Can Architecture Firms Become Truly Carbon Neutral?
Save this picture! The Kendeda Building for Innovative Design is located on the campus of Georgia Institute of Technology, in Atlanta. The building generates 225% of its energy needs from solar; captures rainwater for drinking; and screens out common hazardous materials. It earned a Living Buiding Challenge certificate in April. . Image  Jonathan Hillyer  This article was originally published on Common Edge. Martin C. Pedersen talks with Ron Rochon, managing partner at Miller Hull, about Carbon and the role of architectural firms in eliminating emissions. Discussing the EMissions Zero initiative, the current shortcomings of carbon offsets, and the way forward, the piece also questions the possibility of setting goals with the absence of an internationally, agreed-upon carbon cap. Earlier this month, Seattles Miller Hull Partnership announced the launch of EMissions Zero, an initiative, according to the firms press release, aimed at eliminating emissions in the built environment and reducing Miller Hulls environmental impact. Part of that effort involves purchasing carbon offsetsessentially, emission reductions made in one area to compensate for emissions made elsewhere. Miller Hull has pledged to offset their portion of the construction of all of their projects. To answer that question and a few more, I called Ron Rochon, managing partner at Miller Hull, and we had an honest and insightful discussion about the EMissions Zero initiative, the current shortcomings of carbon offsets, and the way forward. Related Article Architecture and the Death of Carbon Modernity  MCP (Martin C. Pedersen): Tell us about EMissions Zero and how it took shape. RR (Ron Rochon): Weve been focused on reducing emissions for years and have been doing all we can internally, through education of ourselves and our clients, our design work, using carbon footprinting tools like Tally, and advocating for electric buildings, stricter energy codesall of those things. But it just started to feel at a certain point that people kept making commitments to do something out into the future, to do something by a date that was very far away. MCP: Thats called kicking the can down the road. RR: You could call it that. We felt very strongly that we wanted to act now. As architects, we live and work in an industry thats part of the carbon and greenhouse gas emissions problem. Buildings are responsible for almost half of the greenhouse gas emissions in the world. We handle it through design, education, and advocacy. Were using our resources to do that. But for a long time now, we felt like we needed to own up. We are complicit in this process: we enable the construction of buildings. And so we want to own our part of the problem. MCP: These carbon-offset programs are complicated and vary widely, both in scope and sometimes in impact. RR: Weve been doing research for years, because as a business weve been carbon-neutral since 2006. We started working with the Bonneville Environmental Foundation to buy carbon offsets, to offset the energy use of our business, our travel, supplies, catering. And we early on latched onto the idea that every offset we buy needed to be vetted and certified by a third party, so that we know that the program is solid, that we can depend on the money going into the project that we think were funding. There must be a results benefit. We get reports from Bonneville about what our offsets are funding. One of the fundamental pieces of EMissions Zero is that all of the offsets will be Green-e Certified . We also work with a company called 3 Degrees. They collaborated with us on one of our two Living Buildings, the Bullitt Center in Seattle, along with our own office remodels. 3 Degrees finds, coordinates, and compiles the offsets that we purchase. We have three areas that we want impacted. One is carbon sequestration. Another bucket is renewable energy. Some of our offsets go directly into renewable-energy projects. And then were interested in agriculture. Agriculture, as an industry, isnt quite up to speed yet, with how it produces greenhouse gases and what it can do to offset them. Were trying to draw a line between the dot of agriculture and methane capture. Thats the third big bucket that were focused on. Save this picture! The Bullitt Center, in Seattle, a 6-story, 52,000-square foot building, generates 100% of its electricity needs, onsite with renewable energy, earning a Living Building Challenge certificate. . Image  Nic Lehoux  MCP: Youve been purchasing offsets for the business for a while. Now youll do it for the buildings you construct. RR: I would say that the scale is roughly 36 times more. RR: Weve been offsetting, historicallyand theres nothing like a pandemic or a good recession to lower your carbon footprintabout 500-plus tons a year for our business. RR: Thats about $3,000, plus or minus. RR: Yes. People think its a huge lift, but its not. MCP: Thats not much. RR: Any business could do it. I mean, Microsoft and Amazon, they have massive carbon footprints and for them, its a higher hurdle, but for a midsized architecture firm, its not that big of a deal. RR: Yes. Our business is responsible for about 500 tons of emitted CO2 a year. The buildings that we designed, and which will come online in 2021, are responsible for about 55,000 tons. Therefore, if were offsetting a minimum of one-third of each projects emissions, that total for us in 2021 will be 36 times our total for our business or about 18,300 tons. RR: We model all of our buildings in Revit, which is essentially a database, and theres a program that hooks onto it, called Tally. MCP: Developed by Kiernan Timberlake. RR: Right. At every phase of the design, in conceptual, schematic, design development, and construction documents, we run Tally on every project, using our own resources to do that. That helps us make smart decisions about how we can reduce the carbon in our design. Thats the first leg of it. The soft set-piece is innovation, but its co-equal to the way we design, and the way we educate our clients. Tally is not perfect. There are some things that are missing from the model. MCP: There arent enough environmental impact statements for the materials used in building construction. Thats an industry-wide problem. RR: Correct. Tally is heavily focused on building structure and building envelope. We have good numbers on that, but it lags behind in things like mechanical, plumbing, and electrical systems. MCP: Even wood. Theres only one environmental statement for wood, for the entire industry, a material thats milled and shipped in a number of different ways. RR: Right. As part of our education piece, were trying to figure out how to model these resources in the most practical ways. And, yes, Ill admit its a blunt instrument, but its the instrument that we have to use today. And the instrument is getting sharpened as we go. Youre in a little bit of uncharted waters here. RR: We are. Were not in the carbon-cap-and-trade economy here. We can buy carbon offsets for methane capture for $2 a ton, or we can buy carbon offsets for reforestation, for $10 a ton, depending on the types of projects that we want to help finance. Thats not a huge price. But in the carbon-cap-and-trade market, carbon is priced considerably higher, like 30 bucks a ton, but were not talking about that kind of thing. Were talking about ongoing offsets that are selling at a reasonable price. But it can be done. Save this picture! Ron Rochon, a managing partner at Miller Hull, in Seattle.. RR: Some of our clients are interested in talking about how they might partner with us. We consider ourselves a partner with clients and our contractors. And were saying: Miller Hulls commitment in a three-way partnership would be one-third of the offset, at the minimum. So now we will engage our owners and contractor partners to help and encourage them, to ask them if they want to join us and offset their portions. But were doing it first. Were not talking from a place of setting some future date. Were doing it right now. Weve been keeping this fairly close for now, as we figure out what exactly it is were doing. But as we open up with our EMission Zero project, we will have a platform to discuss that fourth leg, the offset with our clients. MCP: Many people question the effectiveness of voluntary carbon offsets. RR: Theyre another wedge that can be driven into carbon reduction. If were paying the freight for something that we design, were using it as an incentive for us to be smarter about how we reduce carbon in the design process. Of course, there are. If we start specifying those ways, things like carbon dioxide injection into concrete, we can move the market, because weve specified that to incentivize ourselves, to bring down the cost. And so in our mind, its more of a virtuous cycle than a payoff from some kind of guilt. MCP: I hope that were headed towards some eventual carbon cap that all countries agree on. Then the cost of offsets would reflect the actual harm carbon does to the planet, and the economics would shift dramatically. RR: Yes. Weve been aware of the externalities for years and years. Whether they like it or not, the public is paying for this emitted carbon. Certainly, the simplest thing to do would be to tax carbon where it enters the U.S. economy, in those six or eight or 12 big places, and let the costs flow down from there. But were not there yet politically. And so this is what we can do right now. RR: The perfect world outcome is that we see more architects that we consider our peers start doing this. And that wed have more conversations about offsetting greenhouse gas emissions from the construction industry. Today nobody even thinks about it anymore. What were trying to do is send a signal to our peers and to the market that this is a good thing to do. It has benefits for everybody, and its not insurmountable.