Reader's Rant

The way in which we use language about an idea has an effect upon the success with which that idea is implemented and provides the standard for our expectations. Take, for instance, the idea of a building being ‘sustainable’. Over the past few years this word (and its variants) has steadily been introduced into the vocabulary of the built environment and it is now ubiquitous, being sprinkled liberally throughout articles, seminar titles, environmental assessment methods, statements of design intent and elsewhere. It has become the fashionable accessory without which no self-respecting design specification or promotional literature can do without. But the more the word is used, the more it is becoming misused and, in effect, redefined.

If we consider environmental sustainability - the most common of the three pillars of sustainable development to be discussed in our particular sector - in what sense can any building that has a measurable negative environmental impact be termed ‘sustainable’? It is, by definition, not sustainable because as long as it is operating it will only increase its negative impact on the environment. The most well-known definition of sustainable development is that which “meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”. If our buildings are continuously harming the environment and depleting the earth’s resources every day they are in operation, are they not compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs? Only when we have reduced such damage to zero can we start thinking of a building in terms of being sustainable. If we manage to produce buildings that have a net positive impact upon the environment then we are truly contributing to sustainable development. As long as a building is being harmful to the environment any reduction of such harm that does not entirely eliminate it can only be defined as damage limitation. This is predominantly the case and yet it is commonly passed off as sustainable development.

One area in which this gradual redefinition is taking place is in the language associated with environmental assessment methods, such as BREEAM (and others). BRE is careful to define its suite of assessment methods as being “designed to help construction professionals understand and mitigate the environmental impacts of the developments they design and build”. In other words, BREEAM is about environmental damage reduction and not about sustainable development. Yet BREEAM is increasingly interpreted within the construction sector as being a metric for sustainable development. Use of the terms ‘very good’ and ‘excellent’ have become misleading because they are hijacked to mean ‘more sustainable’ to one degree or another. In fact, it would be more accurate to call buildings achieving these ratings as BREEAM ‘not as bad as most’ or BREEAM ‘a bit less harmful’. Naturally, the same language problem attends the so-called Code for Sustainable Homes, in which homes that measurably damage the environment will be awarded ‘sustainability rating’ stars. Your article (issue 07/08) entitled ‘Spec and sustainable’ provides a prime example of how BREEAM and sustainability have become almost interchangeable. Whilst the office building presented might be a bit less environmentally damaging than similar buildings of its type, it cannot in any way be considered to be sustainable since in order to operate it has to import fuel, power and water, export waste and emit CO2; what’s sustainable about that? Looking further at the latest BSJ (by way of example), I count quite a number of uses of the word ‘sustainable’ (and its variants) in articles and adverts, many of which are obviously inserted in an attempt to give environmental credibility to product and design ideas whose deployment would result in measurable environmental damage.

We should all be more careful about the context in which we use the word ‘sustainable’ and its variants. If those of us who commission, deliver and use the built environment continue to pretend that the design and production of buildings that are merely ‘a bit less harmful’ equates to the implementation of sustainable development we are not only fooling ourselves but arguably betraying both current and future generations for whose sake we are supposed to be delivering it.

If you would like to comment on this blog, or any other pressing issues in the building services industry, please send your thoughts to bsjeditorial@cmpi.biz.