There has never been constructed a new building, that has contributed to lowering the environmental load, absolutely.
Every building adds to the consumption of virgin resources, and increases energy consumption, even when it replaces other buildings. Despite many attempts to reduce our consumption pattern, also in building, all strategies have shown marginal results, and usually are overtaken by new trends and rebound effects. Kibert has shown this for instance for US houses [Kibert, 2002]. At the same time , the resource situation becomes more pressing.
It should be realised that resources are at the basis of a societies development. Without resources, no construction, and without a built environment no related problems like health issues, comfort or else, and no GDP growth. In fact: planet comes before people comes before profit.
And the resource situation is starting to create problems. At the moment the world is mostly focussed at the Climate problems, due to fossil energy consumption. However, there is a way out, which is using the overall source, the sun. For materials we have only one planet, we are on an "island in Space".
Geologically there is plenty. However most of it is in the core of the earth, and not available in our time frame. We will have to deal with what's available on the surface, give or take a few meters. And that's limited, and /or the use causes severe problems. Like cement, of which the production worldwide is responsible for 6 or 7 pct of all CO2 emissions. And even cement is becoming scarce: Already since a few years large building projects are closed down for periods of months sometimes in South Africa, due to the lack of cement on the world market. China and India are buying everything.
In most cities in China its not allowed anymore to use ceramic materials for construction ( bricks, roof tiles) . Production is using up to much fertile soil, with the immense demand: China constructs 10 million new houses a year, twice as much as the total available in the Netherlands.
Not that we can blame all on China, they are going through a process that developed countries have passed some decades ago. And India and Brazil as well, to name a few. It just shows how the pressure on resources is growing. And its increasing. A recent study addressing building resource supply for the next decades shows that the ratio of demand and supply becomes increasing negative on the world market for all materials, except coal. [Lei Shen et al, 2005]
Copper is a actual example. Prices rising, in a way that in 2005 160 copper robbers where arrested. Not in a developing country, but in the Netherlands alone, one of the most wealthy countries. And a colleague in Chile is regularly out of contact for some months, due to stolen telephone wiring.
You would not think its possible, but at this moment mankind is mining more materials, than the earth systems move around by volcanism and plate tectonics. [McNeill, 2001]
Combine this with erosion by wind and water ( about the same volume), and you can imagine the earth being flattened in fast way.
Related problem is that it requires energy to transport resources from more distant sources, which increases the pressure on energy systems. And there exist a kind of mineralogical barrier: to mine more cost a 1000 times more energy [Ayres, 2001]. The system gets progressive vulnerable.
Al the resources, that are not regrowable or replaceable, of which the stock only decreases, are under pressure. Which will increases in time the demand for regrowable resources, which wil come under pressure as well. With an enormous claim on land, which already has been recognised as the first scarce resource on earth by the EU [EU communication, 2003]
The economical and political model seems to fail to address this. Though there are some back coupling mechanisms, see the cost of mining above, in general society sticks to its habits , even with high prices. The EU directive on natural resources for instance states that the first effort will be to improve performance of existing materials and products, before looking into alternatives.[EU directive, 2005] In other words, 'Sustainable concrete' (sic!) in stead of wood frame construction, or laminated bamboo research.
And of course this is in business interest, just like the oil industry will sell out oil, before introducing a alternative. From a business point of view understandable, you are not going to compete with your own product, when prices for that are on the rise.
The economical system itself does not help either. Though many link resource management to economy like Ayres[Ayres 2001], the system values bad building and resource consumption: If a building requires a lot of maintenance, GDP is on the rise. As well as for demolition and new replacements. In another approach, trying to value resources for their quality, like the exergy principle for energy, research fails, and its suggested that maybe exergy values should be measured by economy: which makes the idea fail in itself of course. [Wall, 1988]
And no wonder. Resources are a natural , geological and closed system, while economy is human invented artificial system, not developed to manage resources effectively.
A clear basis for rethinking our resource consumption should therefore be given by a resource model, later to be facilitated by a improved economic model. In a resource model, maintenance will decrease the resources, and the stock value, and therefore show the limited growth potential .
We are not starting from scratch. There has been published already a lot about how to manage resources, and close cycles. Footprints, flow management, dematerialisation, to name a few. Cradle to cradle, instead of cradle to grave is well known. And a recent very good work is the book with that name [McDonough et all, 2002]
A resource model however should go beyond the cradle to cradle approach. From a product point of view that one is useful. A brick is a brick and should be produced effectively , used and easy to recycle. But in the end its not bricks that we want, its buildings or better: sheltered spaces. And we should optimise starting from that function wanted.
Its providing those functions ( or services) that we need to measure . If we measure products, it still assumes we need a product, while in many cases for instance we could do with a service. An example comes from training students at Wageningen University in designing and planning a neighbourhood focussing on garages : First target is to reduce resources for a garage design by a factor 2, compared to traditional design. . But the next question to be posed is: can we reduce garages: If they are combined to a covered car park at the edge of a neighbourhood, further resource reduction in design is established. Next: can we reduce car need, and thus garage need? This can be established with car sharing strategies, green wheels etc, with participation project approach and of course Public transport . Less garages needed. Next step: can we even reduce transport need?(and therefore car need and garage need) Its spatial planning and policies that are proposed in that phase.
This shows in a nutshell the need for optimising services as starting point, in stead of (but including) a products approach.
A second consideration is about the timeframe: by looking at product, it still is fashion and trends that decide on the speed of consumption, even if it might be recycled. The use of resources however should be related to the timeframe to replace them. Otherwise we keep decreasing in stock.
Within such a resource system, nothing can be called sustainable , unless it has served a function over a certain period, in a way that the system had time to recover from it. If the time to renew the potential of the system is too short, the system is not sustainable and will change.
At the moment, and in the case of humans, the resource balances are disturbed. And if the species wants to continue its way of life, it has to adapt to the resources, otherwise the resources will adapt the humans. The balance is dictated by the amount of resources: which resources are in what function for how long. And with more people, and growing demand, resources will have to maintain their functions over a longer time of use to maintain a balanced situation.
Its not meant to create a system that does not require resources. That would be impossible, life itself requires resources. And they influence the metabolism they are part of. However to acquire or maintain a balance, resource management is at its basis.
Nothing therefore is un-sustainable, nor sustainable: Its always related to time and function. Even wood , a recognized renewable and sustainable resource in construction: The use of a beam in a house could be called sustainable, but if worldwide more beams are used then available (as part of the yearly growth volume) , its has become unsustainable use of a resource. In a resource model both should addressed: the preferred use of renewable resources, and the limited availability of these, in a time related model.
This is what the the Easter Islanders have experienced in real life, While running out of wood, needed for building and maintaining fishing boats. Including the consequences of decline and extinction. (Pointing, 1991) It's an island, in the ocean. The world is a island in space.
In fact even the use of oil could be sustainable, if we did not consume more then will grow over the same period. [ Rovers, 2007 see notes]
What we are doing now is very fast depleting the stock formed in periods in which we did not use that resource. There will be a moment, for every resource, that we have to start again only consuming what will be regenerated in the same time period.
