Holding Our Consultants and Suppliers Accountable for Climate Change

Yes, but first we must hold ourselves accountable.   Best, Lona    

I’m jumping in after a long hiatus from this group. I agree we have to hold ourselves accountable in the services we provide and the way we operate our businesses. Have any of our firms had success divesting from fossil fuels in our retirement plans, payroll systems, etc.? If so I’m interested in lessons learned. I haven’t done any research on the topic yet but I’d love to see an architects guide to CSR with a big section on divestment! Thanks, Tiffany [http://gbbnftp.com/Logo_48pxWide.jpg] Tiffany Broyles Yost AIA, LEED AP BD+C, Fitwel Amb. Associate | Director of Sustainability and Resilience O: 502.583.0700 D: 513.419.8354 gbbn.com [http://gbbnftp.com/Facebook_12x12px.jpg] [http://gbbnftp.com/Instagram_12x12px.jpg] [http://gbbnftp.com/Twitter_12x12px.jpg] [http://gbbnftp.com/Linkedin_12x12px.jpg] [http://gbbnftp.com/TWP20pxWide.png] From: L

I've been requesting architect friends to lobby at their companies for simply no more gas cars in the renderings.  so far there are no public commitments to do even that (at least I haven't seen them). sadly ironic to have great green building renderings and designs surrounded by gas cars... things like this can normalize and accelerate the transition off fossil fuels.

Conner - here's one public comment for you that our director of digital design agreed to start showing electric cars and cars at charging stations in our renderings. This will be with a variety of electric car makes, not just Tesla.

That's great, Mike! Send me the link to the press release and I'll be happy to spread the excellent news! Are you eliminating gas cars from renderings or just adding EVs into the mix?

Agree with Tiffany's comment that we need to hold ourselves accountable "in the services we provide and the way we operate our businesses." As much as we can influence customers and the supply chain, it's not much if we're not willing to take steps ourselves. One doesn't mean you can't do the other, but I'd go as far as to say we all should be having conversations about how our businesses can match up to the goals we state and the larger need. We just had a conversation about how we can do more to not only have new office spaces we occupy by net-zero/positive, but how can we better leverage data on existing to see what room for improvement exists. That's just one example, but we have to lead through action so people (and supply chains) can follow.

Hi all, Luke - Thanks for starting this thread. Connor, Mike - I like the EV (and bus / bike / walk ) policy for renderings. Will spread the word on that too. Tiffany, Jay - agreed. Some friends and I started this divestment campaign up in Canada: https://www.architectsdivest.ca (heavy lifting by Andy Thompson). Would be great to spread to the US. ...maybe via ArchitectsAdvocate?...and even AIA?... Happy to share our web template and all resources so you could make your own US version. Aside: The PLI insurer for the Ontario Architects Association is in the process of divesting. When this news goes public, we plan to do a media burst. (Unfortunately each province up here has its own separate regulatory body, and our professional numbers in Canada are fairly small; but if the AIA were to take this on...). Best, J jennifer cutbill, architect AIBC FRAIC LEED GA principal |* lateral agency* c 604.368.1980 www.lateralagency.ca #ArchitectsDECLARE | #ArchitectsDIVEST | #STANDwithGreta | #DESIGNforFUTURE *The lands on which I live, work and play are the unceded indigenous territories of the xʷməθkʷəy̓əm (Musqueam), sḵwx̱wú7mesh (Squamish), sel̓íl̓witulh (Tsleil Waututh), and Coast Salish peoples. With an open heart I seek to listen, to learn, and to do good work so we can, together, restore right relations and r**egenerate our capabilities to be ever better stewards of all that is local - now and for future generations. * On Thu, Jan 16

Thanks Luke and all. Topics and discussions like this are why I love being part of this group.
Conor, the transportation change rendering idea is an interesting - and seemingly simple - example to drive change. I think it visually and subliminally reinforces that we need to offer ways for clients to change their thinking. 
My experience, as we are still oftentimes dealing with the “LEED certifiable” issue here in Nebraska, is that if someone isn’t holding design professionals accountable they need to be strongly internally motivated towards sustainability strategies... otherwise it just won’t happen. 
So, to answer the original question... yes. 
Looking forward to additional dialog on how. 

While we're talking about things that we and our firms can do---I'm increasingly intrigued by carbon fee and dividend policy as a market-based solution that could have a massive impact in a relatively short time. I know that Sarah Dodge at AIA was looking into whether AIA would consider endorsing the Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act: The Bipartisan Climate Solution (H.R. 763) that Citizens Climate Lobby has been supporting. I don't know where that deliberation landed--am hoping to hear back from her about it. It would be great to get more organizations and companies supporting it. (BuildingGreen has done that.) And if others have looked into this or similar measures, I'd love to hear what you think. Nadav

I'm curious what climate-change accountability would mean for sub-consultants? Is it accountability for our operations? 

Certainly there is something to be said for having climate change as a values alignment discussion between partnering firms, and the actions that a firm is taking to limit their own carbon impact seems like fair game. I'd go a step further and suggest that things like equity, diversity, governance, JUST, B-Corp, etc. all be considered. For that matter, include the type of "bad" work the firm does in the discussion. I'm blown away by how many projects and organizations with ambitious sustainability goals choose firms whose "other" work negates those efforts many times over. Those are the types of conversations I wish we were having more of as a sub-consultant.  

But are we also talking about accountability for our designs?

**Removes filter**

In that case, we have to start with where projects are being built, and why so many of them are architecturally-designed glass boxes that cause the installation of excessively large active systems in the first place. I'm sure every mechanical engineer on this forum will have countless stories of their struggles to reduce the loads associated with a glass infatuation, or of their efforts to get an Architecture 2030 signatory firm to at least talk about the 2030 goals for a project. 

There's a reason AIA has begun their 2030 series with "The Power of Targets + Load Reductions" over a decade ago. Sadly, we still struggle to get that to happen consistently, even with signatory architecture firms. I would humbly suggest that our industry could make a huge collective impact if we were all more disciplined about putting 2030 goals to work. By doing so, as an architecture firm you would find yourself working with supportive firms, which is the ultimate form of accountability. 

In a related vein, this adaptation of a graphic from the UK Treasury's 2013 Infrastructure Carbon Review really resonates. [image: Screen Shot 2020-01-17 at 11.10.31 AM.png] jennifer cutbill, architect AIBC FRAIC LEED GA principal |* lateral agency* c 604.368.1980 www.lateralagency.ca #Architects*Declare* | *#Stand*withGreta | * #Design*for*Future* *The lands on which I live, work and play are the unceded indigenous territories of the xʷməθkʷəy̓əm (Musqueam), sḵwx̱wú7mesh (Squamish), sel̓íl̓witulh (Tsleil Waututh), and Coast Salish peoples. With an open heart I seek to listen, to learn, and to do good work so we can, together, restore right relations and r**egenerate our capabilities to be ever better stewards of all that is local - now and for future generations. * On Fri, Jan 17

Peter said it! We need to clean our own houses first. To put it in perspective, LMN does our carbon footprint every year, including transport to the office, office energy use, commutes, etc. This is around 600-700 MT Co2e/year which we offset. Our projects in a given year will emit a really rough estimate of 15,000-40,000 MT Co2e/year (range reflects unknowns and variation year to year). Our average is 20% beyond energy code, and half of our projects are in Washington where the code is quite good and power supply relatively clean. This does not include embodied carbon as we don’t yet have estimates of all of our buildings. So 700 MT/year for 1 year of office operations v 1,000,000 MT for ONE YEAR of buildings we design (If we assume the buildings we design in 1 year emit roughly 20,000 MT every year for the next 50 years which equals 1,000,000 MT. We hope they last longer than that) Embodied carbon would make it even more lopsided. We obviously need to start with our buildings. All-glass architecture (spandrel is included in this as it performs very poorly even when insulated), except for some instances in some climates, is irresponsible but that’s what we as a profession do. We can lead on climate change but it will take a painful cultural change within our offices and a return to responsible, climate-sensitive architecture. We can do it but not without great effort from everyone on this list. -Kjell Fro

Great discussion, thank you for initiating this Luke, Does ASME or similar have something like the SE2030 goal for mechanical/electrical engineers? Yasemin Sent from my iPhone

In 2018 my firm’s Green Practice Roundtable did the math and owned that while doing something about our corporate footprint was important, the sum total annually of our CO2 footprint paled in comparison with a single building’s operations (not including embodied energy). Until my firm becomes more serious about reducing GHG emissions from each project, I would be loathe to chase our suppliers about their sustainability. FYI, my firm does stellar net zero buildings but some principals are only just meeting code requirements with their projects. Andrée Iffrig M.E.D. (Arch) ISSP-CSP LEED® AP BD+C SUSTAINABILITY STRATEGIST | SUSTAINABLE DESIGN MAIN 403.245.5501 DIRECT 403.541.5444 MOBILE 403.816.9653 300, 134 - 11 Avenue S.E. Calgary, AB, Canada, T2G 0X5 [cid:image001.png@01D5CF6B.8EBBA490] dialogdesign.ca [Canada's Top Employers] From:

In the US, Transportation is already the largest GHG emitter with Electricity coming in 2nd.  The electrical grid is decarbonizing way faster than transportation.  I think that projecting a building's GHG emissions 50 years into the future based on today's GHG emissions will lead to inaccurate results. I also thank that employers should 'own' more that employees commutes and own all GHG related to employees' vehicles.  Many employees may not have the ability to install home charging for EVs (apartments, street parking, etc.) so workplace EV charging is really required for many employees to make the transition to reduce/eliminate the largest source of GHGs in the US.  Needless to say, our projects also must include the infrastructure to electrify both the buildings and transportation (parking) associated with our buildings. This isn't an either/or situation.  We need both, but Transportation GHGs being largest source, can't be neglected... Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions: https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions New electric generating capacity in 2020 will come primarily from wind and solar: https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=42495  

The EPA graph referenced is misleading. This graph shows direct emissions - for buildings it shows the emissions from burning fossil fuels at the building. If you include indirect emissions such as electricity and the embodied emissions from materials, buildings are responsible for a much larger percentage than the 12% shown. Buildings use about 75% of US electricity and a significant proportion of the Industry sector which includes building materials industries. This is not to downplay transportation which is indeed a huge emitter. In California where we drive a lot and don’t build as much as some other states, it is a larger emitter than buildings even when you account for electricity and embodied emissions. Building Green did a study a few years ago that showed that employees commuting to work had a much larger impact then actual building emissions, so location, access to transit, and EV chargers are at least as important as building efficiency. Larry Strain, FAIA LEED AP S I E G E L & S T R A I N A r c h i t e c t s 6201 Doyle Street, Emeryville, CA 94608 510.547.8092 x103 fax 510.547.2604 (Enter on 62nd Street) lstrain@siegelstrain.com www.siegelstrain.com

Larry, I disagree that it is misleading. I understand the theory behind attributing GHG emissions to their end use rather than their source, but ultimately point of emissions will matter most. As you referenced, it's where the actual direct emissions are emitted and electricity is decarbonizing quickly compared to transportation. The electrical grid is greening with or without our project level decisions. Reducing/eliminating GHG emissions on our buildings (and parking) is the biggest lever AEC industry practitioners have. Electrification of projects (including parking) builds in the flexibility to make linear 50 year projections of GHG inaccurate.