By Thomas Vonier
FAIA RIBA
Immediate Past President, International Union of Architects
Former President, American Institute of Architects
DAY 1 — A Member of the Carbon Generation Goes to Glasgow
With youngsters in the Glasgow streets outside of the huge COP 26 compound shouting “no more blah blah blah,” it rankles at times to sit inside the UN Climate Conference compound and listen to . . . well, if not exactly blah blah blah, then more talk. But some of all this talk gives cause for hope, and even optimism.
You often hear good news in the dozens of seminars and events staged by various national delegations and activist groups—from Pakistan and its massive tree-planting efforts to the joked-about “Methane Moment” booth, where you learn about substantial global efforts under way to curb the production and release of this potent greenhouse gas.
President Biden’s methane-reducing initiative has received a positive reception, from all I can discern. His climate emissary, John Kerry, has been omnipresent delivering strong messages about steps the US will take, and is urging others to take. People seem to listen and believe.
So, even if the dire warnings never cease to grow in urgency and scope, and even if the sense is here that we are not doing enough, we do seem to have made progress since COP 21 in Paris—a climate conference to which I walked and where architects made many promises.
DAY 2 — A Member of the Carbon Generation Goes to Glasgow
A thing here that amazes: the huge numbers of people who’ve turned out—25,000 by some estimates, and more seem to be arriving every day. That serves as a reminder: With so many of us on the planet, is it any wonder that we’ve disrupted our climate? Is it any wonder that our climate is disrupting us? And not only us—extreme weather and changing conditions are affecting nearly all forms of plant and animal life.
As one of the 7.7 billion humans on our planet—triple the number alive when I was born—this number defies description, boggles the mind, staggers the imagination. In a report on global population, CNN reported that it would take you more than 30 years simply to count to that number . . . if you could do it at all, and if you never stopped to eat, sleep, or do any of the other things we do.
DAY 3 — A Member of the Carbon Generation Goes to Glasgow
Except for the parts on foot, from home to the métro and between trains, I traveled to Glasgow from my residence in Paris by rail. The journey took about ten hours and involved a harried change of rail stations in London. I wanted to reduce my “carbon footprint,” which is supposed to reflect the quantity of so-called greenhouse gases generated by a defined activity.
These gases—principally carbon dioxide and methane, but also water vapor and chlorofluorocarbons—trap infrared energy and thus help to raise temperatures on the Earth’s surface. Did I succeed in reducing the environmental impact of the trip? Here’s what “The Man in Seat 61” has to say (the man is Mark Smith, a passenger rail advocate and an authority on the carbon released into the atmosphere by various forms of travel): “Eurostar commissioned independent research to assess the CO2 per passenger produced by a London-Paris Eurostar journey versus that emitted by a passenger on a London-Paris flight.
The research looked at actual Eurostar passenger loadings, actual Eurostar power consumption, the way Eurostar’s electricity is generated, actual aircraft loadings, actual aircraft fuel consumption, and so on. The conclusion was remarkable: Taking the train to Paris instead of flying cuts CO2 emissions per passenger by a staggering 90 percent.”
DAY 4 — A Member of the Carbon Generation Goes to Glasgow
If I can sit here and feel pleased for a while about my low-carbon diet, I do have to consider the many among these 25,000 who flew to Scotland—from Washington DC, from Dar-es-Salaam, from Tokyo, from all points of the globe. And how about the four hundred private jets that brought the dignitaries and stars? Sigh. It’s complicated, and the climate-care goals remain a long way off, but there’s good reason to have hope and perhaps to exude some confidence.
The issues of environmental impact, resource degradation, biodiversity loss, social inequities and injustices; these matters seem to be at the center of agendas for most national governments, many non-government organizations, and more than a few huge multinational corporations. As an architect active for years in national and international professional institutions, I am convinced that people will judge us (and we will judge ourselves) in terms of how well we deliver on the promise to reduce the environmental costs—the carbon footprint, if you must—of buildings and how we build them.
Our major associations—the AIA, the RIBA, the UIA, and others—appear to be in general agreement about the importance of buildings and the means needed to improve their design and performance. The mission here in Glasgow is to help the policymakers chart a path to doing just that . . . well and urgently.
DAY 5 — Talk and Action in Glasgow
For someone who spends so much time decrying “talk,” climate activist Greta Thunberg seems to do her share. She writes, too, sending Tweets to her five million followers. Here’s one from yesterday:
“COP26 has been named the most excluding COP ever. This is no longer a climate conference. This is a Global North greenwash festival. A two-week celebration of business as usual and blah blah blah.”
This terminology—dividing the “global north” from the “global south”—is much in evidence here. Groups are pressing the “global north” to recognize that the “global south” bears inequitable burdens from environmental damage. They are also pressing the haves (mostly north of the Equator) to spend more to help the have-nots (mostly to the south).
Ideas of social justice and equity are firmly embedded in these climate discussions. So are the words “blah blah blah” and the assertion that “it’s all talk”—at least among those on the margins of the formal United Nations climate negotiations and the Blue Zone seminars and expositions.
But there’s more than talk going on here: stronger national and international steps toward methane reduction; national moratoriums on oil-drilling; state-backed actions to halt deforestation; and national programs to reduce waste and restore green space.
These are good steps, hopeful, and real.
DAY 6 — Talk and Action in Glasgow
Here are six conclusions after the sixth day of COP26.
First, electrification is widely viewed as the essential course for all economic sectors, with power coming from non-polluting sources. Power generation is on a good course, but nuclear power is not universally embraced and some countries are lagging.
Second, the mobility and transport sectors are making real progress, especially in the developed countries, but they still have far to go in moving away from fossil fuels.
Third, buildings remain a fine opportunity for reducing waste and excess, but movement has slowed; and there is a huge stock of buildings worldwide in need of improvements which can’t be justified financially.
Fourth, industrial manufacture has big incentives to reduce energy use and shift resource supplies, but technical progress and innovation haven’t kept apace of needs.
Fifth, the food and agriculture sectors are a principal source of undesirable methane production, which the newly announced curbing initiatives should help to end, along with increased awareness among purchasers.
Sixth, the materials sector—a very large, diverse set of producers, recyclers, processers, manufacturers—is showing positive movement, especially regarding the “responsible” production of plastics.
DAY 7 — Talk and Action in Glasgow
All the talk about carbon is wearing thin on some, and the term doesn’t really register with others.
“Well, I suppose it’s something quite dirty, isn’t it?” said a Scotsman at the pub last evening. He wasn’t necessarily wrong, but it wasn’t a very technical take.
“Yes, excess carbon in the atmosphere is one possible cause of air pollution,” said one of my companions.
“So there you are, then,” the Scot said, turning firmly back to his pint—and away from us.
Would we do better to speak — and even to think — strictly in terms of reducing greenhouse gases, extreme heat, and air pollution? “Carbon” comes from science and chemistry . . . daunting subjects to many, alien to more.
Everybody knows about air pollution and extreme heat, too often from firsthand experience.
DAY 8 — “Smart” has many meanings
We have amazing capabilities to know what’s going on with our planet. Day-to-day, and even in real-time, we can see exactly how much forest is being harvested and where. We can measure the status of coral reefs and monitor surface conditions on oceans, lakes, and rivers. We can pinpoint the location of greenhouse gas releases. And much, much more.
This all comes from satellites, which have grown in number and sophistication, while shrinking in size and cost. The Dove satellite constellation—“a fleet of nanosatellites deployed from the International Space Station to take images of Earth” (NASA)— has astonishing surveillance power.
In other contexts, you might call this power “intelligence.” But if intelligence is “the ability to understand and deal with trying situations” (Merriam-Webster), we’ve got some distance to go on the dealing side. The Climate Trace project promotes “radical transparency” in greenhouse gas emissions. Results of their observations are sobering: https://www.climatetrace.org/
The question today is not so much whether we can know reliably what’s happening on Earth—we can—but rather: Is anyone acting upon this information?
DAY 9 — “Smart” has many meanings
A Yale University professor here says we will need more “carbon capture” techniques—both natural and human-made—to meet net zero greenhouse gas emission objectives, because we cannot do enough to reduce such emissions.
Geological carbon sequestration takes carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from industrial processes (for example, making steel or cement, or burning fossil fuel burning for power generation) and transports the extracted carbon by ship or pipeline to deep underground storage sites—including dry oil beds and “natural” geological formations.
Carbon capture is in use at industrial plants for coal gasification, ethanol production, and fertilizer manufacture. Facilities processing natural gas, and coal-fired power plants, also use the technology. The long-term risks associated with deep carbon storage sites are not fully known, according to critics, and the costs of the process are substantial.
Advocates of “carbon capture-and-use”—an approach that avoids long-term storage by reusing the extracted elements—say it is a viable approach for large industrial operations and could reduce current greenhouse gas releases by a significant margin.
DAY 10 — “Smart” has many meanings
Five hours after the huge anti-COP26 climate demonstration had passed by on Saturday—100,000 people in all, chanting and marching in the rain—I walked down Argyle Road, one of Glasgow’s broadest and busiest routes, and a main path for the giant, noisy parade.
The immediate legacy of the march was mounds and mounds of trash: thousands of discarded plastic water and soft drink bottles (yes!), tons of soggy cardboard placards, and piles of wrinkled plastic banners— all pitched witlessly at the roadside.
Really? I thought. This is what the legions of environmental activists have left to the generous and gracious city of Glasgow, and to its trash collectors (who are already striking and unhappy over labor conditions)?
But then, what does one do with all the posters and placards? “Shoulda saved ‘em for COP 27,” said a man who saw me studying a trash heap. “Well,” I said, “let’s hope they won’t be necessary.”
Tom is sending DesignIntelligence daily dispatches from COP 26 and offering his seasoned insights and observations along the way.