Think Brick Sustainability Blog

Despite the Global Financial Crisis, the sustainability debate and development of a national emissions trading scheme continues to march on, and with it, the ever increasing need and desire for simple labels to help consumers choose sustainable products.

Although these are precarious times for all businesses, and definitely for the brick industry as it faces a prolonged downturn if people choose to not build new houses, continuing to develop the emissions trading scheme is the best idea. The start date is still 18 months away (July 2010 to coincide with the new financial year), and by then, especially with the large financial stimulus being provided by the Federal Government for first home buyers, and what will inevitably be lower interest rates, there is every chance that the economy is on the mend and good growth is returning. Continuing with the emissions agenda – albeit in a cautious manner – will ensure Australia does not fall behind in a global race that will eventually demand our participation.

Although continuing with the emissions trading scheme is a good idea, the push from all sides for sustainability labels is less helpful if not done correctly.

And consumer advocate group Choice agrees too. On their website they have outlined the issue and what should be done about it. Essentially they say that ‘green’ claims need to be accurate, verifiable, and to comply with the Australian standard and Advertiser Code of Ethics. Fair enough.

But the problem is still remains: how do you provide a sustainability label that is accurate and verifiable? Especially for building products that could, and normally do, perform very differently depending on their location, installation and use.

This is exactly the issue facing the building products market at the moment.

A proper assessment of building products and materials needs to use Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) to assess a comprehensive pallet of environmental impacts including the whole supply chain and use of the products over their full life up to, and including, disposal.

Current methods of environmental assessment may not take account of the full cradle to grave life cycle impacts of buildings. Full life cycle assessment for buildings reveals that 80-90% of the impacts come from operational energy and water consumption, and their associated greenhouse emissions. A robust assessment for buildings should include:

• Appropriate trade-offs between materials consumption and operational performance.
• Account for the repair, replacement and maintenance implications of alternatives (usually omitted from assessments, sometimes the key factor)
• Make comparisons on a functionally equivalent, fair, level playing field basis
• Take proper account of the benefits of recyclable materials and recycling and reuse
• Take proper account of carbon sequestration and renewable resources – especially energy and water.

The Building Products Innovation Council (BPIC) – of which Think Brick Australia is a member – has embarked on an ambitious scheme to establish a uniform method in tracing the life cycle impacts of various building products.

This project, known as the BPIC ICIP project , is led by BPIC on behalf of a consortia of the Australian Life Cycle Assessment Society (ALCAS) and BRANZ in partnership with the Department of Innovation, Industry, Science & Research and with the support and participation of BPIC’s 10 major building material national associations, including Think Brick Australia.

The BPIC/ICIP project will deliver:

• A consistent “level playing field” methodology for use in construction material and product LCA
• An extensive database of life cycle information for construction materials and products all compiled in accordance with the methodology.
• A database of replacement lives for materials, products and assemblies used in Australian buildings
• A consistent set of weightings for the relative importance of different environmental impacts adapted to the priorities of local stakeholders in different locations and climates.

The paradox of this situation is that even when this project is complete, the outcome still won’t produce an accurate and verifiable sustainability label because while brick might use more energy to manufacture than lightweight alternatives, the LCA doesn’t account for the operational savings because brick helps reduce energy consumption within the building. Furthermore, if that brick building is in zone 5 (eg Perth, Adelaide, Eastern Syd, Newcastle) there is a large chance that the savings are even greater!

And so with all these variables, how do we develop one label to convey the sustainability benefits of the product? And just because we can’t just yet, does that mean the brick industry should just wait until they improve LCA to incorporate these variations?

In short, there is no simple solution… yet! And likewise, the brick industry should definitely not wait until the BPIC-ICIP project is finished or for someone else to develop an alternative! Instead we should be (and are!) bringing ideas to the table to rectify the situation. In the meantime our challenge is preventing a half-baked solution being used which ultimately will take even longer to correct!