{"id":676760,"date":"2022-10-21T09:14:28","date_gmt":"2022-10-21T08:14:28","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/?p=676760"},"modified":"2022-10-24T09:55:58","modified_gmt":"2022-10-24T08:55:58","slug":"whole-life-carbon-assessments-a-whole-new-type-of-greenwash","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/news\/whole-life-carbon-assessments-a-whole-new-type-of-greenwash","title":{"rendered":"Whole-life carbon assessments \u2013 a whole new type of greenwash?"},"content":{"rendered":"

There is no one-size-fits-all way of pinpointing how much CO<\/span>2<\/sub><\/span> will be released by a building over its lifetime. Whole-life carbon assessments (WLCAs) are an evolving, complex and imperfect science. For many, they are tortuous and labyrinthine, created by some hard-to-fathom alchemy. And they are causing more and more disputes, especially across London. <\/span><\/p>\n

WLCAs forecasting how much CO<\/span>2<\/sub><\/span> a scheme\u2019s backers think will be produced from a building\u2019s creation through to its demolition and possible re-use now accompany applications for most major developments in London. They were meant to usher in a new era of low-carbon development. But instead, campaigners claim, they are being manipulated in some instances by canny developers able to exploit the lack of industry and planning know-how to spuriously justify demolition over refurbishment.<\/span><\/p>\n

From Oxford Street to the Barbican, architects and developers come armed with detailed WLCAs to back proposals to bulldoze young buildings and to erect steelier, glassier and taller replacements.<\/span><\/p>\n

In response, campaigners are shelling out to produce their own rival WLCAs to question the assumptions in \u2013 and the intent behind \u2013 developers\u2019 calculations. It is a foggy, CO<\/span>2<\/sub><\/span>-filled battlefield.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

\u2018The system is not currently working,\u2019 says Catherine Croft, director of The Twentieth Century Society. \u2018Developers have huge financial incentives to pay consultants to argue against retrofit options, while those tasked with assessing the ever-increasing amount of information that descends on them are starved of training and money.\u2019 <\/span><\/p>\n

It is an issue that is likely to be increasingly important to architects outside the capital. In an effort to tackle embodied carbon (the emissions released by the mining, production and transportation of building materials), the government last month hinted it could mandate WLCAs on some or even all buildings following a consultation next year, with regulations seeking to cap embodied carbon likely to follow.<\/span><\/p>\n

So are these assessments really being subverted to provide cover for unsustainable business-as-usual development? Are they, in other words, just the latest form of greenwash? And when, if ever, will we have clarity in this complicated area?<\/span><\/p>\n

The Greater London Authority (GLA) has nudged WLCAs towards the mainstream in the latest edition of its London Plan. Any scheme involving buildings taller than 30m or providing more than 150 homes must now produce one. <\/span><\/p>\n

But WLCAs are about more than up-front embodied carbon: they also consider operational carbon, emissions produced from a building\u2019s day-to-day energy use, as well as in-use embodied carbon, the emissions from future upgrades which will be needed. In theory, this holistic approach allows developers and designers to balance the initial environmental cost of producing a building with its longer-term performance and, hence, assess its sustainability.<\/span><\/p>\n

But WLCAs rely on several assumptions about the future. According to Simon Wyatt, sustainability partner at Cundall, the industry is now good at counting embodied carbon \u2013 particularly in structures and fa\u00e7ades. But he adds that balancing this cost to the environment against operational and in-use embodied carbon in WLCAs is \u2018an emerging art\u2019, compounded by a lack of guidance. The assessment will query how long products and components will last before they need replacing \u2013 but also raises trickier questions. How much embodied carbon will be involved in replacing a component in 30 years\u2019 time? What will be recyclable 60 years from now? Will steel become net-zero carbon with technological developments? And how abundant will timber be? What will a building\u2019s energy use be in 20 years, and will the grid have decarbonised?<\/span><\/p>\n

More speculative questions also arise. Given the urgent need to curb emissions in the face of the climate emergency, is it worse to emit a tonne of CO<\/span>2<\/sub><\/span> now, rather than half a century from now, when we might have better technology for absorbing CO<\/span>2<\/sub><\/span> emissions? If so, how should that be weighted in a WLCA?<\/span><\/p>\n

There are also paradoxes. Under government plans, electricity from the National Grid will be fully decarbonised by 2035. This means that making an existing moderately insulated building very well insulated may not be justified under a WLCA, as the embodied carbon cost of the insulation itself might outweigh future operational carbon savings. However, decarbonising the grid by 2035 itself assumes much-improved thermal efficiency in the UK\u2019s building stock. This complexity allows plenty of room for differing views. Developers pay consultants to carry out WLCAs and there is widespread concern that he who pays the piper calls the tune. Henrietta Billings, director of SAVE Britain\u2019s Heritage, notes that WLCAs are \u2018a highly technical, emerging area of policy\u2019 and says she is concerned that \u2018few planning departments have the expertise or resources to scrutinise WLCAs with the rigour required\u2019. \u2018Without that, it\u2019s impossible for a planning officer to interpret and interrogate the figures presented to them by a well-funded applicant,\u2019 she adds. \u2018It\u2019s like getting them to mark their own homework.\u2019<\/span><\/p>\n

Others have expressed similar concerns. Jim Monaghan is co-founder of MBH Architects and campaigner at Save Museum Street \u2013 which is opposing DSDHA\u2019s plans to demolish the 17-storey Selkirk House in Holborn and replace it with a new tower. He agrees that developers are \u2018extremely adept [\u2026] at commissioning greenwash reports that say their schemes are the best thing since sliced bread regarding reducing carbon emissions\u2019. Campaign groups and even rival developers have turned to commissioning their own whole-life carbon reports to scrutinise an applicant\u2019s assessment. SAVE Britain\u2019s Heritage and Save Museum Street have both commissioned reports by Simon Sturgis \u2013 one of the few genuine experts on WLCAs \u2013 on M&S Oxford Street and 1 Museum Street respectively. <\/span><\/p>\n

Sturgis was also commissioned by Barbican Quarter Action, a resident-led group fighting Sheppard Robson and Diller Scofidio + Renfro\u2019s plans for two new office blocks at London Wall West, part of the Barbican. The group has now accused the City of London of using \u2018misleading data\u2019 to justify the demolition of the existing Museum of London complex and Bastion House. <\/span><\/p>\n

Sturgis has found plenty of problems with WLCAs he has scrutinised. A common complaint is about the methodology used, which sometimes puts up a \u2018straw man\u2019 argument making unsympathetic assumptions about a refurbishment option \u2013 for instance about the amount of demolition that will still be required, or that a retrofit would barely improve energy efficiency.\u00a0 <\/span>Regarding the London Wall West scheme, Sturgis puzzles over why the fa\u00e7ade of the new-build scheme is assumed to have lower embodied carbon than the fa\u00e7ade of the much-smaller refurbishment option. With respect to 1 Museum Street, meanwhile, he questions whether the MEP system really will sequester carbon by producing \u20131,731kgCO<\/span>2<\/sub><\/span>e over its lifetime and whether the glass fa\u00e7ade can be 100 per cent recyclable, given the difficulty of removing sealant from panes. <\/span><\/p>\n

These are not the only schemes with controversial WLCAs. Another is Trehearne Architects\u2019 plans to demolish 71 Victoria Street, a 1990s office block in Westminster, and replace it with a new hotel. The proposal \u2013 for Victoria Property Ventures \u2013 is an update from Trehearne\u2019s earlier, consented, plans to retrofit the existing building into a hotel.<\/span><\/p>\n

Alchemi, a developer which owns the next-door 55 Victoria Street, commissioned its own WLCA report. In a letter, Alchemi sets out its objections to demolition and rebuild at 71 Victoria Street, which include noise pollution and overlooking. However, it also states that the Victoria Property Ventures\u2019 WLCA \u2013 which compares retrofit and demolition scenarios \u2013 is \u2018inaccurate\u2019 and \u2018could be considered misleading\u2019.<\/span><\/p>\n

It alleges that the whole-life carbon of the consented retrofit scheme would be 20 per cent lower than assumed in the developer\u2019s WLCA, while carbon emissions from demolition \u2013 the approximately 700 lorry journeys needed to remove waste from the site \u2013 had not been considered. <\/span><\/p>\n

Wyatt says that consultants, who may lack skill and experience, are often \u2018pressurised into improving the performance\u2019 on WLCAs.<\/span><\/p>\n

\u2018There are a lot of people who have only qualified to carry out this work recently, with little real-life experience,\u2019 he says. \u2018When clients pressure them for better numbers, they can get the computer to give them better numbers. Whether they are actually achievable in real life is another matter.\u2019<\/span><\/p>\n

Some of those involved in producing WLCAs challenged by the likes of Sturgis are prepared to defend them, however. Arup declined to comment on Sturgis\u2019s suggestion that the light-touch refurbishment outlined in its WLCA for the M&S Oxford Street store was deliberately designed to fail against the demolition and rebuild alternative (see page 18<\/i>). But the project\u2019s architect, Fred Pilbrow of Pilbrow & Partners, says Sturgis is being \u2018unfair\u2019. <\/span><\/p>\n

\u2018He [Sturgis] does not acknowledge the complexities or shortcomings of the three individual buildings on the site \u2013 buildings that are poorly interconnected and of limited quality,\u2019 says Pilbrow.\u00a0 <\/span>\u2018He fails to provide any alternative calculations, nor does he acknowledge that Arup\u2019s work has been reviewed in detail by specialists at both the local authority \u2013 Westminster \u2013and by the GLA.\u2019 <\/span><\/p>\n

The City of London also sticks by its WLCA, which argued that Bastion House cannot be retained due to the risk of \u2018disproportionate collapse\u2019 \u2013 a claim strongly contested by Barbican Quarter Action Group, which commissioned its own independent structural report. <\/span><\/p>\n

\u2018Fully retaining the existing buildings is not a suitable option, due to significant structural issues, fire safety, very poor energy performance and the limited uses which would be possible at the site,\u2019 the City of London Corporation has said. <\/span><\/p>\n

\u2018Redevelopment allows for a larger, more efficient scheme, and will deliver lower whole-life carbon emissions in comparison with the part-demolition, part-retention option, per m2<\/sup>.\u2019<\/span><\/p>\n

DSDHA\u2019s One Museum Street has meanwhile been subject to a new WLCA \u2013 to be published shortly \u2013 following updates to its design. Edward Beaver, founding partner at developer Simten, says the new WLCA has been peer-reviewed and has \u2018taken account of the [Sturgis] report\u2019. \u2018We do believe this proposal is the most suitable response to the project context, taking into consideration carbon from development, through to carbon efficiencies over future decades,\u2019 he adds. <\/span><\/p>\n

Charlie Baxter of Alchemi believes that there should be more accountability over WLCAs. \u2018It\u2019s clear that planning officers and GLA officials rely on applicants being open and honest,\u2019 he says. <\/span><\/p>\n

\u2018But if an applicant\u2019s consultants make errors in their submissions there should be legal and financial penalties \u2013 as with tax returns. [Councils] should also appoint independent surveyors, paid for by the applicant, to verify complex reports.\u2019 <\/span><\/p>\n

For Sturgis, WLCAs remain a useful tool to encourage developers and architects to think about the carbon impact of their design choices. And he says that, although there are mistakes in the WLCA calculations he reviews, it\u2019s the reports accompanying them that are more likely to be misleading. This is \u2018no coincidence or mistake\u2019, he adds. There may be hundreds of millions of pounds of potential profit on the line, with new build schemes unconstrained by existing fabric and, typically, much larger.<\/span><\/p>\n

Amid the demolition rows all over London, the lack of public confidence in WLCAs should be concerning, given the need for far more of them. <\/span><\/p>\n

Anna Pamphilon, director at Pamphilon Architects and an Architects Declare committee member, reiterates that \u2018there is a big skills gap in industry\u2019 and says it is \u2018important that architects become literate in WLCAs\u2019. <\/span><\/p>\n

She points out that \u2018accurate, proportionate and non-biased WLC reporting to precisely set standards will be imperative if we are to cut carbon emissions and legislation will play a key part in ensuring that this happens.\u2019 <\/span><\/p>\n

The Twentieth Century Society\u2019s Croft agrees on the need for \u2018objective scrutiny, and clearer guidance on collating, presenting and evaluating [WLCAs]\u2019 \u2013 adding that \u2018with [the current] fundamentally adversarial approach, developers will continue to run rings around the best policy intentions\u2019.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

It\u2019s something the government has shown an interest in. It agrees on the need for \u2018a standardised method of calculation\u2019 and \u2018the creation of a level playing field\u2019. While the government plans to leave industry \u2018to find the best solutions\u2019 it will , it says, investigate \u2018endorsement of specific standards, methodologies or tools for assessing whole-life carbon,\u2019 in its 2023 consultation.<\/span><\/p>\n

And, while the rolling-out of more WLCAs may elicit concerns in the short term \u2013 given the current problems highlighted by campaign groups \u2013 it will also produce a vast amount of data that will help standardise calculations and make assessment easier. \u2018WLCA is not sophisticated enough yet, but we need to keep doing it so we can get sophisticated at it,\u2019 explains Wyatt. <\/span><\/p>\n

While he says retrofit is almost always the lower carbon option, Wyatt also urges developers not to focus solely on carbon calculations and to justify demolition and new build \u2018in terms of its wider sustainability, social or economic value\u2019.<\/span><\/p>\n

As for Sturgis, he insists it should not be left to developers and their consultants to spell out the common-sense need for a retrofit-first approach in London and other cities.<\/span><\/p>\n

\u2018Local authority, GLA and national policies all call for rapid decarbonisation to tackle the climate emergency,\u2019 he points out. \u2018But planning guidance is never clear that demolition must be a fall-back option, with refurbishment as the default mode of development. That is a big part of the problem.\u2019 <\/span><\/p>\n

For a technical overview of WLCA methodologies, see The Regs\u00a0<\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

Case study: London Wall West (Museum of London and Bastion House)<\/b><\/span><\/h4>\n
\"\"

London Wall West<\/p>\n\t

Source:City of London Corporation\/Diller Scofidio + Renfro<\/p><\/div>\n

Existing buildings<\/b> Bastion House, a 17-storey, 1960s office block, and Museum of London Complex, a three-storey, 1970s museum refurbished in 2010. Both designed by Powell & Moya. <\/span><\/p>\n

Architect of new scheme<\/b> Sheppard Robson and Diller Scofidio + Renfro <\/span><\/p>\n

Developer <\/b>City of London <\/span><\/p>\n

What the developer\u2019s WLCA (by a City of London-led team) says<\/b> \u2018The analysis concludes that retaining existing building fabric does not achieve the most sustainable outcome for this transformative and strategic site. The redevelopment option would perform 10 per cent better than the retention option [on kgCO<\/span>2<\/sub><\/span>e], which would still require a significant carbon investment.\u2019\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Campaign group<\/b> Barbican Quarter Action\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

What the Simon Sturgis-authored report says<\/b> \u2018The London Wall West WLCA appears to be designed to pay lip-service to the requirement to examine retrofit [\u2026] The analysis concludes that retaining existing building fabric does not achieve the most sustainable outcome for this site. On the information provided in the report this is clearly not the case.\u2019<\/span><\/p>\n

Case study: <\/b><\/span>One Museum Street (Selkirk House)<\/b><\/span><\/h4>\n
\"\"

Visualisation of Selkirk House<\/p>\n\t

Source:DSDHA<\/p><\/div>\n

Existing building<\/b> 17-storey hotel block built in the 1960s<\/p>\n

Architect of new scheme<\/b> DSDHA<\/p>\n

Developer<\/b> BC Partners and Simten<\/p>\n

What the developer\u2019s WLCA says<\/b> \u2018The whole-life carbon forecast for the proposed development is 106,000,000 kgCO2<\/sub><\/span>e over a 60-year period \u2013 or 89,000,000 kgCO2<\/sub><\/span>e taking into account for decarbonisation of the grid.\u2019<\/p>\n

Campaign group<\/b> Save Museum Street and Climate Emergency Camden<\/p>\n

What the Simon Sturgis-authored report says<\/b> \u2018This assessment [\u2026] gives an incorrect impression of the carbon impacts of the proposed scheme. It appears to be designed to specifically rule out retrofit as an option to ensure the proposed demolition and redevelopment, rather than to positively examine options for repurposing and retrofit.\u2019<\/p>\n

Case study: <\/b><\/span>M&S Oxford Street<\/b><\/span><\/h4>\n
\"\"

Visualisation of Pilbrow & Partners\u2019 M&S Oxford Street proposal looking east<\/p>\n\t

Source:Pilbrow & Partners, Justin Piperger Photography and Wadsworth3D<\/p><\/div>\n

Existing buildings<\/b> 1929 Orchard House, 1960s 23 Orchard Street and 1980s Neale House. All four or five storeys<\/span><\/p>\n

Architect of new scheme<\/b> Pilbrow & Partners <\/span><\/p>\n

Developer<\/b> Marks & Spencer <\/span><\/p>\n

What the developer\u2019s WLCA says<\/b> \u2018The total whole-life carbon forecast for the building is 134,000 tonnes CO<\/span>2<\/sub><\/span>e. The analysis concludes that the development, using alternative low carbon solutions, could save up to 9,500 tonnes CO<\/span>2<\/sub><\/span>e of embodied carbon at practical completion, compared with not using them.\u2019<\/span><\/p>\n

Campaign group<\/b> SAVE Britain\u2019s Heritage<\/span><\/p>\n

What the Simon Sturgis-authored report says <\/b>\u2018The current comparison between a \u201clight-touch refurbishment\u201d, which is fundamentally resource and carbon-inefficient, and the proposed new build is not a relevant comparison and is clearly skewed in favour of new build. This has given rise to the incorrect claim that the new build \u201cwould outperform a refurbishment of the existing building in whole-life carbon terms within 16 years and possibly less\u201d.\u2019<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

On Wednesday November 23, AJ Retrofit Live,<\/em> a brand-new event centred around the Architects\u2019 Journal\u2019s Retrofit Awards and editorial campaign RetroFirst, takes place in the City of London. For more information click on this link.<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

There is no one-size-fits-all way of pinpointing how much CO2 will be released by a building over its lifetime. Whole-life carbon assessments (WLCAs) are an evolving, complex and imperfect science. For many, they are tortuous and labyrinthine, created by some hard-to-fathom alchemy. And they are causing more and more disputes, especially across London. WLCAs forecasting …<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":72402,"featured_media":676822,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_oasis_is_in_workflow":0,"_oasis_original":0,"ep_exclude_from_search":false},"categories":[681],"tags":[2746,76948,3311,67853,90212],"yoast_head":"\nWhole-life carbon assessments \u2013 a whole new type of greenwash?<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Carbon calculations are being used by developers to justify full\u2011scale demolition, complete retention and everything in-between. How can the same data be spun so many ways? Will Ing investigates the dark art of whole-life carbon assessments\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/news\/whole-life-carbon-assessments-a-whole-new-type-of-greenwash\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_GB\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Whole-life carbon assessments \u2013 a whole new type of greenwash?\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Carbon calculations are being used by developers to justify full\u2011scale demolition, complete retention and everything in-between. How can the same data be spun so many ways? Will Ing investigates the dark art of whole-life carbon assessments\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/news\/whole-life-carbon-assessments-a-whole-new-type-of-greenwash\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"The Architects\u2019 Journal\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2022-10-21T08:14:28+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2022-10-24T08:55:58+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/cdn.rt.emap.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/4\/2022\/10\/20120606\/GreenwashGraphic.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"620\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"413\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Will Ing\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Will Ing\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Estimated reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"13 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/news\/whole-life-carbon-assessments-a-whole-new-type-of-greenwash\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/news\/whole-life-carbon-assessments-a-whole-new-type-of-greenwash\",\"name\":\"Whole-life carbon assessments \u2013 a whole new type of greenwash?\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2022-10-21T08:14:28+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2022-10-24T08:55:58+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/#\/schema\/person\/9d8d3cda88b1866e99d8d17d9773cc1f\"},\"description\":\"Carbon calculations are being used by developers to justify full\u2011scale demolition, complete retention and everything in-between. How can the same data be spun so many ways? Will Ing investigates the dark art of whole-life carbon assessments\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/news\/whole-life-carbon-assessments-a-whole-new-type-of-greenwash#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/news\/whole-life-carbon-assessments-a-whole-new-type-of-greenwash\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/news\/whole-life-carbon-assessments-a-whole-new-type-of-greenwash#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Whole-life carbon assessments \u2013 a whole new type of greenwash?\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/\",\"name\":\"The Architects\u2019 Journal\",\"description\":\"Architecture News & Buildings\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":\"required name=search_term_string\"}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/#\/schema\/person\/9d8d3cda88b1866e99d8d17d9773cc1f\",\"name\":\"Will Ing\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/381f6d26239590224cf48c9d16055b53\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4c5c2c6d83ec869645ecfc0998ec678d?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4c5c2c6d83ec869645ecfc0998ec678d?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Will Ing\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/author\/will-ing\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Whole-life carbon assessments \u2013 a whole new type of greenwash?","description":"Carbon calculations are being used by developers to justify full\u2011scale demolition, complete retention and everything in-between. How can the same data be spun so many ways? Will Ing investigates the dark art of whole-life carbon assessments","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/news\/whole-life-carbon-assessments-a-whole-new-type-of-greenwash","og_locale":"en_GB","og_type":"article","og_title":"Whole-life carbon assessments \u2013 a whole new type of greenwash?","og_description":"Carbon calculations are being used by developers to justify full\u2011scale demolition, complete retention and everything in-between. How can the same data be spun so many ways? Will Ing investigates the dark art of whole-life carbon assessments","og_url":"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/news\/whole-life-carbon-assessments-a-whole-new-type-of-greenwash","og_site_name":"The Architects\u2019 Journal","article_published_time":"2022-10-21T08:14:28+00:00","article_modified_time":"2022-10-24T08:55:58+00:00","og_image":[{"url":"https:\/\/cdn.rt.emap.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/4\/2022\/10\/20120606\/GreenwashGraphic.jpg","width":620,"height":413,"type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Will Ing","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Will Ing","Estimated reading time":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/news\/whole-life-carbon-assessments-a-whole-new-type-of-greenwash","url":"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/news\/whole-life-carbon-assessments-a-whole-new-type-of-greenwash","name":"Whole-life carbon assessments \u2013 a whole new type of greenwash?","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/#website"},"datePublished":"2022-10-21T08:14:28+00:00","dateModified":"2022-10-24T08:55:58+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/#\/schema\/person\/9d8d3cda88b1866e99d8d17d9773cc1f"},"description":"Carbon calculations are being used by developers to justify full\u2011scale demolition, complete retention and everything in-between. How can the same data be spun so many ways? Will Ing investigates the dark art of whole-life carbon assessments","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/news\/whole-life-carbon-assessments-a-whole-new-type-of-greenwash#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-GB","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/news\/whole-life-carbon-assessments-a-whole-new-type-of-greenwash"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/news\/whole-life-carbon-assessments-a-whole-new-type-of-greenwash#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Whole-life carbon assessments \u2013 a whole new type of greenwash?"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/","name":"The Architects\u2019 Journal","description":"Architecture News & Buildings","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":"required name=search_term_string"}],"inLanguage":"en-GB"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/#\/schema\/person\/9d8d3cda88b1866e99d8d17d9773cc1f","name":"Will Ing","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-GB","@id":"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/381f6d26239590224cf48c9d16055b53","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4c5c2c6d83ec869645ecfc0998ec678d?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4c5c2c6d83ec869645ecfc0998ec678d?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Will Ing"},"url":"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/author\/will-ing"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/676760"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/72402"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=676760"}],"version-history":[{"count":9,"href":"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/676760\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":676966,"href":"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/676760\/revisions\/676966"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/676822"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=676760"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=676760"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=676760"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}