Committee on the Environment

 View Only

Community HTML

ALBION DISTRICT LIBRARY BY PERKINS + WILL IS A 2018 COTE TOP TEN RECIPIENT. IMAGE: DOUBLESPACE PHOTOGRAPHY

Quick Links

Who we are

The Committee on the Environment (COTE®) is an AIA Knowledge Community working for architects, allied professionals, and the public to achieve climate action and climate justice through design. We believe that design excellence is the foundation of a healthy, sustainable, and equitable future. Our work promotes design strategies that empower all AIA members to realize the best social and environmental outcomes with the clients and the communities they serve.

Enjoy our latest on COTE news (and follow us on X and LinkedIn). 

To learn about the Framework for Design Excellence (formerly the COTE Top Ten Measures), click here.

Check out COTE's history and timeline. 

Starting a local COTE or sustainability group and need some guidance? Check out the AIA COTE Network Resources here.

A big thank you to our 2024 sponsors: 
Founding sponsors: Building Green
Premier sponsors: Sherwin-Williams
Sustaining sponsors: GAF Roofing, Milliken, Andersen Windows,
BlueScope Buildings
Green sponsors: EPIC Metals
Allied sponsors: TLC Engineering, Sierra Pacific Windows

Expand all | Collapse all

new UN report points to urgency

Anonymous Member

Anonymous Member12-23-2019 11:32 AM

Anonymous Member

Anonymous Member12-30-2019 06:14 PM

  • 1.  new UN report points to urgency

    Posted 12-11-2019 05:30 PM
    I am thankful for the scientists. 

    Knowing how the architecture/engineering/construction and real estate industry contributes to emissions, I hope we can find motivation in this latest report. 

    It's one thing to be wistful that society had listened -- and acted -- when the scientists first spoke up about the impacts of GHGs and warming, nearly 50 years ago. But as we head into 2020, let's be sure that in 10 years we can say we heard and acted. 

    We have an opportunity to create a clean energy economy with jobs and equity. We know how to design net zero carbon buildings and communities and regions; the opportunity for the AEC/RE community is immense. It is time for our species to turn its cleverness toward this existential threat with purpose and urgency. 

    https://lnkd.in/g_9kxnh" target="_blank" rel="noopener">https://lnkd.in/g_9kxnh 

    ------------------------------
    Kira Gould
    Principal
    Kira Gould CONNECT
    Oakland CA
    ------------------------------


  • 2.  RE: new UN report points to urgency

    Posted 12-18-2019 12:07 PM

    50 years ago the scientists were telling us we were facing a new ice age.

    20 years ago Al Gore told us the polar ice caps would be gone by now.

    10 years ago we were told the sea levels would rise by several feet.

    Yet here we are. Temps flat over the past decade. CO2 levels still lagging solar activity as many scientists have been saying is the case all along. Un-politicized scientists showing un-refutable evidence of a great solar minimum (fare greater than the last, Maunder minimum) already under way presaging the next ice-age.

    Yes. Please. Let's listen to the scientists for once. Prepare society for climate *adaptability*, help them, as professionals in the building field to build buildings that can withstand climate changes of any sort.

    But leave the politicizing of science to politicians, and stop trying to be anything but Architects. Buildings are our specialty; not politics.



    ------------------------------
    Michael Poloukhine AIA
    Owner
    ReSquare Architecture + Construction
    Los Angeles CA
    ------------------------------



  • 3.  RE: new UN report points to urgency

    Posted 12-23-2019 11:32 AM
    19 December 2019 pm pst


    Thank You Michael Poloukhine, AIA!

    I also remember as a kid, when "they'd"
    talk about an variable environment, they'd
    call it: WEATHER!

    Breathe... Keep Smiling! ;-)


    ------------------------------
    David Phillips AIA
    Principal
    DLP Associates - Architecture + Planning + Interiors
    Sanger CA
    ------------------------------



  • 4.  RE: new UN report points to urgency

    Posted 12-23-2019 11:32 AM

    Well said!   Over the last decade, the AIA has helped polarize the discussion on sustainability when we could have had a much more effective role in the discussion.  Architects are not going to save the world.   However, we are all  working to make it better.   We need to stop the hyperventilation and repetition of all the dooms-day predictions.  We should focus on responsibly designing sensible,  beautiful, livable and energy efficient buildings and cities.   Many architects and AIA members do not buy into the arguments  that the only cause of climate change is man-made.   It has been occurring for a millennia and the earth will continue to evolve and go through climate cycles.   I do not feel the need to convince myself or others that they are destroying the planet if they do not see and do things my way.  Nor do I believe that our profession or our practices are going to save the world.   History has shown that mankind has much more to fear from those who would use government to further their own agenda and quash individual freedoms than we might fear  from nature.   For those of you who are true believers,  go ahead and practice what you preach and do what you love.   However, the discussion of sustainable design has moved into the condemnation stage.   I do not believe that it is unethical or irresponsible to have a different view or take different paths in the practice of our profession.  To pass judgment on those that believe differently is, quite frankly,  the very definition of fascism.    At the very least it violates one of the founding principles of fellowship.  

     

     

    Bill T. Wilson II, FAIA, NCARB

    Vice President/Principal

    WKMC Architects, Inc.

    (361) 561-2125 – Direct

    (361) 887-6696 – Main Line

    909 S. Tancahua Street

    Corpus Christi, Texas 78404

    www.WKMCarchitects.com

     

    WKMC-Logo-Color for mini-site

     






  • 5.  RE: new UN report points to urgency

    Posted 12-30-2019 06:15 PM
    It's good to see that all of us don't drink the catastrophe cool-aid.  Normal architects with different priorities aren't ignorant... or even misguided.

    ------------------------------
    Dennis Wells AIA
    Oklahoma City OK
    ------------------------------



  • 6.  RE: new UN report points to urgency

    Posted 01-06-2020 05:40 PM
    It is entirely unethical if that view undermines the health and safety of the greater population. This is why there are building codes, and this is why there are energy codes. 

    The fact is that we are moving quickly to a zero net energy code, at least in NY state (and MA, and CA, and in most of the EU...). We are doing this not only because it is necessary, but because it can be done, and because innovation and excellence are part of being professionals in architecture and engineering. Professional should not sit idly, resting on our laurels or glossy photos in trade magazines or in the features sections of print and on-line lifestyle publications.

    The parallel facts are that we are not moving quickly enough, and we are not doing enough to engage the building users and the communities in the planning for longevity and performance.

    I remember that in college I read an article reporting on a survey of professions, indicating that architects were the professionals most likely to volunteer, to serve their community, to take in the larger view. This comes from seeing the bigger picture of the programmatic and visual design while managing the details. We have this power above most other professions so long as we resist being uber siloed (as has been the trend for 40-50 years). This moment in time is a reset of our profession. We can and must continue to advocate and to be the community-based, informed, intellectual, and integrative practice/profession.

    Some people posting on this feed may think architecture is about buildings. When the product ignores the essence of the served population, it is a failure. We all must stop selling damaged, short-sighted, "products" and be professional connectors and visionaries, running our businesses and creating the needed relationships to face and address climate change, species loss, and population growth.

    I welcome you to learn, grow, and make a difference, or step out of the way if that's what you choose.



    ------------------------------
    Jodi Smits Anderson AIA
    Director Sustainability Programs
    DASNY
    Albany NY
    ------------------------------



  • 7.  RE: new UN report points to urgency

    Posted 12-23-2019 11:32 AM
    The Science (from credible sources):

    Importance of keeping warming to 1.5 degC:
    https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/

    And:






    ------------------------------
    Edward Mazria FAIA
    Founder And Executive Director
    Architecture 2030
    Santa Fe NM
    ------------------------------



  • 8.  RE: new UN report points to urgency

    Posted 12-18-2019 12:08 PM

    If the future is half as bleak as Somini Sengupta asserts in her NYT article, and if doom is as inevitable as she reports, then we should IMMEDIATELY start focusing on resilience and adaptation, rather than prevention.  It is urgent!  (This report should motivate us to prepare for, not prevent The Climate Catastrophe.) 

    According to the UN, there is no hope for our fragile planet even if we ceased all fossil fuel use today.  If this is the case (even considering the benefits of green jobs and social equity) we would be stupid not to start preparing for the worst!   Instead, we waste our brainpower and efforts on something we can only minimally affect. 

    Global warming is happening and is exacerbated by humankind's GHG contributions, but the current reality of it is nowhere close to the modeled predictions.  Our future is not in jeopardy. 



    ------------------------------
    Dennis Wells AIA
    Oklahoma City OK
    ------------------------------



  • 9.  RE: new UN report points to urgency

    Anonymous
    Posted 12-23-2019 11:32 AM
    This post was removed


  • 10.  RE: new UN report points to urgency

    Posted 12-23-2019 11:32 AM
    THE SCIENCE (credible sources)

    The importance of meeting the Paris Agreement 1.5 deg C target:
    https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/

    Global Average Temperature (NASA):
    Eighteen of the 19 warmest years on record have occurred since 2001.

    Sea Level Rise (NOAA):
    The pace of global sea level rise has increased. 

    The Myth of the 1970's Global Cooling Consensus:

    Arctic Sea Ice (NASA):




    ------------------------------
    Edward Mazria FAIA
    Founder And Executive Director
    Architecture 2030
    Santa Fe NM
    ------------------------------



  • 11.  RE: new UN report points to urgency

    Anonymous
    Posted 12-30-2019 06:14 PM
    This post was removed


  • 12.  RE: new UN report points to urgency

    Posted 12-30-2019 06:15 PM

    Fact Check of statements made by contributors on this thread:


    Michael Poloukhine AIA wrote:

    1. "50 years ago the scientists were telling us we were facing a new ice age."

    Misleading: See "The Myth of the 1970's Global Cooling Consensus" in my previous post.

    1. "Temps flat over the past decade."

    False: Eighteen of the 19 warmest years on record have occurred since 2001. GRAPH: Global mean surface temperature change since 1880. Source: NASA GISS. Note the temperature rising the past decade:

     



    Dennis B. Wells AIA wrote:

    1. "According to the UN, there is no hope for our fragile planet even if we ceased all fossil fuel use today."

    False: According to the UN "Emissions Gap Report 2019" there are a number of emissions reduction pathways from 2020 to 2030/2050 (See graph below) to meet the Paris Agreement's keeping – "the increase in global average temperature to well below 2 °C above pre-industrial levels; and to pursue efforts to limit the increase to 1.5 °C" – recognizing that this would substantially reduce the risks and impacts of climate change. Obviously if we ceased all fossil fuel use today we would immediately meet the Paris Agreement's target.

    Figure ES.4. Global GHG emissions under different scenarios and the emissions gap by 2030
     

    1. "Global warming is happening and is exacerbated by humankind's GHG contributions, but the current reality of it is nowhere close to the modeled predictions."

    False: You can see the IPCC projections (black line) compared to observed temperature rise (coloured lines) in the following graphs from 1990 to 2013:

     

     

    See the IPCC Reports and Carbon Brief article (https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-well-have-climate-models-projected-global-warming).
     

    1. "The predictions have been consistently wrong for decades." 

    False: From the (AAAS) American Association for the Advancement of Science – Science Magazine (https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/12/even-50-year-old-climate-models-correctly-predicted-global-warming:

    "Climate change doubters have a favorite target: climate models. They claim that computer simulations conducted decades ago didn't accurately predict current warming, so the public should be wary of the predictive power of newer models. Now, the most sweeping evaluation of these older models-some half a century old-shows most of them were indeed accurate."

    See the analysis "Evaluating the performance of past climate model projections"by scientists from MIT, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, NASA. and University of California, Berkeley (https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1029/2019GL085378?referrer_access_token=MhO0klvMr6O5PIFwuPOUqcOuACxIJX3yJRZRu4P4erveSGydNoNbpSTNSZ5Z1aDAU1Xs2rIU3Le9v9UWpLY537Rl4_4NUuN3NIo1jJM3ut_fnDt270Q0hYXiXODmoFScmqVYhVXuiksNkFXaK2MQ-w%3D%3D).



    ------------------------------
    Edward Mazria FAIA
    Founder And Executive Director
    Architecture 2030
    Santa Fe NM
    ------------------------------



  • 13.  RE: new UN report points to urgency

    Posted 12-31-2019 03:17 PM

    Edward, you failed to check one other and in this context, most relevant fact:

    "Leave the politicizing of science to politicians, and stop trying to be anything but Architects. Buildings are our specialty; not politics."

    I'm not getting into a Google-search duel using other people's opinions. There's plenty of scientists and scientific evidence out there to make it clear the science is not "settled" and that the only "consensus" is political.

    Meanwhile,  I'll take solace with 2018 Economics Noble Prize winners Nordhaus and Romer and their assessment of the self-defeating nature of the AGW alarmist "solutions", and will stick to sustainable architectural design and service when and how my clients ask for it for THEIR needs, not that of some political movement.



    ------------------------------
    Michael Poloukhine AIA
    Owner
    ReSquare Architecture + Construction
    Los Angeles CA
    ------------------------------



  • 14.  RE: new UN report points to urgency

    Posted 01-02-2020 03:52 PM
    Thank you Mr. Mazria for your patience in re-explaining the science of our Climate Crisis.  This crisis is a political issue only to the extent that certain industries lobby for it as one.  As a NON-political, life safety issue, Architects are obligated to actively respond to it, not unlike any life safety issue in building design. The entire Sept. 23, 2019 issue of Time magazine describes our crisis, which I quote below.  The now common, extreme weather events that are directly attributed to global warming, are a life safety issue.  We have to now design for stronger hurricanes, tornadoes, wildfires, and especially heat waves. 

    "In the U.S., extreme heat already causes more deaths than any other severe weather event, killing an estimated 1500 people each year.  A 2003 heat wave in Europe is estimated to have caused up to 70,000 deaths.  Europe in 2003 was like a 9/11 attack every day for 3 weeks"  - Camilo Mora, a client scientist at the Univ. of Hawaii"

    As Architects, we can design for these symptoms of climate change OR we can design for the causes of climate change.
    -Russ Ver Ploeg, AIA, LEED AP

    ------------------------------
    Russell VerPloeg AIA
    President
    Ver Ploeg Architecture
    Des Moines IA
    ------------------------------



  • 15.  RE: new UN report points to urgency

    Posted 01-06-2020 05:34 PM
    I suggest that if you discussed the impacts of present and future climate, potential to use non-toxic materials, support local economy, reduce waste, this would be a revelation. If you design and build a building that uses no trucked or piped fuels, connects to and benefits from the local community, celebrates beauty, sustains the health and vitality of the people using it, and responds incredibly well to the systems of nature within which it resides, your clients would cherish you and your practice at a level you may not yet have experienced.

    They may not come to you with these notions, because YOU are the expert that they have hired. It's time for us all to use our expertise.


    ------------------------------
    Jodi Smits Anderson AIA
    Director Sustainability Programs
    DASNY
    Albany NY
    ------------------------------



  • 16.  RE: new UN report points to urgency

    Posted 01-02-2020 03:13 PM

    Fact Check of statements made by contributors on this thread:


    Michael Poloukhine AIA wrote:

    1. "There's plenty of scientists and scientific evidence out there to make it clear the science is not "settled" and that the only "consensus" is political."

    False: See NASA's Facts: Scientific Consensus: Earth's Climate is Warming (https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/)
    Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree.

    1. J. Cook, et al, "Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming," Environmental Research Letters Vol. 11 No. 4, (13 April 2016); DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002

    Quotation from page 6: "The number of papers rejecting AGW [Anthropogenic, or human-caused, Global Warming] is a minuscule proportion of the published research, with the percentage slightly decreasing over time. Among papers expressing a position on AGW, an overwhelming percentage (97.2% based on self-ratings, 97.1% based on abstract ratings) endorses the scientific consensus on AGW." 




    ------------------------------
    Edward Mazria FAIA
    Founder And Executive Director
    Architecture 2030
    Santa Fe NM
    ------------------------------



  • 17.  RE: new UN report points to urgency

    Posted 01-06-2020 05:36 PM

    I find the statement about NASA and climate warming science being "settled" to be  rather amusing.     I believe that NASA has also acknowledged that "Milankovitch Cycles" have accurately tracked the earth's cooling and warming cycles historically  for many centuries.    Seems  that only "settled" science,   is that the earth has been going through both warming and cooling cycles for thousands of years.   Science does not ignore the role that our planets orbit takes around the sun.   Nor does science ignore the relative activity and history of the sun's variations in its own cycles.    Politics and political agendas,   however, often  do ignore these and many other "inconvenient" facts in order to bolster their position.     

     

    Bill T. Wilson II, FAIA, NCARB

    Vice President/Principal

    WKMC Architects, Inc.

    (361) 561-2125 – Direct

    (361) 887-6696 – Main Line

    909 S. Tancahua Street

    Corpus Christi, Texas 78404

    www.WKMCarchitects.com

     

    WKMC-Logo-Color for mini-site

     






  • 18.  RE: new UN report points to urgency

    Posted 01-07-2020 12:46 PM

    Let's set aside politics and defensiveness and rely on some curiosity and logic.

     

    The earth has been a "bank" for fuel in the form of various fossil fuels, primarily – these are long-term fuels in that they took a long time to create through decomposition and massive pressures.

    It also has resources of a shorter term such as wood and other bio-derived fuels. They take a much shorter timeframe for the planet to produce.

    Both types of fuels have an emission profile when used.  Some have a lower profile, some a higher.

     

    Just like a bank account, we were living off the interest for most of our human history. That is a sustainable model for any system. However, we have been living off the principle, now, for about 200 years. This means we have (literally) burned through our inheritance in a fraction of a percent of the time it took to acquire that wealth of fuel.

     

    The rapidity of the emissions profile is something the planetary system cannot accommodate. Just like a trust-fund 20-something blowing through her inheritance, she may be able to maintain appearances for a while, but the fact is she is destitute and hurting, attempting to put a brave face on the situation, and digging herself deeper into dept. She may even borrow from unsavory people to keep going, but if she doesn't get clean and doesn't stop spending without thought of her future, she will be lost and homeless.

     

    I am curious if you can help me to understand how the level of our emissions of CO2 and other GHG gases can be sustainable. I am not asking to debate climate science, projective modeling, probabilistic models, or policy. I am just asking, recognizing our "spending" at this time, can you help me to understand that we are safe and ok with this process?

     

     

     

     






  • 19.  RE: new UN report points to urgency

    Posted 01-07-2020 05:47 PM

    Your analogy is entertaining but wrong.  We don't know how much of our fuel inheritance we've expended.  We have at least another 200 years of abundant supply.  (And it doesn't matter that we'll use it in a radically shorter time than it took to create… It takes you a radically shorter period of time for you to eat a salad than it took to grow it.  So what?)  We have not yet burned through our inheritance. 

    But this is moot because it won't take another 200 years for us to discover other energy sources that make fossil fuels obsolete.  Solar energy is already becoming less expensive than fossil fuels for some applications.  Nuclear energy has amazing potential that is stupidly underutilized.  One day, almost overnight, fossil fuels will go away all by themselves. 

    Who says that the rapidity of the emissions profile is something the planetary system cannot accommodate?  (Celebrities and teenage activists?)  Our planetary system has accommodated radically higher CO2 levels in the past and accommodated it rather nicely.   It will continue to accommodate in the future. 

    The "spending" will naturally shift to other cheaper, better, smarter, reliable sources.  There is no need for us to bastardize our profession to save the planet.  We and our great-great-grandchildren will be just fine.  Yes, we are safe and ok with this process. 



    ------------------------------
    Dennis Wells AIA
    Oklahoma City OK
    ------------------------------



  • 20.  RE: new UN report points to urgency

    Posted 01-10-2020 03:11 PM

    Thanks for the "entertaining" label. As for "wrong", not so much. Your comparison to salad is faulty because eating the salad is not emitting the CO2 contained within the leaves. The biogenic carbon is used to fuel your body. Quite different than burning our stock of fossil fuel. There are two issues, and my story detailed only one. The issue is that in burning through the principle at an accelerated rate of consumption, as compared to storage time, we emit all the CO2 into the atmosphere, where it can and is shifting climate.

     

    I applaud your trust in innovation. I do. Innovation can be accelerated with increased demand for it. Being forward thinking, curious, exploring architects can open our minds and designs to innovations as well, and our excellence will support innovations in the energy industry. We are part of the systems. Ignoring our role in those systems causes problems. I suggest that even if the AIA hadn't defined the ethics requiring conversations and awareness of climate and sustainability, as professionals it has always been our responsibility to inform and support our clients in the way that is best for THEIR success.

     

    As for who says? What a ridiculous question as I am certain you know the answer. The issue is also not the amount of CO2 as much as the speed in which the CO2 has accumulated. I suspect you know that as well. Another analogy – if I dive off a tower with a working parachute, I will land on the streets intact. I have decelerated at a speed my fragile human form can handle. If I do so without a parachute, I am done for. The planet is currently without a parachute.

     

     






  • 21.  RE: new UN report points to urgency

    Posted 01-09-2020 04:24 PM
    I like to think of this issue in very simple terms:

    CO2 is a greenhouse gas (if we can't agree on that, then please ignore the rest of this post);
    Burning of fossil fuels releases CO2 into the atmosphere;
    Humans burn fossil fuels (at a rate that is faster than any re-absorption that is occurring).

    Too simplistic?

    OK, fine - the earth goes through warming and cooling cycles that occur over millennia, but I don't know how the above fundamentals can be characterized as political and how human activity can't be linked to and exacerbating a changing climate.

    ------------------------------
    John Woelfling

    ------------------------------



  • 22.  RE: new UN report points to urgency

    Posted 01-10-2020 03:14 PM
    No, it's not too simplistic.  It's right on.  No debate.

    We're debating the URGENCY part.  Science can plot the CO2 increase, but can't plot the URGENCY part...  It is only politicians, celebrities, teenage activists, and capitalists entrepreneurs that are telling us the sky is falling.  Any honest scientist will tell you humanity can cope just fine in a 600 PPM world.

    The sky is not falling.  We'll be just fine in 12 years whether or not our architecture is carbon-free.

    ------------------------------
    Dennis Wells AIA
    Oklahoma City OK
    ------------------------------



  • 23.  RE: new UN report points to urgency

    Posted 01-14-2020 06:39 PM
    Thank you for clarifying.

    I agree with you that SOME of humanity will be fine as our climate changes, but not all of humanity.

    For the portions of humanity that have resource security, they are likely to be fine (but I do think that can change with worsening storms, prolonged drought, changes in agriculture and food supply, mass migrations, etc).
    For the portions of humanity without that security, it is a different situation.

    I do feel a professional (and personal) responsibility to recognize and calibrate my choices to diminish my impact on the environment.

    Call me a sucker for being convinced this is an urgent issue, but given how hard it is to make even minimal progress, I think that urgency is merited.

    ------------------------------
    John Woelfling AIA

    ------------------------------



  • 24.  RE: new UN report points to urgency

    Posted 01-16-2020 04:55 PM

    Hi James, 

     

    Thanks for taking us back to the basic issue of urgency.   However, I don't agree with your characterization of the two sides.  From my vantage point, those pointing to the urgency to address climate change are the coldly rational side, while the handwringers are the ones catastrophizing about the potential effects on the economy of having to change business as usual, while disregarding the already huge and growing economic costs of ignoring the science.  In the past 30 years of foot-dragging we have only succeeded in making the challenge greater and more costly.  

     

    As for your lighthearted contention that this is a choice between cohabiting the earth with penguins or giant lizards with bad breath (and I don't recommend penguin breath either!) I am all for comedy but it is not so easy to laugh off the dire consequences of our rapidly changing climate.  If we look at sea-level rise alone, most of the worlds cities are in low elevation coastal zones and in 2000 more than 800 Million people lived in areas that would be directly threated by sea level rise.   The impacts on these areas will increasingly affect everyone on the planet.  

     

    Humans are very adaptive and I don't think that we will be wiped out by climate change, but the human suffering and economic costs to ALL of us demand we step up and use our best human traits of creativity and ingenuity and compassion (and yes, humor) to overcome our tendencies to avoid changing what's comfortable for us now.   I believe the reason the AIA has taken on this goal as URGENT is because the leadership capabilities of Architects to envision and communicate the possible.   We can confidently convey to our clients and our many partners that there are positive outcomes from thinking 30 or 50 years into the future and not just looking at first cost or the standard way things have been done in the past.  This is the essence of our job as designers.

     

     

    LAURA NOTMAN Principal

    15 Longfellow Road / Arlington MA  02476 / 617-953-0222

     






  • 25.  RE: new UN report points to urgency

    Posted 01-21-2020 08:58 AM
    Well stated response Laura,
    I am in support of the Institute's vocal call for urgent action by architects to more aggressively address the design issues that can avoid many of the worst projected impacts of climate change on communities around the world. If you don't believe its something we can and should do for our fellow humans, then do it for economic reasons. 

    If you don't think architects have a responsibility to act you may soon find yourself in a lot of trouble. The legal community may bring our standard of care into the matter sooner than you might believe. You might want to read this post from 2018 to the Victor Risk Blog. 

    How climate change is changing the standard of care
    Victor Risk Management Blog remove preview
    How climate change is changing the standard of care
    This intriguing issue was recently addressed by attorneys Elena Mihaly, William Franczek, and Andrew P. Selman in an article published in the summer 2018 issue of the Journal of the American College of Construction Lawyers. Their article was also part of a larger study, Climate Adaptation and Liability: A Legal Primer and Workshop Summary Report....
    View this on Victor Risk Management Blog >

    It is certainly food for thought when consider the risks associated with the next client.


    ------------------------------
    RK Stewart FAIA
    2007 AIA President
    RK Stewart Consultants
    Salt Lake City UT
    ------------------------------



  • 26.  RE: new UN report points to urgency

    Posted 01-21-2020 08:58 AM
    Well said, Laura. There's been talk on this forum about "hijacking the profession" and "politicizing the science" which I think is alarmist and wrong: the AIA has taken a stand based on the best scientific knowledge we have, and to not do so would be irresponsible. Acting on vital information isn't politicizing the science, it's using it to guide a responsible, positive path forward. And I would replace the hijacking metaphor to a less alarmist one: voluntarily taking the wheel from the pilot who has drifted off, dreaming of 1970...

    The reality is that we can and should have a big impact reducing emissions in the building sector, and it starts with design. This isn't wishful thinking--I've been doing it in my firm near Chicago (made the 2030 target portfolio-wide in 2018 and 2019), and if we can do Passive House and Net Zero here, it can be done across the country. Fairbanks may be tough, but look at what Snohetta did at Powerhouse, a net positive building at 63 degrees north latitude! 

    Thank you AIA, that's all of us, for taking a stand. The dissenting voices may be loud, but remember the vote to take urgent action at the convention was 4,860 Yes, 312 No, 28 Abstain. Positive steps forward--we've got 10 years to 2030!

    --
    Tom Bassett-Dilley AIA CPHC
    708.434.0381





  • 27.  RE: new UN report points to urgency

    Posted 01-21-2020 08:58 AM

    Yes, this issue is very seriously urgent and requires a full-on effort by our profession to stop carbon emissions and create ways to absorb what we've already emitted.

    It???s Time to Quit: A Call to Action on Climate, Carbon, and the Built Environment
    Adapted from the opening and closing keynotes given by Edward Mazria, FAIA, at the CarbonPositive???19 Summit in Chicago.

    Ed Mazria: Burning fossil fuels for energy releases CO??? into the atmosphere, trapping heat, raising the temperature of the planet, and causing massive changes to the climate and ecosystems. The process began with industrialization in Europe, and increased profoundly after World War II. We now exert a dominant influence on the climate and environment. If we don???t quit burning fossil fuels, the effects will be catastrophic.

    https://www.architectmagazine.com/design/its-time-to-quit-a-call-to-action-on-climate-carbon-and-the-built-environment_o

    --  ________________________________________________________________________ :: design :: collaboration :: innovation  Laurie Barlow, AIA http://www.barlowcoweb.com/ http://greenswardcivitas.blogspot.com/ https://twitter.com/barlowco  





  • 28.  RE: new UN report points to urgency

    Posted 01-14-2020 06:39 PM

    "We're debating the URGENCY part.  "

    I'd argue we aren't even debating that; we are debating whether there is ANY basis for the AIA to take a position on behalf of all its members on what is at best a *scientific* if not purely *political* (not Architectural professional) debate.



    ------------------------------
    Michael Poloukhine AIA
    Owner
    ReSquare Architecture + Construction
    Los Angeles CA
    ------------------------------



  • 29.  RE: new UN report points to urgency

    Posted 01-09-2020 04:30 PM
    Appreciate the analogy and agree with Jodi Smits Anderson that we are drawing from finite sources to maintain unsustainable lifestyles.  However, someone needs to help me understand how a reliance on renewable materials that sequester carbon, only to be released when they end up decaying in landfill solves the problem.  Build with wood and sooner or later that carbon is released at the end of the life cycle.  There is a full cradle to grave life cycle aspect to the story that is not being told.

    The solution will be found in ways to permanently alter the chemical composition of the greenhouse gases, like carbon dioxide, to render them permanently harmless.  Studies are already quantifying the value of the natural carbonation processes of hardened concrete, which transforms carbon dioxide into harmless byproducts permanently bonded within the material.  Commercialized carbon capture technologies have been developed to enhance this process, enabling concrete to serve as a permanent carbon sink in quantities at least double that of the inherent embodied carbon in the material.

    We need permanent solutions, not temporary storage of green house gases.

    ------------------------------
    Donn Thompson AIA
    Kenosha WI
    ------------------------------



  • 30.  RE: new UN report points to urgency

    Posted 01-10-2020 03:11 PM
    ​Great question, Donn.

    The difference is in the shorter timeframe. So wood and other biomass, including algae and even the "waste" from food crops, sequester carbon as they grow, and then release CO2 as they burn. The uptake and release are within a time frame that allows the maintenance (or at least significantly better maintenance) of balance of the earth's systems.
    Fossil fuel is also bio in origin, but has taken millennia to become burnable, and we release all that in a few short decades/centuries, creating imbalance.

    Hope that helps.

    Can't wait to start talking about biogenic carbon in building materials, where we can extend the timeframe of sequestration of carbon!

    ------------------------------
    Jodi Smits Anderson AIA
    Director Sustainability Programs
    DASNY
    Albany NY
    ------------------------------



  • 31.  RE: new UN report points to urgency

    Posted 01-06-2020 05:39 PM

    Here's a pesky scientific fact: Historically, the rise of global temperature precedes the rise of global CO2, sometimes by hundreds of years (temperature rises first, then CO2 rises).  At some point during the climb the lines cross, and anthropomorphic contributions exacerbate the warming.  It is unscientific to say mankind caused global warming.  (How do you explain the many cycles of warming and cooling before we began dumping GHGs into the atmosphere?)

    Yes, global warming is occurring, and yes, mankind is making it worse, and yes, mankind can reduce the exacerbation.  But hijacking our profession isn't the answer.  Contrary to Mr. VerPoleg's assertion, people are not dying from extreme heat.  (70,000 in Europe in one year… Give us a break.) 

    I think the push-back from many rational architects is the false URGENCY of the claims… In the past, there have been too many false prophecies of catastrophe, too many cries of "wolf!"  Science also supported those claims. 

    We can practice design that integrates built and natural systems and enhances both the design quality and environmental performance of the built environment, without promoting a false crisis.



    ------------------------------
    Dennis Wells AIA
    Oklahoma City OK
    ------------------------------



  • 32.  RE: new UN report points to urgency

    Posted 01-09-2020 04:29 PM
    "Historically, the rise of global temperature precedes the rise of global CO2..."

    This is not true. Over a long period of time, they move in unison. This is to be expected with the feedback loops of melting 
    permafrost, etc. See the graph below.
    Temperature/ CO2/ Sea Level graph
    "But hijacking our profession isn't the answer."

    Since when is it wrong to provide our clients with highly efficient buildings that make good use of daylighting and will save them money on utilities for the life of their building? Sure, some clients find it hard to look past the initial cost. But it has always been the architect's job to get their clients to look at life cycle costing- with everything from material durability to 
    maintenance costs to, yes: efficient resource use. Reducing carbon emissions is simply a new focus for what has always been the responsibility of a competent architect: looking out for the best interests of our client. I don't understand how you can be against this goal.


    ------------------------------
    Kevin McPartland AIA
    Adjunct Professor
    Anne Arundel Community College
    Jessup MD
    ------------------------------



  • 33.  RE: new UN report points to urgency

    Posted 01-10-2020 03:15 PM

    Kevin, 

    It is true.  I didn't believe it either, but if you zoom into data on the temperature and the CO2 graph lines, you will indeed see that in every instance temperature starts rising first… then CO2.  It's a fact.  The lines do mirror shapes and are unquestionably related, but they're slightly offset… And toward the end, the CO2 line does cross the temperature line to take the lead.

    It's not wrong to provide our clients with highly efficient buildings that make good use of daylighting and will save them money on utilities for the life of their building.  And it's not wrong to reducing CO2 emissions.  I believe in designing sustainable projects.  (I was the first LEED Accredited architect in my State.) 

    It is wrong to tell our children and grandchildren that we'll all be dead in 12 years if we don't ACT NOW!  It's this false urgency that is wrong.  And it's this false urgency that's being used to highjack our profession.  And it's being used by people who are profiting from it…



    ------------------------------
    Dennis Wells AIA
    Oklahoma City OK
    ------------------------------



  • 34.  RE: new UN report points to urgency

    Posted 01-14-2020 06:45 PM
    Kevin,

    Maybe we (you, me and anyone else that want to uphold the ethics rules of the AIA but want to be the professional resource that our clients deserve and pay ford) need to start a new string that focuses on what we can do, where the opportunities exist, and how the solutions serve all of our clients, even when the clients don't know to ask for reduction in GHG, avoidance of toxins, connecting to community, use of local products, etc. ​

    I feel that we will go 'round and 'round on this feed and never convince "the other side" of anything. In searching for common ground, I HAVE to believe we all want to provide the best buildings, spaces, experiences possible for our clients, for the short term and for the long term.

    Let's start with that common ground. I suspect ultra-low energy buildings, health of occupants, and community-focused architecture will become the "norm" as we grow from that common point.

    Qualifier - I work for a state authority, so my clients are a different type of served entity than that of a private firm. I didn't want to mislead anyone on my role and status. Since I work on policy, my views may tend to be longer than the views of some.

    Jodi

    ------------------------------
    Jodi Smits Anderson AIA
    Director Sustainability Programs
    DASNY
    Albany NY
    ------------------------------



  • 35.  RE: new UN report points to urgency

    Posted 01-06-2020 05:42 PM

    "Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree."

    That "consensus" number has been so thoroughly debunked at this point that if you are still quoting it you'll never be swayed by ANY contrary evidence. Might as well be telling us that Mann was right and didn't fudge data and conspire to silence opposing viewpoints on AGW.

    And you STILL haven't "fact checked" the most salient and relevant point:

    "Leave the politicizing of science to politicians, and stop trying to be anything but Architects. Buildings are our specialty; not politics."

    Believe what you want about AGW or anything else; I don't care.  You can even push it on your clients if that's what you think *your* role as an Architect is.

    But it's not an "Architectural" service, and as such, the AIA, as an advocate of and for the *Architectural profession* has NO place or mandate to be pretending it is and advocating for that political policy, let alone over those of our actual profession.



    ------------------------------
    Michael Poloukhine AIA
    Owner
    ReSquare Architecture + Construction
    Los Angeles CA
    ------------------------------



  • 36.  RE: new UN report points to urgency

    Posted 01-07-2020 10:41 AM

    I have not seen this posted. 

     

    Bill T. Wilson II, FAIA, NCARB

    Vice President/Principal

    WKMC Architects, Inc.

    (361) 561-2125

     






  • 37.  RE: new UN report points to urgency

    Posted 01-10-2020 03:15 PM

    I'm appalled at the climate denialism exhibited by building professionals in this discussion thread. Climate change is established science, despite attempts by the fossil fuel companies to throw that into question with corporate propaganda. The only way to avert the worst impacts of climate change due to human CO2 emissions is to arrive at Net Zero by 2030, as Ed Mazria has been working to implement, following the IPCC science developments. Together, building and construction are responsible for 39% of all carbon emissions in the world, with operational emissions (from energy used to heat, cool and light buildings) accounting for 28%.

    https://www.worldgbc.org/news-media/WorldGBC-embodied-carbon-report-published

    Climate scientists' best global temperature reconstructions cover the past 2,000 years, a period also known as the "Common Era." Several studies investigating the details of temperature changes over the Common Era were published in 2019.

    https://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2020/01/2019-in-climate-science-a-continued-warming-trend-and-bleak-research

    Average global temperature, caused by human activity, is increasing rapidly with CO2 emissions globally. This chart shows that net zero needs to happen in 2030, along with the associated carbon budgets. The Australian wildfires prove denying climate change won't save you from it.

    http://www.gci.org.uk/images/Global_Carbon_Budget_Temperature_Rise_Rates.png



    ------------------------------
    Laurie Barlow AIA
    Principal/Partner
    L. Barlow & Company
    South Pasadena CA
    ------------------------------



  • 38.  RE: new UN report points to urgency

    Posted 01-14-2020 06:43 PM
    My take on this "argument" (so glad you asked, haha) is that the participants are talking at cross purposes. One faction is arguing that human accelerated climate change is "real" and that it is an "urgent" situation. The other faction is arguing that human accelerated climate change is "real" but that it is NOT an "urgent" situation. And BOTH "sides" think it is important to practice sustainable design (should probably have put ""s around that one)!!
    Seems that the argument, such as it is, is more about style than substance. One side thinks it is really important to wave their hands around and act alarmed. The other side thinks it is super critical to maintain a cool, calm and "rational" demeanor in the face of the "situation."
    I tend to think there is a place for both styles, and there are different styles of clients, too! Some love the hand wringing and the noble aspirations. And others like to think that they are "in good hands" with a "realistic" professional (serious frown here.)

    The only thing I'd add to this brouhaha is that it's my (limited) understanding that when the carbon count was in the 1,000's...T-Rex roamed the earth! So if we don't mind trading our penguins for 30 foot tall giant lizards with bad breath then I guess there's no really no reason to panic, folks.


    ------------------------------
    James Carr AIA
    Brookline MA
    ------------------------------



  • 39.  RE: new UN report points to urgency

    Posted 01-15-2020 09:24 AM
    Laurie,

    I'm amazed that climate alarmists always default to labeling any diverse viewpoint as "denialism."  I haven't seen any posters deny that climate change is happening, or that humankind contributes to it.  So "denialism" must actually mean something else… 

    Some of us do deny that life on earth will end in 12 years if we don't ACT NOW!!  Others of us deny that hijacking our profession to SAVE THE PLANET is rational.  But we don't deny that the eco-alarmists will probably continue to rant.  …Let's compare notes in 2032.



    ------------------------------
    Dennis Wells AIA
    Oklahoma City OK
    ------------------------------



  • 40.  RE: new UN report points to urgency

    Posted 01-17-2020 10:37 AM

    Dennis: "Ferris Bueller, you're my hero"



    ------------------------------
    Michael Poloukhine AIA
    Owner
    ReSquare Architecture + Construction
    Los Angeles CA
    ------------------------------



  • 41.  RE: new UN report points to urgency

    Posted 01-21-2020 08:59 AM

    There's a lot in this thread that we all seem to agree on. As Dennis pointed out, no one is denying that climate change is real and is impacting our environment. No one is denying (I don't think) that those impacts are affecting the way we practice.

     

    We know that as architects we serve our clients. It is our professional responsibility to protect the health, safety and welfare of the public we serve. This is why they depend on us. This is also why we have codes to require things that make buildings safe.

     

    This makes it imperative that we, as the trained professionals, provide to our clients the information they need to make informed decisions about their buildings. As to the concern about urgency to "act now" it seems that we act on our knowledge every single day. It is crucially important that we know what's going on so we can tell our clients. It is, indeed, our ethical responsibility to do that.

     

    Our profession has the knowledge of efficient systems that save energy and water, and therefore money. We have knowledge of what materials are toxic and endanger the public's health. We know how to design buildings that will do better to weather a storm, to provide natural ventilation, offer daylighting, and encourage healthy activity.

     

    The point was made that, as architects, we should, "leave the politicizing of science to politicians, and stop trying to be anything but Architects. Buildings are our specialty; not politics." Personally, the last thing I want to do is be a politician. Buildings and the built environment are my specialty, and I want my contributions in that areas to be the best contributions to the public good that they can be. There is nothing political about design excellence or superior building performance. There should be nothing political about making sure a building serves its community.

     

    The impacts of buildings on the environment are clear. We need to take responsibility for how we manage those impacts before some other entity does. The more we make architecture a relevant part of people's daily lives, offering daily benefits they can see and appreciate, and protecting them from the threats that are visible, the more our profession maintains its relevance in the world.

     

    Can't we all agree on that?


    --

    Betsy del Monte, FAIA, LEED BD+C
    Architect & Consultant, CameronMacallister
    Adjunct Professor, SMU Lyle School of Engineering
    214-850-1248





  • 42.  RE: new UN report points to urgency

    Posted 01-17-2020 10:37 AM

    "Let's compare notes in 2032"

    That's what we said in 2008 about 2020 and here we are, still being called "deniers". From this chair, there's denial going on all right, but it ain't us.



    ------------------------------
    Michael Poloukhine AIA
    Owner
    ReSquare Architecture + Construction
    Los Angeles CA
    ------------------------------



  • 43.  RE: new UN report points to urgency

    Posted 01-21-2020 08:54 AM
    No one said we'd all be dead in 12 years.

    If we don't adjust the path significantly within that timeframe, the world of hurt will be greater. Every delay means we will have to fix more later to obtain the needed shift. Adjust the ship now a degree or two, and the destination can be reached. Or wait until we are 1/2 mile from the rocks, and we will need to make a radical (and likely not feasible) 90 degree turn to avoid distress.

    And, BTW, we are loosing biodiversity at an alarming rate. We need to understand we are not the only living beings on this planet. And we are interconnected in ways we do not entirely fathom. As we lose these species we will discover why they are important to us and the systems within which we function...and we will not be able to go back and save them. 

    Jodi Smits Anderson
    DASNY
    P:518-257-3486





  • 44.  RE: new UN report points to urgency

    Posted 01-21-2020 08:54 AM
    Thank you Dennis, I agree completely!

    ------------------------------
    Pablo Bottari Tower AIA
    Project Manager
    Chipman Design Architecture
    Park Ridge IL
    ------------------------------



  • 45.  RE: new UN report points to urgency

    Posted 01-09-2020 04:27 PM
    Fact Check of statements made by contributors on this thread:

    Dennis B. Wells AIA wrote:

    1. "Who says that the rapidity of the emissions profile is something the planetary system cannot accommodate?  (Celebrities and teenage activists?)  Our planetary system has accommodated radically higher CO2 levels in the past and accommodated it rather nicely. It will continue to accommodate in the future."

    False: From NASA/NOAA:
    Graphic: The relentless rise of carbon dioxide  


    "levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere are higher than they have been at any time in the past 400,000 years."
    https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/24/graphic-the-relentless-rise-of-carbon-dioxide/

    This will be my last post on this thread, I must get back to work. Thank you all for a lively discussion.

    If you want to understand the science of climate change (from credible scientific organizations), I recommend the following websites:
       For the Evidence/Causes/Effects: https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/
       For the latest information on CO2/Global Temperature/Arctic Ice and Ice Sheets: https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/ 
       Climate Change Impacts: https://www.noaa.gov/education/resource-collections/climate-education-resources/climate-change-impacts
       National Climate Assessment Report – Impacts on the U.S.: https://nca2014.globalchange.gov/report and
               https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/
       Climate Impacts Around the World: https://whrc.org/our-work/programs-projects/
               and https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/



    ------------------------------
    Edward Mazria FAIA
    Founder And Executive Director
    Architecture 2030
    Santa Fe NM
    ------------------------------



  • 46.  RE: new UN report points to urgency

    Posted 01-10-2020 03:14 PM
    Carbon dioxide concentrations dropped from 4,000 parts per million during the Cambrian period about 500 million years ago to as low as 180 parts per million during the Quaternary glaciation of the last two million years.  (Oops... just missed your cut-off.)

    To get a sense of the URGENCY of this terrible problem here is a graphic representation of the true scale of the issue:



    ------------------------------
    Dennis Wells AIA
    Oklahoma City OK
    ------------------------------



  • 47.  RE: new UN report points to urgency

    Posted 01-22-2020 09:23 AM

    We can all argue and debate all we want about whether, how much and in what way mankind is or is not a major factor in what most accept to be a warming planet.

    THAT IS NOT THE ISSUE.

    What is the issue is the AIA is a professional orgainzation. It is here to first and foremost support our *profession*, our ability to practice as Architects. The global warming, AGW, climate hoax, whatever you want to call it has nothing to do with the profession as a practical endeavor we undertake.  It is a waste of the organizations resources, and as such the $800+ we pay for dues, for them to devote energy to an issue outside the practice, however urgent an issue it may be (proven or not).

    Imagine, as a rhetorical exercise, if the AIA had instead come out with a mission statement on climate change that said the scientists claiming a crisis are wrong, and we need to design buildings and push codes to, rather INCREASE CO2 output.

    Or, better yet, if the AIA put a stake in the ground on the abortion issue, concluding that abortion should not be condoned because it reduces the number of people in the world, and that hurts our profession because we build housing for people and the more people, the more housing.

    If you would be livid, you should be equally livid the AIA has put a stake in the ground the other way around on AGW.

    The AIA should be NEUTRAL on it.

    Architects, on the other hand? We can (and should) be as opinionated and active on the issue (or any other) as we feel is warranted for our practice and our client base and the AIA's role would be advocating to allow Architect to practice as they THEMSELVES see fit with respect to issues of the day.



    ------------------------------
    Michael Poloukhine AIA
    Owner
    ReSquare Architecture + Construction
    Los Angeles CA
    ------------------------------



  • 48.  RE: new UN report points to urgency

    Posted 01-24-2020 08:56 AM
    Michael,

    You are completely wrong:

    Architects have a direct responsibility for about 40% of the greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere through the energy consumption If the systems and embodied carbon of the materials WE specify.

    The science IS real whether you want to accept it or not.  We all have benefited from living in a meta stable carbon ecosystem that evolved over many millennia where carbon expenditure and uptake were balanced and we have upset that balance in a way that literally threatens our collective future prosperity.

    WE as an organization have an obligation to take responsibility for a problem WE helped to create.  To say that the AIA should stay neutral is to turn our backs on our collective complicity.

    The abortion analogy is unfortunate and irrelevant as is lacks causation- a better analogy would be disabled access and in that the AIA took a strong stand to say we will design facilities that are accommodating to all.

    WE are part of the problem, WE must be part of the solution.

    ------------------------------
    James R. Deane, AIA, CDT, LEED AP, PMP
    Senior Supervising Architect
    WSP
    ------------------------------



  • 49.  RE: new UN report points to urgency

    Posted 01-27-2020 08:17 AM
    The idea that we can individually and spontaneously act to achieve any complex outcome against long-entrenched special interests is pure fantasy.

    Every practicing architect has been granted a license to practice with the obligation to protect the safety, health, and welfare of the public. Building codes & zoning provide a floor to what we must do, programs like LEED and the Living Building Challenge seek to raise the ceiling of what we can do. Within the context of any individual project, our span of control only extends as far as our client's budget and our ability to educate and influence their decision making. To have any meaningful impact beyond that, we have to act as a group, as a profession, through the AIA and allied organizations. Failing to take action risks the permanent diminishment of the profession

    If you turn to what it is we should do, much of this can be justified on the basis of public health and community economics without getting deep into carbon taxes or the like. Air quality impacts cognitive ability which impacts health costs and economic productivity. Walkable & bikable places also promote health, encourage local spending for increased sales tax receipts and the resulting density reduces a municipalities' long-term maintenance commitments. Lower water and energy use means less reliance on distant and aging infrastructure. These are very practical matters that have been warped by half a century of perverse development incentives.

    For anyone that sees this as too political, there are still plenty of ways to help out at the local level that won't get you stuck exchanging talking points to no end.

    ------------------------------
    Sam Watkins AIA
    Senior Associate
    BKV Group
    Dallas TX
    ------------------------------



  • 50.  RE: new UN report points to urgency

    Posted 01-28-2020 09:14 AM

    Sam Watkins, well said. Right up until:

    "To have any meaningful impact beyond that, we have to act as a group, ..."

    If that's an Architect's passion, then by all means, create a group and act as such. But that imperative applies only as far as those who, in your words "want to" approach whatever imperative ceiling someone puts out there, NOT to those who don't subscribe to it.

    "...as a profession, through the AIA and allied organizations."

    But THAT is BY DEFINITION hijacking the profession for one's own political purposes, and if using the AIA to do it, hijacking that organization in the same manner. That is PRECISELY what many of us are upset about.

    "Air quality impacts cognitive ability which impacts health costs and economic productivity. Walkable & bikable places also promote health, encourage local spending for increased sales tax receipts and the resulting density reduces a municipalities' long-term maintenance commitments. Lower water and energy use means less reliance on distant and aging infrastructure. "

    All laudable goals in and of themselves, and completely irrespective of whether one buys into the climate hysteria or not, and with little to no effect on it even if one does. And few of them anything we as Architects, or even a profession can actually assure be done unless our clients want it, a city allows it, a politician risks his capital for it, etc. And then only to affect about 0.004% of human global greenhouse gas emissions. (see my previous post)

    Let Architects practice as they see fit. Let our organization encourage that.
    But if our organization takes a side on a political issue it has exceeded its mandate and is failing the profession as a whole by taking on the role we as Architects are tasked to do as professionals.



    ------------------------------
    Michael Poloukhine AIA
    Owner
    ReSquare Architecture + Construction
    Los Angeles CA
    ------------------------------



  • 51.  RE: new UN report points to urgency

    Posted 01-28-2020 09:11 AM
    I couldn't agree more with the demand that WE play as big a role as we are able, both collectively and individually, to mitigate climate change and its impacts while there's still a chance to do so. I'd rather be remembered by history as part of the climate change solution, rather than being a passive observer. We are inherently leaders, so let's lead!





  • 52.  RE: new UN report points to urgency

    Posted 01-28-2020 09:11 AM
    Very well said. We also have a responsibility to future living beings. We have to conform to safety standards with our designs now. Why should that not apply to the future??

    Franziska Amacher FAIA 


    AMACHER & ASSOCIATES Architects
    237 Mount Auburn Street
    Cambridge, MA 02138
    617 354 8707


    www.amacher-associates.net






  • 53.  RE: new UN report points to urgency

    Posted 01-28-2020 09:13 AM

    My *opinion* is "completely wrong"? A claim of fact may be "wrong", but an opinion?

    But, ok ... let's play and look at some facts:

    "Architects have a direct responsibility for about 40% of the greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere through the energy consumption If the systems and embodied carbon of the materials WE specify."

    Factually wrong in so many ways, I can't keep track, but I'll try.

    a) 40% of greenhouse gasses "in the atmosphere"? No. MAYBE 40% of our *emissions* into it the atmosphere which itself is only about 0.04% CO2.

    b) Greenhouse gases *emitted* from the built environment are about 6% of total human emissions. If one adds heat and power production, it gets near 40%, but we don't specify how power plants produce heat or power.

    c) 6% is the ENTIRE built environment. New builds are only a small portion of that 6% which is being replaced. I'd guess 10% of the 6%, or 0.6% of emissions, tops.

    d) I'd guess we as Architects design/specify about 10% of that new build (the rest is cookie-cutter, off-the-shelf built), so now down to 0.06% of all human emissions under our possible control

    e) The difference between a 91 AFUE and a 96 AFUE is a 5% increase in efficiency. We can probably affect the rest of the building design similarly. Let's say, best case we get EVERYTHING in the building we design bumped up that 5%. That leaves us with 0.0036%. 0.0036% doesn't have the same ring to it as 40%, so let's round it to 0.004% and call it close enough.

    That's 0.004% of total human emissions we as Architects could POSSIBLY manage to reduce as design professionals, if we ALL could convince EVERY client EVERYWHERE across the world (including China and India) to spend money on that over... dunno... more floor area.

    China ignores this, or one volcano blows... and there goes anything we did IN TOTAL, if the ENTIRE profession toed the line.

    Seems a real thin argument on which to hang our entire profession.

    "The science IS real whether you want to accept it or not."

    Sure, "science is real"; I haven't ever said it isn't. I'm saying there's a debate AMONG SCIENTISTS about what "the" science says on the subject in the SCIENTIFIC profession, and that, more importantly, it is not in the realm of  *professional practice* of Architecture to be involved in that debate.

    HOW we specify products IS part of our *professional practice.* You can find that in the AIA *professional* handbook.

    WHAT and WHY we specify them is not. Those are OUR choices as individuals and our purpose as professionals. If those individual choices become part of the definition of our practice, our practice will cease to exist for lack of purpose. 

    "we have upset that balance in a way that literally threatens our collective future prosperity."

    No, we have not. Even the IPCC doesn't go that far.

    Spending the quadrillions of dollars it would take to barely move the climate needle even based on IPCC modelling is what threatens our future prosperity, and the Nobel Society awarded a prize in economics to the guy who proved this.

    And again: this is NOT the practice of Architecture, it is the practice of SCIENCE and ECONOMICS.

    "WE as an organization have an obligation to take responsibility for a problem WE helped to create."

    "WE are part of the problem, WE must be part of the solution."

    You are free to hold this self-effacing opinion as an individual Architect. You can even build your practice around it if you want. But our PROFESSION is under no such obligation simply because you hold that opinion personally. And the organization set up to support our profession as such is out of place to take a strong position in this regard; it is not its place to do so.



    ------------------------------
    Michael Poloukhine AIA
    Owner
    ReSquare Architecture + Construction
    Los Angeles CA
    ------------------------------



  • 54.  RE: new UN report points to urgency

    Posted 01-27-2020 08:16 AM

    I find this response to be off-topic and to be making rabid connections between issues of personal choice and issues of architectural practice professionalism.

     

    Climate is related to our practice. Everything we build is directly affected by climate and by resource e management, as well as by the people that the building/place serves.  To ignore these realities is a detriment to our profession. The AIA has chosen well in requiring we consider them in our practice, and address them in our designs as appropriate to the project and to what we have discovered through our consideration.