Image Source: who.int

The 2021 UN Climate Change Conference, or COP26, held in Glasgow from 31 October to 13 November 2022, has brought once again to the forefront the imperative need for a substantial and centralised decision, aimed at achieving the already outlined UN resolutions for climate change. Nevertheless, the summit comes a year after the announcement of the incumbent General Secretary of the People’s Republic of China, Xi Jinping, in September of 2020, in light of which the country commits itself to reduce CO2 emissions in line with a publicised detailed agenda by 2060. This pledge for environmental neutrality, issued by the country otherwise known for being the chief «global polluter», comes to reshuffle the geopolitical deck, and perhaps see the rise of China as the leader of the much anticipated Green Transition. How might the rest of the global players react to this shift? That remains to be seen.

From Kyoto to Glasgow

The vital necessity for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, and more importantly of CO2, was already dominating public and political dialogue as early as the 1970s, while it was only in 1988 that the World Meteorological Organisation and the United Nations Environment Programme launched their operations. Two years later, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, comprised of 400 scientists, published their first evaluation report, corroborating the considerable extent of the problem at hand. The creation of the UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) was consequently precipitated by the report and was eventually signed during the Rio de Janeiro Earth Summit in 1992.

The Kyoto Protocol, an addendum to the Rio Conference stipulations, was signed in December of 1997, following a line of considerably more coordinated yet significantly more exacting efforts. All EU member states- as well as the majority of countries- ratified the protocol, with notable outliers being, among others, the United States. More importantly, the latter offered as justification for its abstention the lack of established commitments for the then developing nations, a classification China and India at the time seemed to fall under. Amongst the noteworthy exceptions, “greener” countries like Norway and New Zealand were even permitted an emissions increment. In light of those developments and as alluded to in the protocol, from 1997 and thenceforth, the term Emissions Trading became a staple of the new global vocabulary.

Be that as it may, and despite the commitment by all developed nations for a 5% cut on collective greenhouse gas emissions from 2008 to 2012, the goals laid out continue to appear altogether distant. Despite the never-ending deliberations and talks within the folds of the scientific community, the timeframe for the containment of a potentially devastating temperature hike seems to continuously be stretched further and further, making even the most favourable estimates speak of detainment of global overheating by as late as 2050.

Source: ichef.bbci.co.uk

The most recent and somewhat controversial effort for talks took place in Glasgow during the autumn of 2021. The 26th Climate Change Conference (COP26), albeit initially promising, didn’t seem to produce any substantial outcomes. The “eradication of fossil fuel” was summarily countermanded and rebranded into the “reduction of fossil fuel”, with China and India laying down “red lines” on how the curtailment of the most financially quintessential mineral must be achieved. We must, after all, never be remiss to not acknowledge that, economically, fossil fuel continues to mobilise with its energy output the global economy, but within this capacity, it is also responsible for 40% of the totality of greenhouse gas emissions.

China and the Green New Deal

"How can anyone expect that developing countries make promises about phasing out coal and fossil fuel subsidies? Developing countries still have to do deal with their poverty reduction agenda.” This phrase by India's Environment Minister, Bhupender Yadav, sums up the nature of the main stumbling blocks that skulk behind the reality of the protracted deliberations. India’s stance, in combination with China’s precondition for a recalibration of the main objective towards the reduction of fossil fuel dependency instead of the complete eradication of CO2 emissions, effectuates a complete restructuring of the global political chessboard. The proclamation of the Chinese apropos the cumulative de-carbonisation of the economy has been received with circumspect scepticism from the rest, and specifically with a degree of pointed suspicion from France. Furthermore, and according to the historian A. Tooze, the EU member states have yet to effectuate efficient measures aimed at achieving environmental reform, assuming a more “appeasing” stance towards the problem at hand. This gave way to the foreseen result of seeing China put forth structured proposals for resolving the repercussions that the reduction of fossil fuel consumption will inevitably engender in the industrial sector. At the end of the day, the much-attested codependent correlation between industry and the financial and, by extension, class configuration of the societal stratum was already made incontrovertibly evident by the end of World War II.

That being said, a year preceding the Chinese resolution and instigated by activists’ action and under the added guidance of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Ed Markey, the Green New Deal resolution, a fourteen-page proposal, was composed in the USA in 2019. In the aforementioned text, the inaugural steps towards the Green Transition were adequately fleshed out, as well as those of the ubiquitous changes it will set in motion throughout the scopes of both private and public life. The text attempts to offer answers to the quandary of the exploitation of alternative energy sources in fields like transportation, construction and the cultivation of crops. Nevertheless, and as mentioned above, the fundamental codependency of the socioeconomic constant of industrialised nations with fossil fuel is a fact that remains widely uncontested. Even though the Green New Deal proclaims as its main priority the safeguarding of workers’ rights, universal healthcare and the ensuring of jobs, it does not seem to offer any substantive resolution to the inevitable increase of unemployment in the case of establishing firm restrictions on the industrial sector. Hence, Yadav’s dilemma remains distressingly unanswered yet again in this otherwise solicitous and promising American proposal. What remains to be determined is how the vertically designed Chinese proposition might serve to attenuate the very real complications generated by this particularly difficult conundrum.

Ultimately, it is not solely the industrial sector to blame for environmental pollution. According to research made by RIBA, the construction sector carries an equal share of culpability, with construction-related emissions accounting for up to 40% of greenhouse gasses. So, how might we go about reversing the current situation, and with what means exactly?

The role of architecture and design

As was, after all, somewhat inevitable, the lack of meaningful discussions with respect to the construction sector during the official deliberations for the climate, brought about the vehement protestation of a wide array of architects and designers. Decisive was the reaction of many amongst them towards the Glasgow Conference, with Andrew Waugh of the London based Waugh Thistleton Architects, stating: “It’s just a start when it’s almost too late”. The same opinion seems to be shared by Simon Allford, president of RIBA, himself putting greater emphasis on the footprint that the Conference’s adjudications will have in the future, while it is in Hélène Chartier’s (chief of C40 Cities) observation that it’s “Better than nothing, but clearly insufficient” that one might find the abridged and succinct opinion that the great majority of professionals operating in the field subscribe to.

But what would the transition to a more ecological approach in the field of construction look like?

Designing the Future

It is in Paul Hawken’s book, Drawdown (2017), that one might come about the interesting computation, according to which, should 9.7% of new construction reach a zero fossil-fuel-generated energy consumption, then that would shave off 7.1 gigatons from the grand total of global greenhouse emissions. The critical importance of this gradient reduction has led many architects and designers to assume action. Epitomising this trend, RIBA decided to develop the 2030 Climate Challenge, educating and assisting architects to design with a more environmentally friendly philosophy in mind, with the end goal being the attainment of a minimal-to-zero involvement of fossil fuel in the overall process. The four prerequisites are as follows: the reduction of operational energy waste and integrated fossil fuel requirements, the frugal consumption of drinking water and last but not least giving priority to the health and wellbeing of the tenants.

Moreover, in an age when houses are becoming increasingly bigger and with all the more voracious energy needs, a study on the construction of more compact and practical spaces would offer an extra useful tool for the minimisation of the “carbon footprint”.

In regards to the more functional aspects of the designing process, investigation of the breadth of possibilities for the maximisation of natural lighting, more effective insulation, the enlisting of solar panels and natural gas, or even the adoption of “green roofs” and via the collective utilisation of alternative energy sources, can conclusively lead to an up to 70% increase of the operational productivity of the building. Additionally, the implementation of natural resources like wood and rock in the building process could conduce, up to a degree, to the minimal exploitation of industrial building materials.

Source: e nvironment.princeton.edu

Last but not least, improvements in civil planning, with added prominence to the diminution of cars and the parallel expansion of pedestrian zones and bike lanes, can contribute to the collective efforts for reducing the environmental pollution. An example of such a case is the one in Portland, USA, where the redesigning of public spaces brought about the curtailment of car usage by 20%.

Other such actions towards the creation of a greener architecture were already being enacted in China in 2017. The main difference between these efforts and the aforementioned examples is the faithful adherence of the Chinese to a more centrally organised strategy of environmental development, which promised to deliver the ambitious pay-off of having 50% of all buildings constructed until 2020 qualify for a Green Building certification. The main objective of this plan was for the country to increase the environmentally friendly building percentages from 5% (2017 numbers) to 28% by 2030. Naturally, structural efficiency -in energy as well as practical terms-, in a country where the levels of urbanisation have skyrocketed to 40% in the past 15 years, remains the primary concern.

The unsuccessful venture of Project Ara

Design could not possibly be excluded from the efforts for the reduction of energy consumption. Many designers have turned towards more eco-friendly designing methods, from object design to appliance design. From ready-made furniture and knick-knacks to electric cars, technology delimits a lot of potential in playing a conducive role to the reduction of CO2 emissions, should it be employed in a respective manner.

One such effort was the launch of Project Ara by Google, in collaboration with LG and Motorola. In precis, based on an innovative design via Phoneblocks, the user would have been able to update their device’s software and hardware automatically, equipping it with the latest technological advancements. In that way, one could possibly resist the trend of buying a new, more advanced model. Regrettably, despite this much-promising initiative and the positive impact it would have on the regulation of energy consumption and industrial waste, e.g. mobile phones, this endeavour of DIY devices was crowned a woeful failure and was consequently summarily scrapped. The reason why this project was cancelled was never made public since the companies involved never offered any official justification. Perhaps consumer disinterest towards the customisable device functions, in conjunction with their costly design, constituted some of the reasons behind the recalling of these hybrid mobile phones from the market.

However, the philosophy of developing these particular models with the explicit purpose of circumventing the insatiable need for constantly buying a new one might have been what eventually cost Google dearly, since, in the possibility that this proposal had taken off, its sales would have plummeted, since, with the addition of only “certain” components, i.e. of a more high-definition camera, there would not exist the need to replace your old device for a new one. Self-evidently, this would have not worked to the advantage of neither the companies involved nor the manufacturers.

Source: cnet.com

Such are the suggestions listed above, concertedly with the postulations for the future, that it is quickly made apparent that solutions do indeed exist, provided they are structurally airtight and consistently prioritise achievable goals. Even though we anticipate that these individual efforts will prove themselves sufficient enough to cope with the new demands of modern societies, showing the way towards a more fruitful and constructive method of tackling environmental change, to what degree might those ultimately reverse the already dire situation we currently find ourselves in? What amount of optimism can we allow ourselves in the pursuit of a better future?

Citations

-Πρωτόκολλο του Κιότο. from: ypen.gov.gr.

-Hawken, Paul. 2017. Drawdown. New York, NY: Penguin.

-2030 Climate Challenge. www.architecture.com.

-Charbonnier, P., For an Ecological Realpolitik, Από: www.e-flux.com.

-Designers vs. Climate Change. : https://www.architecturaldigest.com/story/designers-architects-take-on-climate-change.

-Baker, A., COP26 was "better than nothing but clearly insufficient" according to architects who were there. : https://www.dezeen.com/2021/11/17/cop26-insufficient-architects-designers-responses/.

-Αμφιλεγόμενο φινάλε για την COP26. : https://www.dw.com/el/%CE%B1%CE%BC%CF%86%CE%B9%CE%BB%CE%B5%CE%B3%CF%8C%CE%BC%CE%B5%CE%BD%CE%BF-%CF%86%CE%B9%CE%BD%CE%AC%CE%BB%CE%B5-%CE%B3%CE%B9%CE%B1-%CF%84%CE%B7%CE%BD-cop26/a-59815084.

-Dawood, S., What can designers do to help tackle the climate change crisis?. : https://www.designweek.co.uk/issues/29-april-5-may-2019/what-can-designers-do-to-help-tackle-the-climate-change-crisis/.

- Weyl, D., & Hong, M., Lessons from China's ambitious green building movement. : https://www.greenbiz.com/article/lessons-chinas-ambitious-green-building-movement.

TechAltar, Why Have Modular Smartphones Failed? : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CcQxdjHlKO4&ab_channel=TechAltar.