Be very cautious, if not outright sceptical, about any building claimed to be "Net Zero". RICS has calculated that just building an office development accounts for 35% of its carbon footprint, rising to 51% for residential. The Wave may be nearer to the former than the latter, but it has had to be built twice, all of which would have to be recovered if over its design lifetime (60 years is the norm) if it is not to add to carbon (or its equivalent) in the atmosphere. Unless the building itself is cleverly sequestering carbon, it might be more "Not" than "Net". Offsetting schemes (let alone carbon credits) should also be treated sceptically. A building's worth of trees means a lot of mature, sustainable broad-leaved woodland conjured up and maintained in perpetuity (i.e. long after the building is gone); and it quickly becomes unclear which new trees would never have existed without the need to offset and which would have been planted anyway. Carbon claims can be as slippery as graphene.
To be completely fair, "Net Zero" is far better than business as usual, and it's reassuring that large organisations now feel obliged to go at least that far. The danger remains of it being seen as "job done". New buildings will always be needed, and a realistic goal is responsible budgeting of carbon emissions, not their total elimination. Even so, that makes "Net Zero" a curate's egg - and we should remember that was only partly bad but totally inedible.
Be very cautious, if not outright sceptical, about any building claimed to be "Net Zero". RICS has calculated that just building an office development accounts for 35% of its carbon footprint, rising to 51% for residential. The Wave may be nearer to the former than the latter, but it has had to be built twice, all of which would have to be recovered if over its design lifetime (60 years is the norm) if it is not to add to carbon (or its equivalent) in the atmosphere. Unless the building itself is cleverly sequestering carbon, it might be more "Not" than "Net". Offsetting schemes (let alone carbon credits) should also be treated sceptically. A building's worth of trees means a lot of mature, sustainable broad-leaved woodland conjured up and maintained in perpetuity (i.e. long after the building is gone); and it quickly becomes unclear which new trees would never have existed without the need to offset and which would have been planted anyway. Carbon claims can be as slippery as graphene.
To be completely fair, "Net Zero" is far better than business as usual, and it's reassuring that large organisations now feel obliged to go at least that far. The danger remains of it being seen as "job done". New buildings will always be needed, and a realistic goal is responsible budgeting of carbon emissions, not their total elimination. Even so, that makes "Net Zero" a curate's egg - and we should remember that was only partly bad but totally inedible.