Information on sustainable products is often confusing and contradictory, as illustrated by the greener-than-thou spat raging between the timber lobby and the PVCu industry (5 September, page 68).

This is a debate that could continue to rage for years, and will ultimately get us nowhere. Sustainability is not an exact science, so why should we expect our ratings systems and accreditations to perform like one?

Surely the point of developing sustainable buildings is to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide they emit, reducing the effects of climate change. Currently, 70% of energy incorporated within a building is operational. Therefore it makes sense to address this first, giving manufacturers the time and opportunity to address embodied energy, which will be the main consideration once we reach the stage of developing zero-carbon buildings.

Sustainability is not an exact science and so why should we expect our ratings systems and accreditations to perform like one?

Paul Roche

There is a long way to go before we can take the purist view. Staying focused on developing and promoting realistic and practical sustainable options that provide clients with tangible environmental and economic benefits is more likely to lead to sustainable solutions being adopted on a wider scale. One thing is for certain: 鈥淩eplace your existing windows with FSC-approved timber windows鈥� is not a call to action to which many households will respond positively. The only significant response it would likely elicit is for the majority opting to stick with what they鈥檝e got, along with their current CO2 levels.

Paul Roche, director of sustainable products, SIG

Topics