We must do better, and the good news is: we can

From afar, it seems a reflexive posture by many observers and pundits to criticize the outcomes of COP26. Naturally, the cynics outlined the scene as offering only a status quo— obdurate governments in the pockets of Big Oil and toothless climate action advocates who flew in on private jets. Cynics also said hypocrisy was the order of the day, and that self- interest governed the behavior of all assembled officials. I think that’s white noise. Having represented The American Institute of Architects in Glasgow last month, I argue that the intent, the desire, and the ambition to pursue meaningful climate action was firm. We all wanted the same thing at base level. Everyone assembled understood that this is not a time for complacency and we all must be in lockstep now and in the future on the basis of two related truths: we must do better and we can do better.

One of the important ways we can think about architecture’s agency in the fight for equality is zero-carbon design, which is an ethical approach to human-centred action and planet-centred action. Some architecture firms have wisely made climate action a success metric for every single project they take on and some of them have signed commitments. I was joined by a few of the world’s largest architecture firms on stage in Glasgow whose leaders, recognising that climate action presents an acute challenge to the scales of business, were nevertheless ready to be vocal protagonists in the next chapter. Their follow-through is critical to our collective success, and if they can help create pathways, supply streams, methods of construction, and industry standards by making climate action a business scale factor, then every community we live in may benefit from their contribution. The smaller architecture firms out there and the smaller organisations out there are all central to this strategy, but it’s the larger firms and the larger organisations that are generators of the solution.

That’s the good news. The less good news is that, from my perspective, it was a surprise to most people gathered at COP26 that architects were even in the room. I think architects need to do something about that. Whilst we think we are at the centre of the built environment, we are not the individuals that policymakers, financiers, and the like see as influential. That is, until they think about it for a moment

and realise how critical we actually are in shaping the fabric and the physical and social infrastructures of cities. That moment happened almost immediately in the conference’s timeline. A storm-induced flood in Glasgow in the days before the conference provided the Greek chorus to our climate drama and the built environment entered stage left as both the villain and the hero. As delegates took the train north from London, storms closed the rail lines on the west coast of Britain, so there was the sense that we were living the conversation, not just having the conversation.

Speaking of conversations, we are only just beginning the process of including the right people. For instance, why wasn’t Greta Thunberg in any of the halls of official power at COP26? Why weren’t protesters given a platform for debate (even if they did their best to create platforms and garner media attention)? Why wasn’t there greater accountability among world leaders? Putting Sir David Attenborough on stage was a no-brainer, but what effect did that truly have on the practical questions of combating climate change? For those with a short memory, Jacques Cousteau appeared on stage at the first COP in Rio de Janeiro, saying nearly the same thing as Sir David said last month. That was 30 years ago and yet we still, remarkably, need to hear a refrain that should be so familiar to us by now.

My point is that we’re beyond celebrity pitches. We are at the investment stage, and it’s clear that an investment in climate action is the responsibility of officialdom and the responsibility of each person through their work as architects, as engineers, as code officials, and as legislators. We must make this message of “do better” more accessible to individuals even beyond our vaunted professions. There is no switch in real life that we can flip and transform everything to be carbon neutral because our lives are enmeshed with the energy superstructure of nations and of industries. Our fate might very well be in their hands, too, unless we take action as individuals and as professionals.

Peter Exley FAIA

This article originally appeared in the RIAS Quarterly (a publication of The Royal Incorporation of Architects in Scotland) Issue 48/Winter 2021-22