NEWS FROM THE FRONT DESK: Often, environmental issues – especially action on climate change – get framed as being an all-or-nothing debate.
It’s a lens that’s promoted by some parts of the environmental movement.
But it can lead to people advocating for an ideologically pure, principled position and achieving nothing, rather than at least making a small practical step in the right direction.
This binary frame also suits the oilmen and troglodytes who would rather we do nothing on climate change.
Reaching zero emissions tomorrow is not possible or practical, they argue, so instead we should just stick to business as usual.
In reality, there’s often a range of possible actions between being completely carbon neutral in every possible way and doing nothing.
The choices in this middle ground aren’t perfect, but at least they’re a start.
That being said, if we do take our first step on that middle ground, we should be careful not to immediately pull up the mission accomplished banners like we’re George W. Bush in Iraq.
But.
We also need to be upfront about the work that still needs to be done – including the bits that are tough.
National Construction Code moves to 7 Stars
Want an example of how this can play out in real life? Look no further than the latest revision of the National Construction Code, which was released last week.
One of the big debates was around whether all new homes should meet a minimum 7 Star Nationwide House Energy Rating Scheme (NatHERS) energy efficiency standard.
The HIA was strongly opposed to the change. Behind closed doors, they lobbied ministers and ministers. In public, they planted false stories in the media that a 7 Star standard in the NCC was off the agenda.
To paraphrase Alessia Cara, we’re not even broken hearted, just a little disappointed, by the HIA.
Equally opposed to the move to 7 Stars were environmental advocates who argued it should go much further.
The 7 Star NCC standard is a step forward across the middle ground.
But as Renew chief executive Dr Fiona Gray points out, while it’s an important step forward, there’s still much further to go:
“There are more steps that must be taken, and fast. We now need to expand the dialogue on sustainable housing as part of the broader transition to renewable technologies.”
We also need to be honest about the work that is yet to be done, and the parts of the transition that will be tough.
As Alan Pears points out, the big job ahead of us includes retrofitting our existing housing stock to be more energy efficient:
“The NatHERS building star rating scheme is not linear. This means that a one-star rating improvement from 1 to 2 Stars achieves a much larger energy saving than an improvement from 5 to 6 Stars,” Mr Pears said.
“For example, for Melbourne, a shift from 1 to 2 Stars saves five times as much energy as a shift from 5 to 6 Star NatHERS: 175 megajoules a square metre saving compared with a shift from 5 to 6 stars which saves 35 megajoules a square metre.”
Net zero corporate roadmaps
Another area that you’re likely to encounter these all-or-nothing debates and a lot of first steps across the middle ground is in corporate net zero strategies.
On the scale of action, doing nothing sits at one end, and being completely emissions free is at the other.
The middle ground is reducing emissions as much as practical now, and offsetting the rest.
The built environment sector, by-and-large, is doing a good job at cutting emissions – especially at the premium commercial property end of the market.
The likes of Frasers, Lendlease, Dexus, Hesperia, Cbus, and others deserve genuine praise for their work.
But even there, there’s still some challenges around reducing emissions from some vital building products (such as steel and concrete).
MECLA is making great strides in this area, but for the time being, realistically, some embodied carbon emissions will still need to be offset.
We need to be upfront about the work that still needs to be done.
The forgotten scope three emissions from transport
An area that too often gets overlooked when we talk about sustainable buildings is transport — particularly in the suburbs.
A suburban office park, university campus, or shopping centre might be all-electric, powered by renewables, and energy efficient.
But how will people get there?
If it’s a 30 minute drive each day in a petrol-powered car, potentially multiplied by several hundred or thousand people, then that can become a significant amount of carbon emissions.
The same issue applies to new car-dependent housing subdivisions on the outer suburban fringe — how will the residents get anywhere without a car?
New walkable and transit-oriented developments, such as Lendlease’s Victoria Cross Tower above the new North Sydney Metro station, or CBus’ Langston development in Epping, provide great examples of what’s possible.
Unfortunately, across Australia, such transit-oriented developments are still the exception rather than the rule.
We’re making progress on this front, but we need to be upfront about the work that still needs to be done.
Is it greenwashing?
While building and construction are making good progress on reducing carbon emissions, some other industries are only starting their journeys.
One discount department chain, for example, has pledged to switch its stores, distribution centres and offices by 2025, and achieve net zero emissions by 2030.
It sounds impressive, until you notice that net zero by 2030 pledge only covers scope one and two emissions (from fossil fuels burnt on-site or off-site for electricity).
It doesn’t include scope three emissions from its supply chain.
That’s a little concerning, given this same retailer ships Australian cotton to Bangladesh for its clothes and then ships them back to Australia to truck to stores across the country — burning an immense amount of fossil fuels in the process.
Another example is the major capital city airport that has pledged to cut its scope one and two emissions. It’s even reharvesting water, creating new wetlands and installing photovoltaic solar panels on its roof.
Again, it all sounds brilliant.
Until you notice that it isn’t counting its scope three supply chain emissions. And those emissions involve flying great big jumbo jets across the world, burning tremendous amounts of fossil fuels in the process.
It can be tempting to point to these examples and shout “greenwashing”.
But at the same time, these first steps in the middle ground are at least a start – that’s better than doing nothing.
We need to be honest about the work that still needs to be done – including the bits that are tough.