Commercials of Reuse
I joined a debate with Elliott Wood and McGee
A short newsletter, but it captures what was said last week at the second meeting in a series hosted by McGee and Elliott Wood called ‘Carbon Breakfast’. Multiple large London clients were present, further signalling that the circular economy has the growing attention of industry leaders.
As part of the introduction, Charlie explained how reuse is one of the quickest ways to Zero Carbon Buildings. He put this into context by using a stat from the Ellen MacArthur Foundation which states that the circular economy could reduce global CO2 emissions from building materials by 38% in 2050.
One of the challenges in front of us is how we recognise the value inherent in the buildings and stock we already have. We have to build less, and build clever.
We focused on the economic and legal dots on the diagram below - the others actually feel relatively easy to achieve or overcome. For me these all come together in the top right large yellow dot, the Business Case.
Personally, I think carbon will be a measure we use for a long time to come. In theory, this can pick up circularity, if modules A, C and D are all accounted for. The problem is that the window across which we view a development (and the business case) doesn’t align to module A-D. I outlined this in a previous newsletter (Embodied Carbon and A Circularity Metric), and proposed a circularity metric might be needed.
The benefit such a metric would bring, is that you could measure and capture good work done on a development, which (via today’s carbon calcs) is not really captured in an embodied (module A-C) score:
Deconstruction and material salvage - extract and salvage more materials for reuse and get a higher score (this could still have carbon as an underlying input)
Design for deconstruction - all the good work of designers does not really get recognised in todays measures. A new score looking at this could help push this part of design forward and drive change.
If there was a metric that covered circularity across a development (from deconstruction, to rebuilding on the site, and including how it is designed for deconstruction) then this could be used to inform better decision making. It would also find itself used during the scoring of tenders and I think you would see a step-change in how the industry looks at circularity when designing and tendering.
Currently, I do not believe clients score carbon with a high enough weighting in tenders, which still struggle to shake off focus on cost and programme. A circularity metric could help position and justify some proposals against, what could appear to be, higher cost and longer programme.
I was pleased to see another reference to Circular Steel from Charlie, who used it to demonstrate how steel is a leader in this space. Please do visit LinkedIn to follow the page and join the group.