Are architects are failing to tackle climate change?

Is this really a true statement? Or is it Architects being made the scapegoat for problems that we have little influence over? This is in response to leading environmentalist Jonathan Porritt's statement that 'Architects are failing to live up to their professional responsibility to tackle climate change', given at the Bartlett ethics symposium held earlier this week, (AJ 2nd July 2015) "Porritt said no-one in the built environment had ‘immunity’ from engaging with the latest scientific data on carbon emissions and the predicted rises in global temperature and considering what this meant for their work" 

This raises a number of issues, sure there always is a sense that we could do better, and there is always the risk of "relying on out-of-date science less alarming that the most current projections". This is largely due to the global context changing so quickly that what was designed and agreed to a year ago that may not be on site yet, is already out of date and by the time it is built depending on the scale of the project could be anything up to ten years out of date on completion. There will always be a lag between cutting edge science and what is addressed at the design stage, and what is finally delivered. 

As I see it the problem is the application of cutting edge science in the first place, clients are reluctant to invest in something that is not tried and tested, especially if the perception is that it is going to cost more. Porritt refers to "client dependency syndrome. Contractors and architects all suffer from various degrees of this syndrome and it is complicated knowing how to deal with it.‘There are of course brilliant individuals talking about how important it is to engage morally with this question but for the profession in the round, you’d have to ask the question of whether anyone would associate it with tackling climate change in our troubled world." The problem is without clients we would not build anything and educating clients is as important if not more important than the design solution being offered. 

As a profession we know how to design zero carbon buildings, we know how to plan zero carbon cities, as architects we are constantly engaged in the process of trying to influence decision makers, from policy makers who think that sustainability is something they cannot afford, to clients that think that the use of renewables is a nice to have but do not see it as a good investment due to payback periods being too great, and there are often members of the design team, who assume that they have more influence, cost consultants, mechanical engineers who love to say that 'that won't work' because they want to install the same air conditioning system as they have for the past 20 years. 

There is no easy solution, every project has its challenges, and invariably a project is a compromise between competing factors, as architects we need to stand by our convictions, we are influencing change, more clients are beginning to see that negative environmental impact of their project will outweigh short term financial gains, for me I share the frustration that change is happening too slowly, but am encouraged by gaining momentum. It is easy for commentators to claim that we are not doing enough, and not to champion the change that has been made, that would give us more influence and bring about change more effectively.