fail to pick up, is that despite Amanda’s agnosticism (after all, she admits to scepticism, which whilst it might be cynical, is certainly not denial-ism) on climate change science, she still supports ‘green’ design:

“…there’s no argument that natural resources such as water need to be conserved and low-energy buildings make sense…”

So did Amanda really deserve the criticism she got in return? One of the most outraged was Justin Bere who managed to write two posts, one outlining the events on Twitter blow by blow (which is handy as now I don’t have to) and another in which he addresses the “evidence” argument. There are many others who exprssed outrage in the comments to the article (although with some showing support). But what really matters here is our actions, not the beliefs that are behind them. To quote John Stuart Mills’ “On Liberty“:

…the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinions of others, to do so would be wise, or even right. These are good reasons for remonstrating with him, or reasoning with him, or persuading him, or entreating him, but not for compelling him, or visiting him with any evil, in case he do otherwise.

In other words, one should have the freedom to think as one wishes, and to feel as one does. This includes the freedom to opinion, and includes the freedom to publish opinions (aka freedom of speech). Mills also argued that censorship harms society, not only by limiting freedom, but because a banned opinion may be true or contain some truth, or will challenge the accepted one and prevent it becoming a mere dogma.

I shouldn’t have to point out that I’m a fan of freedom of speech – and I do think contrarians have a useful role in society. Even when we have reached a consensus opinion, we should continue to scrutinize and debate. As I’ve said before:

“…perhaps there is an opportunity to use antagonists such as Michael Crichton, Bjorn Lomborg and even Tim Worstall to check our thinking. Without doing so, we run the risk of heading down cul-de-sacs unquestioningly. Question everything.”

An argument often bandied around is that websites and forums are not the proper channel to hold debates such as these. This episode highlights the drawbacks of such technology, especially twitter. But, it’s better to have some debate than to gag anyone whose opinions don’t match our own. I’ll add Amanda to my list of ‘useful contrarians’ and hope a few more people potter off to read up on Mills.

admin Opinion Amanda Baillieu, Climate Change, Clive James, global warming, John Stuart Mill, Liberty, Michael Crichton, twitter

I’ve been geeking out over my gorgeous faux leather hard bound copy of the 2009 Ashrae Handbook – Fundamentals (SI units) which recently arrived in the post. One of  the perks of ASHRAE membership is an updated copy every year of one of the handbooks on a rolling schedule (something CIBSE have started to do too in recent years).

Anyway, in this year’s tome is a new chapter – Chapter 35 SUSTAINABILITY. Under ‘Characteristics of Sustainability’ is a clarifying few paragraphs on the difference between green and sustainable buildings. For reference:

Sustainability Addresses the Future

Sustainability is focused on the distant future (e.g., 30 to 50 years). Any actions taken under the name of sustainability must address the impact of present actions on conditions likely to prevail in that future time frame.

In designing the built environment, the emphasis has often been on the present or the near future, usually in the form of capital- or first-cost impact. As is apparent when life-cycle costing analysis is applied, capital cost assumes less importance the longer the future period under consideration.

This emphasis on the distant future can differentiate sustainable design from green design. Whereas green design addresses many of the same characteristics as sustainable design, it may also emphasise near-term impacts such as indoor environmental quality, operation and maintenance features, and meeting current client needs. This, green design may focus more on the immediate future (i.e. starting when the building is first constructed and then occupied). Sustainable design is of paramount importance to the global environment in the long-term while still incorporating features of green design that focus on the present and near future.

An interesting way to slice the problem, and makes me realise (by this definition, at least), most of the stuff that I am most interested in is green design, rather than sustainable design, occupant comfort being my raison d’etre. The chapter goes on to point out that HVAC&R engineers cannot by themselves create global sustainability (however, we all need to do our bit and encourage as many others as possible), and that sustainability has many contributors, is comprehensive and that technology plays only a partial role.

As green building rating systems continue to converge (BREEAM and LEED), I find a growing interest in keeping up to date with ASHRAE, which I have always found more ‘engineery’ than CIBSE (in that their technical guidance seems to have many more equations than CIBSE).

Given ASHRAE’s definition, which rating system is more sustainable (rather than green) – LEED or BREEAM? Something I’ll poder a while longer…

admin Opinion ashrae, BREEAM, CIBSE, green, LEED, Sustainable