This week has seen the latest climate assessment report from the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). It’s been described as ‘the bleakest warning yet’ on the effects of climate breakdown.
- António Guterres, the UN secretary general described the report as “an atlas of human suffering and a damning indictment of failed climate leadership.”
- John Kerry, US special presidential envoy for climate asks “the question at this point is not whether we can altogether avoid the crisis – it is whether we can avoid the worst consequences.”
In other words, we are moving away from looking at ways to mitigate the causes of climate change towards seeking strategies for how we adapt to the changes that are certainly headed our way. The only positive that anyone might draw from the report is the statement from Hans-Otto Pörtner, co-chair of the working group: “any further delay in concerted global action will miss a brief and rapidly closing window to secure a liveable future.”
So we still get a chance to escape through a window – though that’s probably because the floodwaters are already lapping around the doors.
What do we do?
I was talking with a group of lighting designers and specifiers the other day about product specification and environmental reporting. We’re all seeing an uptake from the broader client base for better-informed reporting on the environmental credentials of lighting products being specified in our projects. As far as our clients are concerned, it’s not only lighting products, of course. We’re only a very small piece in the construction jigsaw puzzle, but we do get caught up in other folk’s conversations.
The issue that’s on designers’ minds is the additional cost to the manufacturer, and therefore to project budgets, if they are obliged to increase back-office activity in order to make themselves acceptable in a changing tender landscape. TM66 is a self-reporting exercise that looks at the relative fitness of luminaires in a circular economy, but its scope is limited. It’s a welcome addition to quality data gathering, but it doesn’t go far enough when we look at the developing picture of a ruined world.
What should our attitude be, then, when we’re asked by clients to consider the environmental profiles of those companies that find themselves on the wrong side of the CO2 equation? Can we afford to consider specifications of equipment from regions that are feeding the climate problem, rather than working to keep that ever-so-small window open?
What’s being looked for?
One of the very real issues comes down to the energy generation infrastructure that lies behind manufacturing plants. The good news is that we’re hearing of companies achieving versions of carbon neutrality (usually by managing a combination of renewable generation and carbon off-setting – though let’s not argue the merits of carbon off-setting here). But we also know of entire industrial regions that rely on dirty coal and out-dated power stations, often in countries that have little opportunity, nor perhaps the political will, to shift to more sustainable energy platforms.
The generally- accepted method of environmental reporting is via the Environmental Product Declaration (EPD) – other assessment methods are available, of course. As well as itemising the materials that go into manufactured products, EPDs also look at the carbon footprint of those products. And the focus of the assessment is not only on the manufacturer’s own production facility; a comprehensive EPD calls for data on the provenance of third-party components and all the materials that go into the fixtures; the metals, the plastics, the whatevers . . . It’s no easy task.
But the world is approaching the tipping point, when all hope of avoiding the worst that nature can throw at us will have gone. So do we have a choice? Surely, we’re obliged to ask where the energy comes from that drives the manufacturing process?
What our clients are saying.
Looking over the shoulder of the client body, I’ve been looking at the (published) environmental statement from one of the local authorities here in the South West. Three paragraphs jump out from the Climate and Ecological Emergency statement published by Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council. (BCP Council). In their ‘climate actions and achievements so far’ section::
- We declared a climate and ecological emergency on 16 July 2019. This means we pledged to make BCP Council and its operations carbon neutral by 2030.
- We incorporated the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals into our Corporate Strategy.
- We have incorporated sustainable procurement in BCP Council’s new financial regulations.
There is little room for equivocation in those declarations. To reinforce their policy, the Council has also introduced a decision impact assessment tool that informs all executive decisions.
This is a stark warning for a lot of companies. It’s great if you have the wherewithal to create your own carbon neutral environment, but for the great majority of luminaire manufacturers that is simply not an option.
But we are where we are
In order to get any movement, its important that we all recognise that we are where we are TODAY. We can only move forward in incremental steps because we can’t make the massive leap that’s actually needed. But this report is reminding us that those incremental steps are shifting from a flight of stairs to a mountainous ascent.
As specifiers, we may have to abandon some of our friends whose outputs are tainted by the worst kind of energy generation – and we should certainly be encouraging any company taking those steps to a cleaner future.
Future, I say? There is no future – there is only now, and perhaps its time to get the climbing gear out and start that journey.
.
.