Great to see that Te Kāhui Whaihanga New Zealand Institute of Architects has, at last, taken a stand on the climate crisis. And, despite Greta Thunberg calling New Zealand out for a lack of action, it’s encouraging, too, that our government has declared a climate emergency.

Better late than never, especially when reading some of the submissions to the Ministry of Business, Innovation & Employment’s Building for Climate Change (BfCC) programme. Getting any speedy, effective alterations to our building codes and practices to combat this crisis looks nigh on impossible. Perhaps Snøhetta co-founder Kjetil Trædal Thorsen’s dire predictions are right – that our industry will not be able to change rapidly enough to play its vital part in reversing the impact of global warming. Then there’s the feud among signatories to the Architects Declare climate change network, with starchitects Foster + Partners and Zaha Hadid Architects withdrawing from the group over whether or not designing airports is compatible with decarbonisation goals.

To reduce our building sector’s contribution to New Zealand’s overall greenhouse gas emissions (currently 20 per cent), the BfCC’s aim is to increase the operational efficiency of buildings and to reduce the embodied carbon across the life cycle of buildings. Regulating operational efficiency will be through an emissions cap per square metre per annum for buildings – phased in gradually until a final cap is set in 2035. The Institute and others say we need to get that done by 2030, that “we are simply running out of time.” Contrast this with Concrete NZ, which says 2040 would be a more appropriate time frame, arguing the sector needs more time to adapt to the “fundamental change to construction processes” proposed.

The Institute also disagrees with the BfCC framework’s proposal to include only new buildings initially in its operational efficiency requirements, arguing that requiring changes to existing buildings on alterations and renovations will help to meet our climatic goals, plus provide much-needed social and health improvements for much of our older housing stock. Buildings that exist in 2020 are predicted to make up 65 per cent of New Zealand’s building stock in 2050 and a similar proportion of emissions. It seems daft that the framework has kicked this remediation issue to the too-hard-right-now basket.

The Institute is also at odds with the BfCC’s position that new buildings will not be required to include onsite renewable energy generation or energy storage. It argues onsite renewables should be incentivised. “Onsite renewables reduce the demand on New Zealand’s infrastructure, which allows a more efficient use of electricity and supports our transition from fossil fuels to electricity use.” It’s also pro onsite collection and storage of water and onsite wastewater treatment, arguing a more resilient water supply and options for wastewater recycling will reduce the stress on a city’s infrastructure. Bravo.

To deal with embodied carbon emissions, the BfCC framework proposes reporting requirements for whole-of-life embodied carbon in buildings, followed by a phased-in cap on whole-of-life embodied carbon for new building. The Institute supports the cap approach, including for refurbishments and demolition projects. It adds that any cap should be calculated in a way that discourages the construction of large homes and incentivises smaller homes. “If all new homes were built half the size, the emissions produced would almost be halved; therefore, it is crucial that the construction of large homes is actively discouraged.” A laudable aim but, perhaps, many architects’ wealthy clients will not like being told to reduce the size of their mega-mansions.

It’s here that the Institute finds itself at odds with both Concrete NZ and Sustainable Steel Council New Zealand. Concrete NZ says the assigning of a suitable cap is going to be massively complex and is likely to result in many undesirable outcomes. It points out foundations for any structure are a function of the ground conditions. “Buildings built on potentially liquefiable ground or expansive soils will have stiffer and higher embodied carbon foundations. If the cap is set too low, then many potential building sites become unusable.” The Sustainable Steel Council opposes the BfCC approach as fragmented and likely to alienate much of the sector. One of its chief concerns is the time it will take (an estimated 10–30-year horizon) to develop technologies for low-carbon steel.

But perhaps more alarming is that the Institute seems out of step with the New Zealand Timber Design Society (TDS) and the Wood Processors and Manufacturers Association of New Zealand (WPMA). The joint submission on the framework is critical of the suggested strategy, saying it will be difficult to implement and may not, in the end, make the difference that is intended. In particular, the groups are concerned the proposal does not recognise the potential of sequestered carbon in bio-based building materials for the design and construction of net-zero carbon buildings.

The groups say, rather than a cap, the goal should be net-zero carbon buildings, where the carbon sequestered in the bio-based building materials offsets the embodied carbon emissions from manufacturing all the other materials in the building. It argues financial incentives, such as interest-free loans, government grants or tax breaks, will be much more effective in reducing carbon emissions than caps on performance would be.

The disagreements over caps versus incentives, plus implementation time frames and exclusions, show a BfCC framework with what seem to be fundamental flaws. But it’s a start. What’s needed now is leadership that can bring such disparate views together. I’d like to think architects of the Institute might step up to that role.