As clearer guidance becomes available and clients become more carbon‑literate, the question is no longer whether to consider carbon, but when. The answer is simple: as early as possible and continuously throughout a project’s lifecycle, says Tom Ridley-Thompson, associate director at CPMG Architects
Attention to whole-life carbon in the built environment is increasing. Prior to this focus emerging, most sustainability efforts have been to reduce operational energy usage – which is still incredibly important. Planning authorities partly set the existing agenda, typically encouraging measures such as energy efficiency and renewable energy generation.
As the energy grid continues to decarbonise, the importance of embodied carbon and whole-life carbon thinking will keep increasing.
Planning authorities are already beginning to add requirements for whole-life carbon assessments, or similar, in planning applications. The Greater London Authority has led the way, with its methodology specifying a consistent 60-year assessment period to enable comparison between projects.
Similarly, the Department for Education has embedded whole-life carbon requirements into school design through its Construction Framework 25, which launched earlier this year. Tasked with meeting a hard embodied carbon limit, this is a major change for the main contractors delivering the projects.
The RIBA’s 2030 Climate Challenge and the UK Net Zero Carbon Buildings Standard, among other voluntary challenges and standards, also encourage whole-life carbon thinking. One key similarity is the importance of early decision-making.
Understanding carbon implications
Early decision-making within projects is fundamental, such as whether to build new or refurbish. This decision encompasses many considerations, but from a whole-life carbon perspective, we must work together to ensure information is accessible, actionable, and integrated from day one.
For example, designing a timber-framed building might be seen as a catch-all solution for reducing embodied carbon. However, because embodied and whole-life carbon considers all aspects of the building fabric, from carpets to light bulbs and beyond, the frame is not the end of the story. However, I must note that timber use certainly brings benefits.
Final decisions on the procurement of each part of a building may come at a later stage, or they may have been set earlier by performance requirements or named suppliers in the specification. This aspect has a substantial impact on a project’s carbon performance.
Therefore, carbon decisions need to be built into the early project stages to avoid missing out on early wins. Significant carbon reductions can still be achieved later in the process, but the earlier planning and stakeholder engagement begin, the better.
When a whole-life carbon assessment is completed for a project, it covers all aspects of construction, handover, operation, future refurbishment, and eventual demolition. This requires asking a variety of questions across topics such as the processes the contractor will use on site and the owner’s maintenance regime. These are the considerations that a design team may not typically focus on.
For architects to play a successful role in carbon reduction, we must undertake the design stage differently. If we want to design a building for its intended purpose and for disassembly at the end of its operational life, whole‑life thinking will be essential.
Beyond the carbon implications, whole-life thinking is a vital part of the built environment’s responsibility to design responsibly for future generations. Transparency and accountability are already themes reaching every corner of the construction industry, and whole-life carbon thinking will only increase their prominence.
