Congratulations BSj on an excellent inaugural Sustainable Building Services Awards. I have one gripe though.

Three of the eight winners were for Australian projects. All were excellent, but surely the best of British sustainable design doesn’t only manifest when it is air-lifted to the other side of the world.

A sustainable future will demand increasingly more travel restraint: we need to fly less, and less far afield. Opportunities abound in our own back yard after all, and sustainability starts at home.

“Local” is fast becoming ad speak for quality and excellence in the same way that “global” once was. Global – as a corporate boast – is now passé. Witness HSBC: the world’s local bank?

If we start to think that we must fly in order to be next year’s green wizards (of Aus!), then each such flight of fancy will contribute as much CO2 equivalent as one “average” UK person’s total annual footprint. Or 10 times more CO2 than the planet can sustain – if each of us were to agree to keep within the planet’s viable personal pollution quota. (It’s probably quite a good idea to observe Mother Nature’s limits.)

If sustainability expertise is air-lifted to the other side of the world, is it worthy of the name? And speaking of names… last month’s suggestion simply won’t do

If we passively endorse organisational “wanderlust”, there is a danger we are rewarding those who have quit smoking with a fat cigar! This is not a path that leads to any future.

For building services professionals, travel will almost certainly be the dominant part of their overall footprint, both at the level of the individual, and for the business. Of course we can and must export our new-found world-leading capability for zero carbon design – far and wide, intelligently and internationally but with personnel movement greatly minimised all the while. And it is better if we master the magic carbon-lite art at home first.

Shipping the best the profession has to offer over to Australia and back will soon appear almost criminal. History almost repeats itself.

A new name maybe – but not that one

In the December issue, David Strong ponders the image projected by the name of our institution. I have no serious objection to a new name to better describe our role as engineers in society. However I do strongly object to his inappropriate and selfish choice.

The protracted correspondence in BSj highlighted the opposing views held by our members on the subject of climate change; others choose to keep an open mind on whether man-made carbon emissions have a meaningful impact on climate change.

During a period of warming it is easy to jump on the “sustainability” bandwagon. We cannot ignore the statement in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report summary that, “Paleoclimate information supports the interpretation that the warmth of the last half century is unusual in at least the previous 1300 years. The last time the polar regions were significantly warmer than present for an extended period (about 125,000 years ago)…” – some time before man-made emissions and politics.

The formation of a separate “Sustainable Building Institute” may well be an ideal vehicle for those who wish to engage primarily in save the planet evangelism.
This institution must continue to focus strongly on the science, art and practice of building services engineering, embracing innovation and conservation in their widest possible context. The challenge is to find an acceptable alternative phrase to “building services”' which portrays a more understood image of the institution in society.

JHR Hampson, chartered engineer and CIBSE Fellow

Source

Building Sustainable Design

Postscript

Dave Hampton, The Carbon Coach, Marlow (BSJ Sustainability Champion Shortlist, 2007)