Reaching the End of the Sustainable Rainbow

 
What does sustainability mean to you? Most of us think of alternative energy, natural materials, waste and pollution. Add some social aspects and mix in an ecological footprint or two and already the equation is becoming more complex. If you were to build with all this in mind, would you still be deemed to be on the right side of the argument?

Consider a scenario where a new shopping mall is proposed.

Let's suppose ...,

... the Architect draws up plans to strict criteria set by the client. Contractors are briefed and the ordering process begins. However, due to some pressure by local action groups and the local planning office the specifications change. The plans are altered to accommodate the 'greening up' of the structure. The new plans are completed and the building will now meet all local and material aspirations with the new designs heralded as a 'benchmark' for environmental construction. One of the biggest changes is the removal of a combined heating/air conditioning installation in favour of a natural air ventilation system. This will reduce energy use by 46% and ongoing costs by 15%.

The air conditioning contractors are notified that they will no longer be needed. They in turn cancel their orders for the materials that they no longer need. The extra six labourers needed to fulfil the contract are laid off and the company is forced to make cutbacks in other areas, much to the consternation of the local foundry, aluminium works and other suppliers, including the air conditioning unit manufacturers, who also plan lay offs as a result of the cancellation.

For the purposes of simplifying this scenario we'll continue to follow one of the components cancelled by the contractor.

Duct suspension brackets
These are manufactured by a local foundry near a small town some 30 miles from the mall. The foundry supports 40 staff and a further 300 people through its supply network. Each bracket was to have cost £4.20 with a profit of 33% (£1.386p). The order was for 12,700 brackets representing a lost turnover of £53,340. The consequence of the lost order leads to redundancies and cutbacks that hit local suppliers and the town's businesses.

The raw material needed to produce the brackets is processed by a local steel mill which also lost its order worth £35,738. Not a large amount in the scheme of things but enough off their turnover to also reign in some costs and attempt to make up the deficit elsewhere. A local wholesaler, who was to supply machine hire and fixing supplies, is also affected, as are a number of other service companies in the area.

We could run this scenario to its ultimate end somewhere in the Far East where a farmer is probably now suffering as a result of the cancelled order, but I think the point is made - green is not always sustainable and sustainable is not always green!

So, just how sustainable is anything in today's complex and totally interdependent society? How important are the wider issues to a design and is a system that is perceived to be environmentally unfriendly really so? What may seem green and socially responsible could in fact be quite the opposite.

In real life such a scenario led to the decline of the Scandinavian forestry industry - Europe was using so much recycled paper that farmers of managed trees struggled to compete and the industry went into depression. Without taking account of the wider issues no amount of "sustainability" will be, well, sustainable. However, if we were living in an ideal world where we did account for those at the end of the sustainable rainbow, then nothing would be built!

It is only by accepting the limitations of an action can we begin to address its consequences. Our attitude to societal norms may need to change and we may need to re-evaluate our everyday perceptions. Take concrete, for example. As a material we all vilify it whilst accepting its usefulness. As a building material the Romans found it extremely useful and used it extensively in many of their most famous legacies, yet we do not condemn them for using it or think of them as desecrators of our planet.

Our approach to sustainability needs to be constantly challenged and our implementation of it continually assessed. This is especially important with regards to new technology. Take wind power for instance. The current obsession with it seems to completely miss the wider implications, i.e. the balance between the energy expended in a wind turbines production against that produced during its lifetime. However, if we weigh that up against the nuclear or coal plant options, then to some this may be an acceptable exchange. In fact, it is through such compromises that sustainable practices move forward. And it is only through compromise that a balance of the environment, economic and social elements of a project can be attained.

In making the decision to replace an element of a build with a 'green' alternative we invariably affect at least one element along the chain of supply. A truly holistic approach would factor in more of the consequential effects of a decision and weigh them up against the practicality of implementation. There is no one solution to the sustainable question but rather a range of compromises that seek to strike a rational balance between the ideal and the achievable. It is through this balance that projects can and must move forward and, who knows, maybe one day we will account for the whole supply chain in our planning and eventually reach the end of the sustainable rainbow. 

By David Williams

Constructive Earth