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
------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 01-23-2020 19:29
From: James Deane
Subject: new UN report points to urgency
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
Original Message:
Sent: 01-21-2020 15:07
From: Michael Poloukhine
Subject: new UN report points to urgency
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
Original Message:
Sent: 01-09-2020 17:38
From: Dennis Wells
Subject: new UN report points to urgency
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
Original Message:
Sent: 01-07-2020 20:48
From: Edward Mazria
Subject: new UN report points to urgency
Fact Check of statements made by contributors on this thread:
Dennis B. Wells AIA wrote:
- "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
------------------------------
Edward Mazria FAIA
Founder And Executive Director
Architecture 2030
Santa Fe NM
Original Message:
Sent: 11-27-2019 09:33
From: Kira Gould
Subject: new UN report points to urgency
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
------------------------------