In an admission shared exclusively with Construction Manager, it’s been revealed that the construction industry’s direct carbon emissions rose between 2008 and 2012, the period in which it had undertaken to deliver a 15% cut.
Expressed as tonnes of carbon per million pounds of expenditure, or carbon efficiency, the industry’s performance declined by 2% in the period.
In absolute terms, carbon emissions linked to activities directly in the industry’s control did fall by an estimated 6% during 2008-12, the period covered by the 2008 Strategy for Sustainable Construction’s voluntary target.
But because activity also dropped sharply, by 9%, the industry data collated by the Green Construction Board reveals that carbon efficiency in fact worsened over the period.
The admission was made by Balfour Beatty’s director of sustainability Paul Toyne, who co-chaired the Green Construction Board’s Carbon Infrastructure group, who acknowledged that the results are surprising and disappointing.
“When you realise that greenhouse gas emissions actually increased during the recession, what will happen to emissions when levels of activity start to increase too?” he asked.
Carbon efficiency on construction sites worsened between 2008 and 2012. Photo: Matt Brown
“Absolute emissions in terms of CO2 going into the atmosphere decreased, but have we as an industry driven that reduction by changing our construction processes? The answer to that is ‘no’. Contractors’ output over that period dropped by 9%, but emissions only dropped by 6%. In broad terms, our relative emissions in 2008-12 increased by 2%.”
Toyne said that there were cuts in some areas, such as a 33% reduction in business travel emissions, but these were offset by increases in onsite construction emissions.
The report has not yet been published on the Green Construction Board’s website, despite CM being advised by a member of the GCB that it would be posted in October. The report was originally due to be published at a government construction summit on 2 July.
The revelations on its contents also casts doubt on the industry’s ability to meet the Construction 2025 target of reducing built environment emissions, covering site-related emissions, operational emissions and embodied carbon, by 50% from 1990 levels by 2025.
The 2008-12 operational emissions target has not been replaced by a new industry-wide target. Instead, WRAP and the UKCG last month introduced a new Built Environment Commitment, where signatories pledge to “reduce direct emissions from onsite construction and related activities by at least 0.5 million tonnes CO2” by 2025. In comparison, the 2008-12 target was set at 0.75 million tonnes.
“When you realise that greenhouse gas emissions actually increased during the recession, what will happen to emissions when levels of activity start to increase too?”
Paul Toyne, Balfour Beatty
“It’s an important initiative, as we should all be driving down emissions in an effort to be more efficient,” Toyne acknowledged.
He argued that the industry’s efforts to cut carbon through the downturn years had been hampered by a failure of leadership, an absence of methodology on how to measure emissions, and unwillingness from some quarters to disclose data.
As previously reported, the GCB had assumed responsibility for three working groups – on waste, water and emissions – that were established to deliver the 2008 targets, which were originally set by the government-industry Strategic Forum for Construction.
A more detailed “how to guide”, the Action Plan to Reduce Carbon, was published later, in 2010, giving a breakdown of the baseline levels of emissions and 2012 targets for various activities.
The principal areas measured were: site emissions, construction freight transport, business travel, office operations and offsite construction manufacturing and assembly.
But efforts to rally the industry around the target were undermined by lack of funding and lack of continuity, Toyne said. “The Construction Products Association acted as secretariat to the three groups, and at first, we were successful in getting funding from the Carbon Trust then WRAP. But the funding was never for a long period, it was a stop-start process.”
In 2008, the industry had extremely poor data on its emissions, which improved slightly with publication of the 2010 Action Plan, Toyne said. “By 2012, we had a higher level of reporting and accuracy, but it’s still really poor, so the assumptions we’re making are of an order of magnitude.
“The real picture depends on how many construction projects there are out there, let’s say there are tens of thousands at any one time. So how many data points should be we have? To gain a better assessment of the true impact of the construction industry in terms of carbon emissions we need more data and at present we’ve only got a relatively small sample to work with, which is clearly unhelpful.”
But Toyne also acknowledged that some UKCG members had been reluctant to disclose their data. “In 2008-12, there were some good businesses that attempted to provide the best data they possibly could, such as Willmott Dixon, BAM, Wates, Lend Lease where I was previously, and now Balfour Beatty. But there are a number of companies that haven’t disclosed data – it could be because of IT reasons, or they lacked expertise in the business.
“But we our new construction environmental policy is to commit to reporting in a timely and accurate fashion from 2014 onwards.”
CM has asked the UKCG to confirm how many businesses have signed the new pledge, and will also be gathering industry reaction for later publication.
