One of the UK’s most famous architects has withdrawn from an environmental coalition in a dispute about the destructive role of aviation in the escalating climate crisis. [...]
The decision follows a row over Foster and Partners’ work on airports around the world – seen by critics as incompatible with tackling the climate and ecological emergency.
— The Guardian
Airport designs have been key projects in Foster + Partners' portfolio for years, with prominent recent commissions and competition entries in Saudi Arabia, Marseille, Chicago, Mexico City, and Beijing.
Following Foster's decision to withdraw from his initial commitment, Architects Declare issued following statement on its website today:
We are disappointed that Foster + Partners has chosen to withdraw from the declarations and we would welcome a conversation with them on the points raised.
We recognise that addressing the climate and biodiversity emergencies challenges current practice and business models for us all, not least around the expansion of aviation. We believe that what is needed is system change and that can only come about through collective action. Architects Declare is not a ‘protest’ movement but a collaborative support network to innovate positive transformation. Our movement is global. As of today there are 1037 UK practices committed to the declaration and over 6000 companies signed up in 26 countries under the broader banner of Construction Declares.
The debate, and indeed the very definition of sustainability, has evolved considerably as the depth of the crisis we face has become ever clearer. Our declaration represents a positive vision of how our profession can respond to the planetary emergencies. This involves embracing new approaches and being realistic about what can be solved with technology in the next crucial decade.
We’re looking forward to working with our signatories to raise the level of ambition in preparation for the critical COP26 climate negotiations next year.
15 Comments
Airports and association with crappy governments like the Saudis and Chinese. At least Foster is honest.
I'll look for the actual figure but I read something a few months back that showed commercial air travel accounts for something like 3-4% of total carbon emissions.
I don't think the existence of airports is at odds with climate goals. Further, I do think restricting what 'ending “business as usual”' means to a narrow set of absolutist behaviors is going to undermine the movements own relevance.
Prepare for the coming punishment.
Here we go: "In 2018, it’s estimated that global aviation – which includes both passenger and freight – emitted 1.04 billion tonnes of CO2. This represented 2.5% of total CO2 emissions in 2018." (https://ourworldindata.org/co2...)
What's concerning to me is the trend line in that data. I think, on one hand, a world without air travel would be a massive step backwards in human achievement. I also think, on the other hand, that people should fly less frequently and that medium-haul flights could be easily replaced with electrified rail to make up the convenience gap that's currently pushing people towards planes for 1-3 hour flights.
In short: people should fly less often and cross-country / intercontinental travel should be the primary use of airplanes. There's still a need for airports in this scenario.
the other thing to note is that separating aviation in measurements makes it seem uniquely bad as a transportation mode. it's certainly worse than rail or busses used at reasonable capacity but possibly better than single passenger car travel. graphic posted below.
This is so uncool.
Instead of being a role model for leading a better world, very disappointing.
Other firms should take a stand for Zero carbon design.
So we are going to black list architects that design airports because of their carbon footprint? The whole profession needs to seriously look at itself in that case. Considering how much carbon the construction industry produces, maybe we should just stop constructing buildings?
Good on Foster for not cowing to their demands.
It's not binary, and seeing this decision through that lens is foolishly reductive.
the whole debate is meaningless. whether or not prominent architects design specific buildings has no effect on global emissions - it only indicates whether we celebrate the role of aviation and travel or hide it in back with all the other dirty things we'd rather not associate with.
for comparison: at one time electricity seemed progressive and futuristic and so great architects got involved building wonderful buildings that find appreciation long after their dirty usefulness has ended. now we don't celebrate coal power, but it's very much still out there. other uglier buildings just go on polluting quietly in the background until better technologies supersede them and we destroy the buildings.
the point being big-name architecture is a symbolic act; including or excluding firms from a list is likewise only an indication of symbolic value and not an influence on what actually matters.
replying to the discussion tduds started above: most transportation produces bad emissions. air isn't good by any means, but nothing else is either. note this graphic was produced by an association of american coach bus operators so there is a bias there...
Ferry boats, who knew?
Living in a port city and working in the biggest port of Europe I'm well aware of the emissions of travel and cargo over water. One cruise ship emits carbon the amount of 84000 regular cars and particulate matter the equivalent of a million regular cars. A lot to be won in that sector, but fortunately there are options available to cut emissions there (easier than in aviation) by switching to electric, hydrogen or even natural gas.
About that graph though, with travel it should perhaps also show the emissions per passenger: That train is going no matter you're in it or not (unless you're the train driver), that car on the other hand will not go anywhere without you.
"it should perhaps also show the emissions per passenger"
It does. That's what the first part of "passenger mile" indicates.
Ah yes, I see that now, thanks missed that part on mobile.
I would also withdraw from Architects Declare, as this is not enough:
We will seek to:
https://www.architectsdeclare....
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.