News

Green Sky Thinking: Can construction really be sustainable?

Construction has the potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but only if it is open to innovation and holistic approach to change, according to product manufacturer David Ball.

Green Sky Thinking

According to a recent report from the Construction Industry Council, 68% of construction professionals think not enough is being done to reduce carbon emissions in the industry. 

It is a finding that came as no surprise to the panellists at a Green Sky Thinking week event in London last month at which the fundamental question, “Can construction really be sustainable?” was chewed over.

“For these emissions targets to be met we must look to each and every industry for potential savings. The construction industry is one such area that can support these changes.” David Ball

The panel of industry experts, chaired by Leo Johnson, PwC head of sustainability and brother of London Mayor Boris Johnson, agreed that now is the time to act. 

David Ball, founder and chairman of product manufacturer David Ball Group led the call for action on the panel which included Dr. Mike de Silva, Sustainability Manager at Crossrail, Gary Young, partner at Farrells Architects and Dr. Gavin Dunn, Director of BREEAM.

“The recent EU climate change package gives us 15 years to right the wrongs of decades of damage and destruction and cut our greenhouse gas emissions by 40% by 2030,” said Ball as the panel discussed the development of innovative products, the role of codes and standards and how to embed sustainability throughout projects and company strategy. 

According to Ball, the construction industry remains dedicated to reducing its greenhouse gas emissions, with the cement industry alone improving its Climate Change Agreement performance by 33% over 1990 energy levels by using alternative fuels. 

“There needs to be a holistic approach if current practices are to change,” said Ball. 

“For these emissions targets to be met we must look to each and every industry for potential savings,” he added. “The construction industry is one such area that can support these changes.”

“As an industry, we need to start looking at solutions holistically. Instead of ‘chasing’ a single sustainability metric like embedded carbon, we need to look to the carbon of the buildings life, from creation all the way through to demolition." David Ball.

Currently the production of cement is the third highest man-made producer of CO2, after transportation and energy and the construction industry spends trillions on the refurbishment and maintenance of buildings to make them more efficient. 

Action to drive forward lower carbon solutions and products is crucial said Ball.

“The construction industry has already taken steps to achieve this, with green innovations developing throughout the industry. Both the cement and concrete industries are at the forefront of this drive to a more sustainable legacy from the built environment,” he told the audience of engineers, architects and planners.

“As an industry, we need to start looking at solutions holistically. Instead of ‘chasing’ a single sustainability metric like embedded carbon, we need to look to the carbon of the buildings life, from creation all the way through to demolition. Introducing standards in this area is essential to ensure this change in behaviour,”? he added.

The event also heard evidence that investment groups also now increasingly recognise that construction plays a large role in sustainability. 

A recent study by Morgan Stanley Institute for Sustainable, the discussion heard, suggested that 71% of the population are interested in sustainable investment; however individual investors have a positive, but conflicted, view of sustainable investing.

The event highlighted that fact that the green economy has a significant growth potential, especially for those in the construction sector where analysts suggest that global building revenue will rise by 23% annually in the next three years to be worth $290 billion by 2017. 

This growing demand for green building projects presents companies with an opportunity, to generate additional revenue streams, if green construction is one of its core capabilities, said the panel, highlighting studies which confirm increased revenue from sustainable structures.

Low carbon is therefore a genuine driver for the construction industry to adopt sustainable practices, speakers concluded.

“The debate was a great opportunity for industry leaders across the various sectors to come together to voice their opinions. It was also excellent to see active planning for the future by working together to come up with potential solutions to solve the problem,” said Ball.

If you would like to contact Antony Oliver about this, or any other story, please email antony.oliver@infrastructure-intelligence.com.

Comments

I would suggest that there are 5 aspects to sustainable building ; land, materials, energy, plant equipment and time.I would raise the issue that some aspects of planning, waste and conland are reducing the recycling of many brownfield and contaminated sites. Building on green belt is likely to increase infrastructure costs more than building on brownfield sites. Britain is a highly densely populated country and lack of land is the most important aspect. Building on green belt reduces agricultural production. Consequently areas which have already been built upon need to be recycled. Archaelology shows that some sites have been built upon since the Norman, if not Roman times, and stone or bricks recycled and used in later structures. However, one would not expect a family of Norman descent to still live in a wooden Motte and Bailey Castle or even the stone structure which replaced it, as they would be cold, damp and drafty and cost a fortune to heat. I would argue that many buildings such as workers cottages, farm buildings and large late Victorian and Edwardian need to be recycled as it is difficult to produce dry,warm and cheap to run homes for modern families . Many workers cottages are too small, damp and poorly lit for modern families. Farm buildings were often poorly made and are difficult to insulate. Many large late Victorian houses are difficult to maintain, insulate and convert into sensibly sized flats with ceilings not more than 8-9ft high. Any gardens larger than about 0.25 acres require keen gardeners as owners and/or paid help. How much conland, when only dealing with soil, produces extra cost and complexity and does not produce a risk to health? Risk to health in the UK is largely due eating too much and not doing enough exercise and very rarely conland. How much waste regulation just produces extra cost and just makes green field development more attractive than brownfield development? How much ecological legislation when related to animals such as badgers, bats, wild birds and butterflies produces little benefit? Preventing homes being built on the greenbelt is more likely to help animals than anything else as it saves habitats.
I would suggest that there are 5 aspects to sustainable building ; land, materials, energy, plant equipment and time.I would raise the issue that some aspects of planning, waste and conland are reducing the recycling of many brownfield and contaminated sites. Building on green belt is likely to increase infrastructure costs more than building on brownfield sites. Britain is a highly densely populated country and lack of land is the most important aspect. Building on green belt reduces agricultural production. Consequently areas which have already been built upon need to be recycled. Archaelology shows that some sites have been built upon since the Norman, if not Roman times, and stone or bricks recycled and used in later structures. However, one would not expect a family of Norman descent to still live in a wooden Motte and Bailey Castle or even the stone structure which replaced it, as they would be cold, damp and drafty and cost a fortune to heat. I would argue that many buildings such as workers cottages, farm buildings and large late Victorian and Edwardian need to be recycled as it is difficult to produce dry,warm and cheap to run homes for modern families . Many workers cottages are too small, damp and poorly lit for modern families. Farm buildings were often poorly made and are difficult to insulate. Many large late Victorian houses are difficult to maintain, insulate and convert into sensibly sized flats with ceilings not more than 8-9ft high. Any gardens larger than about 0.25 acres require keen gardeners as owners and/or paid help. How much conland, when only dealing with soil, produces extra cost and complexity and does not produce a risk to health? Risk to health in the UK is largely due eating too much and not doing enough exercise and very rarely conland. How much waste regulation just produces extra cost and just makes green field development more attractive than brownfield development? How much ecological legislation when related to animals such as badgers, bats, wild birds and butterflies produces little benefit? Preventing homes being built on the greenbelt is more likely to help animals than anything else as it saves habitats.
I would suggest that there are 5 aspects to sustainable building ; land, materials, energy, plant equipment and time.I would raise the issue that some aspects of planning, waste and conland are reducing the recycling of many brownfield and contaminated sites. Building on green belt is likely to increase infrastructure costs more than building on brownfield sites. Britain is a highly densely populated country and lack of land is the most important aspect. Building on green belt reduces agricultural production. Consequently areas which have already been built upon need to be recycled. Archaelology shows that some sites have been built upon since the Norman, if not Roman times, and stone or bricks recycled and used in later structures. However, one would not expect a family of Norman descent to still live in a wooden Motte and Bailey Castle or even the stone structure which replaced it, as they would be cold, damp and drafty and cost a fortune to heat. I would argue that many buildings such as workers cottages, farm buildings and large late Victorian and Edwardian need to be recycled as it is difficult to produce dry,warm and cheap to run homes for modern families . Many workers cottages are too small, damp and poorly lit for modern families. Farm buildings were often poorly made and are difficult to insulate. Many large late Victorian houses are difficult to maintain, insulate and convert into sensibly sized flats with ceilings not more than 8-9ft high. Any gardens larger than about 0.25 acres require keen gardeners as owners and/or paid help. How much conland, when only dealing with soil, produces extra cost and complexity and does not produce a risk to health? Risk to health in the UK is largely due eating too much and not doing enough exercise and very rarely conland. How much waste regulation just produces extra cost and just makes green field development more attractive than brownfield development? How much ecological legislation when related to animals such as badgers, bats, wild birds and butterflies produces little benefit? Preventing homes being built on the greenbelt is more likely to help animals than anything else as it saves habitats.
I would suggest that there are 5 aspects to sustainable building ; land, materials, energy, plant equipment and time.I would raise the issue that some aspects of planning, waste and conland are reducing the recycling of many brownfield and contaminated sites. Building on green belt is likely to increase infrastructure costs more than building on brownfield sites. Britain is a highly densely populated country and lack of land is the most important aspect. Building on green belt reduces agricultural production. Consequently areas which have already been built upon need to be recycled. Archaelology shows that some sites have been built upon since the Norman, if not Roman times, and stone or bricks recycled and used in later structures. However, one would not expect a family of Norman descent to still live in a wooden Motte and Bailey Castle or even the stone structure which replaced it, as they would be cold, damp and drafty and cost a fortune to heat. I would argue that many buildings such as workers cottages, farm buildings and large late Victorian and Edwardian need to be recycled as it is difficult to produce dry,warm and cheap to run homes for modern families . Many workers cottages are too small, damp and poorly lit for modern families. Farm buildings were often poorly made and are difficult to insulate. Many large late Victorian houses are difficult to maintain, insulate and convert into sensibly sized flats with ceilings not more than 8-9ft high. Any gardens larger than about 0.25 acres require keen gardeners as owners and/or paid help. How much conland, when only dealing with soil, produces extra cost and complexity and does not produce a risk to health? Risk to health in the UK is largely due eating too much and not doing enough exercise and very rarely conland. How much waste regulation just produces extra cost and just makes green field development more attractive than brownfield development? How much ecological legislation when related to animals such as badgers, bats, wild birds and butterflies produces little benefit? Preventing homes being built on the greenbelt is more likely to help animals than anything else as it saves habitats.
I would suggest that there are 5 aspects to sustainable building ; land, materials, energy, plant equipment and time.I would raise the issue that some aspects of planning, waste and conland are reducing the recycling of many brownfield and contaminated sites. Building on green belt is likely to increase infrastructure costs more than building on brownfield sites. Britain is a highly densely populated country and lack of land is the most important aspect. Building on green belt reduces agricultural production. Consequently areas which have already been built upon need to be recycled. Archaelology shows that some sites have been built upon since the Norman, if not Roman times, and stone or bricks recycled and used in later structures. However, one would not expect a family of Norman descent to still live in a wooden Motte and Bailey Castle or even the stone structure which replaced it, as they would be cold, damp and drafty and cost a fortune to heat. I would argue that many buildings such as workers cottages, farm buildings and large late Victorian and Edwardian need to be recycled as it is difficult to produce dry,warm and cheap to run homes for modern families . Many workers cottages are too small, damp and poorly lit for modern families. Farm buildings were often poorly made and are difficult to insulate. Many large late Victorian houses are difficult to maintain, insulate and convert into sensibly sized flats with ceilings not more than 8-9ft high. Any gardens larger than about 0.25 acres require keen gardeners as owners and/or paid help. How much conland, when only dealing with soil, produces extra cost and complexity and does not produce a risk to health? Risk to health in the UK is largely due eating too much and not doing enough exercise and very rarely conland. How much waste regulation just produces extra cost and just makes green field development more attractive than brownfield development? How much ecological legislation when related to animals such as badgers, bats, wild birds and butterflies produces little benefit? Preventing homes being built on the greenbelt is more likely to help animals than anything else as it saves habitats.