The construction conversations we should be having

MBIE’s Building for Climate Change programme heralds an exciting and substantial change from the regulator in terms of planned requirements for carbon reporting and carbon caps in building regulation, including the Building Code.

There is no doubt that we are in a climate crisis and we need to reduce carbon emissions immediately. That requires some hard conversations that we are not yet having.

HERA chief executive Troy Coyle with suggestions on how to generate the discussion and solutions we need ahead of tough decisions around the climate crisis

Carbon emissions now or later?

Over the past few years there have been misinformed and unhelpful assertions around the relative environmental benefits of concrete, steel, and timber. Every material has its place and determining the relative performance of each is complex.

Small studies are often not appropriately extrapolated to make broad claims, particularly as such comparisons need to be robust, impartial, and evidence based.

Some of this debate has been focused on the relative benefits of reducing carbon now (where timber has an advantage) versus reducing carbon for all time (steel has an advantage here because of its infinite recyclability). Timber releases all of its stored carbon back into the atmosphere at the end of the building’s life.

To meet our national carbon reduction targets and to secure intergenerational wellbeing, we need to find a balance of both short and sustained reductions.

There is no point reducing the upfront carbon emissions now if they are only going to be released back into the atmosphere in our children’s lifetimes. That doesn’t make sense, and there is no national conversation about putting greater weight on adequately considering Module D (end of life) in the assessment of sustainable, #greenconstruction. We need sector leadership on end of life issues so that materials aren't simply ticking a box when it comes to addressing decarbonising 'now', but rather realising this issue means future proofing and thinking what that looks like for our generations to come.

There is no meaningful national discussion about how we change the way we think about our homes, and the choices we make when building or renovating.

Where is the conversation about the trade-offs between spending more money on luxury or nice-tohave-items (for those who can afford them) versus spending that money on making our building stock zero or low-carbon?

Hopefully, the changes in regulation will stimulate those conversations more.

Zero carbon is within our grasp

Ten years ago, any conversation might have been about whether a zero carbon steel industry was even possible.

Now we have proved it is, with the launch of Hōtaka Whakakore Puhanga Waro marking a global first for the construction sector, which can now offer a zero carbon steel option for most steel products used in New Zealand.

The offsetting programme includes a robust set of programme rules to determine the underlying requirements for calculating the emissions for offsetting to ensure integrity of the programme.

Emissions are offset via Ekos, a leader in carbon management and environmental financing, through the calculator; the offsets are sourced from native forest projects.

These projects deliver multiple biological, ecological and social co-benefits beyond simply carbon sequestration. This programme can be expected to change the conversation around the carbon performance of steel, with the sector knowing that a reliable option for net zero carbon steel now exists.

In general the construction industry is having a lot of conversations around

carbon in steel, with MBIE having developed two emissions mitigation frameworks under the Building for Climate Change.

Hōtaka Whakakore Puhanga Waro, the zero carbon steel programme, is a game changer for steel, a known hard-to-abate product. It provides a carbon neutral steel option now, to build upon all of the circular economy benefits that steel offers through its reuse and recycling, noting that 85 percent of all steel waste from construction in New Zealand is recycled.

But the reduction of the steel industry's emission to meet the 2050 net zero carbon target is only part of the challenge.

Steel and iron produc-

tion is the single largest industrial source of CO2 emissions in New Zealand, representing 55 percent of industrial emissions and around five percent of total gross emissions. Carbon is primarily used in the steel-making process as a reductant, rather than an energy source.

There are many research projects looking at green steel options using alternative reductants, including work supported by New Zealand Steel, at Victoria University of Wellington, looking at hydrogen as an alternative reductant.

While that technology is not yet available, it is important for the industry to utilise carbon offsetting as a mechanism to reduce net emissions.

The novelty of the zero carbon programme is that it covers a number of different steel products. It includes painted steel used in roofing and cladding, rebar used in concrete, light-gauge steel framing, heavy structural steel and stainless steel.

We are not aware that a programme of this type, at this level of detail, exists anywhere else in the world at this time.

The main users of the programme will be either the building product suppliers or fabricators, who may decide to bring it into their front end to offer

To meet our national carbon reduction targets . . . we need to find a balance of both short and sustained reductions

zero-carbon options to their customers or end-users (building owners).

Suppliers can use the programme to bid for projects offering a zero-carbon option (with the anticipated offsets included in the quoted fee), leaving the end-user to pull an affordability lever or a carbon lever.

Returning to the earlier point about homeowners and renovators, this programme can be a tool to prompt broader conversations around consumer decisions and finding the right balance between ‘building beautiful’ versus ‘building sustainable’.

Minister for Manufacturing

It is not the role of Government to choose building materials. The required performance should be specified, so there is an incentive for all materials to be mea-

sured and to perform well against that criterion.

It also requires a set of rules to be established for how carbon calculation occurs – something MBIE will need to develop in order for Building for Climate Change to operate effectively and with integrity.

With timber having an industry advocate within Government in the form of a Minister for Forestry, there is a lot of material-specific support for timber. There is no equivalent Minister for Steel or Concrete.

If there were a pan-material Minister for Manufacturing who could represent broadly across all building materials, we could expect an improvement in outcomes for all involved in the manufacturing sector and those downstream who rely on its products and services, and associated upside for the national economy.

Role of innovation

There are significant opportunities for advancement in the form of new materials. However, the advancement opportunities offered by traditional building materials and hybrids should not go unrecognised.

We need to expand the conversation about Industry 4.0 applications in the construction sector. HERA has previously reported the significant productivity

benefits this offers in our published report.

There are also significant sustainability gains to be had from the more holistic decision-making approach that Industry 4.0 offers. The Construction Accord has a concerning lack of focus on innovation, certainly as it pertains to new technologies.

This is particularly worrying if the Accord is intended to be a transformation plan for the construction industry, alongside other key sectoral guiding documents, such as the Advanced Manufacturing Industry Transformation Plan. Hopefully, this is something that will be addressed in the planned updates to the Construction Accord.

If there were a pan-material Minister for Manufacturing who could represent broadly across all building materials, we could expect an improvement in outcomes

There is no point reducing the upfront carbon emissions now if they are only going to be released back into the atmosphere in our children’s lifetimes

Behaviour change

Why are we still focused on beauty versus brains? No one wants to spend large amounts of money on their home build or renovation, but people seem willing to spend to make their kitchen more beautiful rather than more sustainable.

In general we seem to spend more of our discretionary funds on luxury items versus functionality in terms of sustainability.

There is a necessary behaviour change here that must be underpinned by massive sociological change that may be little impacted by regulatory change. It is great to see so many beautiful, functional, sustainable, and innovative design solutions being conceived and realised, and more are emerging all the time.

Now we need to make personal and professional changes (and what may be seen as personal sacrifices) to better support these designs, so our consumer and leadership decisions align with our urgent need to decarbonise.

For many people it will be a staged process, from recycling to paying to offset flights to choosing to install a solar hot water system instead of a higher-spec oven or dishwasher, and then committing to a more major step such as going zero carbon operations in

their business.

These are the changes we need to make, and they aren’t without cost in a time when building and construction costs are already high.

The process, the costs, and the trade-offs for each of us, our households, our communities and our businesses – this is a critical conversation we need to have at a national level.

Dr Troy Coyle brings more than 20 years’ experience in innovation management across a range of industries including materials science, medical radiation physics, biotechnology, sustainable building products, renewable energy and steel. She is a scientist with a PhD (University of NSW) with training in journalism and communications.