After two weeks of negotiations, participants at the COP28 summit came to a form of agreement about how to move forward, but will it be enough?
The ‘carbon stocktake’ required each country to provide concrete plans for carbon reduction and it was clear for all to see that there are many varying nations involved with competing interests.
Australia is party to the international Paris Agreement and is required to publish and commit to carbon reduction targets, with a goal to reach net zero by 2050.
Just to be clear on how we’ll reach this milestone, we cannot leave this until the 2040s, there is a need to phase our transition to a low-carbon economy and begin reductions now.
Legislation is now in place that will impact all industries and businesses across Australia. But what will this look like from a compliance perspective? From a cost perspective? What does that mean for business in Australia?
Carbon will soon be the subject of audits. Businesses will be required to provide proof that they are reducing their carbon footprints in line with the legislation, the Paris Agreement, and with the commitment of a 43 per cent reduction across Australia by 2030.
What will the outcome of this be? There will most certainly be a monetary cost to producing carbon. There will be those sectors that buy offsets (traditionally those creating the most carbon with skyrocketing profits), and then there will be sectors that cannot afford the ongoing operational cost of carbon offsets to comply with legislation. For those sectors and businesses, they must reduce their operational carbon output and begin decarbonisation to remain in business.
But here’s the kicker…reducing carbon output and decarbonating businesses will cost money, but carbon offsets will eventually cost the business more.
It’s the same for renovating your house. There is an initial output of money for good insulation, solar panels, and high-performance windows, but post renovation, your running cost is low, and basically impervious to market rate fluctuations.
I believe that a ‘carbon economy’ will develop where each cubic metre of carbon produced will have a cost associated with it. Most likely, that cost will be transferred on to the consumer, companies and organisations that don’t begin decarbonisation now will have higher running costs in the future and higher costs for consumers.
In the end, economic and social advantages will go towards companies that decarbonise.
As an architect, I think this is an issue that affects us all. In the built environment, there is an upside to addressing decarbonisation through creating efficiencies, developing an engaged workplace, and gaining a market advantage.
There is significant potential to improve efficiencies, reduce cost, and reduce your carbon offset burden while improving upon design and preparedness for the climate intensity we are projected to see over the next six years to 2030.
From an architectural perspective, I believe the logical areas of building facilities to consider are: building services, building fabric, natural resources, design elements, landscape opportunities, furniture, fitting and equipment.
Each of these areas breaks down into further component parts for analysis of carbon production. For example, building services are made up of power supply, gas, water sewerage and the like. Each of these components have their own carbon footprint. I argue it is a job best suited to an Architect to analyse and assess where most carbon emissions emanate, to then devise sensible, achievable projects to reduce their carbon impact.
Decarbonisation and going down the carbon-neutral, net-zero path ensures more than any other green strategy, that you are measuring, monitoring, and managing emissions at your organisation.
And in 2024, being a responsible carbon citizen is the very least we should expect from any business.