What standards should we adopt to go carbon neutral?

One of the most difficult aspects of tackling climate emergency as a profession is knowing which standards to apply to reach the goals. There is a lot of conflicting and competing advice about how to move forward, although most people agree that existing standards and regulations will be insufficient for us to achieve the 2050 Paris targets.

So what actually are those targets, and how can we assess our current progress towards them?

According to Climate Action Tracker: 

“The central objective of the Paris Agreement is its long-term temperature goal to hold global average temperature increase to ‘well below 2°C above preindustrial levels and pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels’.”

And the IPCC asserts that:

“Limiting global warming to 1.5°C would require ‘rapid and far-reaching’ transitions in land, energy, industry, buildings, transport, and cities. Global net human-caused emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) would need to fall by about 45 percent from 2010 levels by 2030, reaching ‘net zero’ around 2050. This means that any remaining emissions would need to be balanced by removing CO2 from the air.”

Australia’s stated commitment to reaching those goals - in 2030 and 2050 - is complicated, because emissions from the Land use, land-use change, and forestry (LULUCF) sector are uncertain, and subject to unforeseen variations such as the carbon emissions released during recent bushfires. 

Photo by Octavian Catană on Unsplash

Climate Action Tracker states: 

“Australia’s Paris Agreement target is 26-28% reduction below 2005 levels by 2030 (including LULUCF). With current policies total emissions including LULUCF are projected to be about 7% below 2005 levels by 2030, rising from 15% below in 2013 the last full year before the present government repealed the carbon pricing system. After factoring out the highly uncertain LULUCF sector to focus on energy and industry emissions Australia’s Paris Agreement target translates to a 14-16% decrease from 2005 levels by 2030. Under current policies, Australian emissions are headed for an increase of 8% above 2005 levels by 2030 (excluding LULUCF), and if rated would be “highly insufficient”.

Put simply, the federal government’s current plan to reach the 2030 Paris target isn’t going to deliver on the goal.

Which is why every State government, many local governments, and some major businesses – plus the Labor Party, last week - have committed to Net Zero emissions by 2050. They join more than 70 countries that have previously made this pledge.

But what’s still missing are actionable targets to reach the more critical 2030 ambition.

The Federal government has mapped out a strategy (not a target) to reach the 2050 Paris target goal (without committing to net zero, yet) that focusses on the development and implementation of new technologies, rather than shifting or transitioning away from current practices to reduce emissions. 

So, with such a vacuum in national leadership, it seems unlikely that the Architecture profession can look to its governing structures – namely the Building Codes Board and its National Construction Code – to provide meaningful direction in relation to climate emergency.

However, some people believe that government may still provide the desired leadership. Speaking in Melbourne at the Architects Declare meeting two weeks ago, Darren O’Dea – an ESD engineer – called for upcoming changes to the NCC (which is due to be updated again in 2022, following full adoption of its 2019 update in May this year) to align with the Paris targets, as a way of providing a useful roadmap and level playing field.

But architects I’ve spoken with suggested that the NCC – which hasn’t been substantially updated since 2016, and which is largely based on standards adopted in 2010 – is not the most suitable vehicle-to drive the necessary change we need to see in the world.

My understanding of the NCC is that it’s addresses the lowest common denominator - bringing up the bottom of the market to a minumum standard, but that it doesn’t foster or reward innovation at the forefront of the industry, which is what we need now.

So if architects can’t rely on government to provide the roadmap, who can they turn to?

Perhaps clients will drive the necessary change…

The stated position of the Australian Climate Roundtable – whose members include diverse organisations such as the Australian Aluminium Council, Australian Conservation Foundation, Australian Council of Social Service, Australian Council of Trade Unions, Australian Energy Council, Australian Industry Group, Business Council of Australia, Investor Group on Climate Change, National Farmers’ Federation and WWF Australia – suggests that clients will lead the way, regardless of government’s recalcitrance.

Heck, even one of Australia’s largest single polluters - Rio Tinto - announced last week that it would “invest around $1 billion over the next five years to support the delivery of its new climate change targets and a company objective for net-zero emissions from operations by 2050.”

So what is your architecture practice doing to upskill for this new operating environment, and to prepare for this new #ClimateEmergency normal?