400 PPM

For the first time in recorded history (and perhaps as long as 3 million years), the CO₂ concentration in the atmosphere has been measured at greater than 400 parts per million (ppm). It is points like this, of seemingly minor immediate significance, that we may look back on as the road signs on our journey of stupidity.

Signs that we may have heeded, and didn’t.

I am increasingly impacted by the apparent indifference to climate change (or anthropogenic global warming - AGW) that I observe in my engineering colleagues, precisely because ours is a profession supposedly founded on science.

To me it is quite straightforward:

1.    Do you believe in science?

Yes: Please proceed.

No: Either go back to school or join your nearest Conservative party. An engineer who does not believe in science really has no business being an engineer: scientific inquiry is the basis of engineering application.

2. Do you believe climate science is good science?

Yes: Please proceed.

No: Explain why the G8 science academies and all institutions not aligned with the fossil fuel industry agree that it is good science - in short, explain why the global consensus is wrong. Then go out and publish, in peer reviewed journals, good science about the climate to improve our broad understanding.

3. Do you understand the implications of the global consensus on AGW?

Yes: Please proceed.

No: go and read the IPCC 4th assessment report (the 5th is due imminently). Also refer to Nature Geoscience, NOAA or NASA for further information. In summary, AGW is the greatest challenge of our age and poses a threat to human prosperity and existence at a scale matched only, perhaps, by the threat of nuclear warfare.

4. If you've got this far, are you doing everything in your power to mitigate and adapt to the threats of AGW?

Because if you believe the science, and understand the implications, there is no condoning an approach which does not prioritise mitigation and adaptation as the absolute highest priority in every decision we make.

History will judge our engineers for inaction nearly as harshly as it will judge our politicians. Short-term self-interest will not prove an acceptable excuse.

Responsible Journalism and Climate Change

Over the past few weeks, I have engaged in a number of debates on Twitter relating to the views of Ivo Vegter, an author and columnist for the Daily Maverick online newspaper. Mr Vegter, author of Extreme Environment, is a self-proclaimed sceptic of the environmental movement and a denier of anthropogenic climate change in particular.

I must disclose at this point that I have not yet read Extreme Environment, and I am increasingly ill-disposed to contribute financially to Mr Vegter's pockets, but I will endeavour to get my hands on a copy at some stage. I am, however, familiar with a host of the enviro-sceptic arguments, and from his interactions it would appear Mr Vegter shares the majority of his opinions with this community.

My engagement on Twitter, which has included a range of writers, editors and opinionistas (including Leonie Joubert and Jacque Rousseau among others), has focused on two things:

- Firstly, the basis for the challenge on climate science; and

- Secondly, on the journalistic/editorial ethics of not balancing these opinion pieces with a description of the scientific consensus.

While I am neither a journalist nor a climate scientist, I am technically trained and have read widely on the topic. My wife completed her peace studies masters thesis on climate change as portrayed by the media, and for her insight into these matters I thank her (a summary of her dissertation, based on Australian media but relevant to SA, can be found here). In my professional life as an engineering consultant considering climate mitigation and adaptation, I also have a broad understanding of many of the issues.

I take it as fact that climate change is happening, that it is caused by human activity and that by substantially reducing our greenhouse gas emissions we can avoid some of the direst consequences of a rapidly changing climate. This position is supported by the global scientific community, where there is now broad consensus of these core issues. 

This post is not a detailed defence of the climate science. Wikipedia notes that thirty four leading science academies globally have publicly endorsed the findings of the UN Inter Governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Their endorsement counts far more than my opinion (or that of Mr Vegter for that matter). The G8+5 Academies’ joint statement can be viewed here. For more analysis and research I can recommend NASA, NOAA and Nature Geoscience.

And so for better or worse, we must accept that the scientific community are unequivocal in their assessment of anthropogenic climate change.

This means that any opinion piece taking a sceptical/denialist approach must tackle the science to be legitimate. And yet none appear to.

To seriously contest this space, a climate denialist must provide peer reviewed research which is accepted on a scale to sway global scientific consensus. The appropriate places to contend the science are journals like Nature, not the opinion sections of the mainstream media (online or print).

Which brings me to the second issue - the representation of these views in the mainstream media.

Let's start by acknowledging the role of columnists and opinion pieces in media. As pointed out to me by Jacques Rousseau, opinion pieces are not journalism, but opinion (clearly). As such, they are not subject to editorial control, nor are they bound by consensus. I do not contest this, nor do I advocate editorial censorship of opinion pieces.

However, I do advocate contextual framing of opinion pieces by editors where the external balance of scientific consensus is clearly in conflict with the expressed opinion. And this is especially so where the topic content is of a sufficiently specialist nature that the majority of readers would be ill-equipped to contextualise the opinion themselves.

Mr Rousseau noted the role of rebuttals and comments in challenging opinion pieces in the absence of editorial control. I take note of that, but it is flawed.  An opinion-rebuttal frame puts the two arguments on the same footing, implying the differences are just a matter of opinion rather than one being grounded in scientific consensus and the other backed primarily by vested interests and largely discredited in the scientific community (thanks Leonie Joubert). By virtue of the original being an opinion piece, it draws all further discussion on the topic down to that level. It also opens the door for substantial trolling, which makes reasoned discussion difficult to fathom for readers (a topic discussed at some length my Mr Rousseau in other posts of his).

Mail and Guardian editor, Nic Dawes, brought up the role of reputational damage in providing this motivation to editors.  I'm afraid I do not buy the line that the reputation of publications will be called into question due to a discerning public. On issues as technical as climate science, few members of the public are equipped to make a call. I believe it is very unlikely for the public to provide these checks and balances on topics requiring relatively detailed scientific understanding. Mr Dawes also brought up the topic of AIDS denialism as a point of comparison, and I think it is a good example (except perhaps that the impacts of climate change have the potential to far outstrip the human cost of AIDS denialism).

Equally, I do not buy the implied assertion that editors do not have control over opinion contributors. It may be a journalistic norm not to, but ultimately editors have the authority to provide comment on opinion expressed on their platforms. A number of the M&G editors (including Mr Dawes) did this with recently over the 'Spear' cartoons by cartoonist Zapiro (a commentator of a different sort). There was extensive comment over whether or not to publish, and the degree to which the views of the cartoonist were consistent with the views of the publication. As editor, you have control, therefore you have responsibility.

Finally, I was questioned by Mr Rousseau on whether I would react like this to other opinions I felt were not founded on scientific consensus. Well, my track record would show not... However, climate change is the first where I feel sufficiently angry over the mis-representation and sufficiently informed to make my case. That being said, there is a trend by opinionistas of Mr Vegter's ilk to dismiss the science on many issues perceived to be environmental: nutrition and hydraulic fracturing among others. This is a worrying trend as it breeds a culture of picking and choosing the bits of science that support your view - confirmation bias if ever I encountered it.

In essence, climate change (and in particular climate denialism) is an issue of sufficient import to the public good that editors have a responsibility to balance sceptical content on their platforms with some reference to the scientific consensus. And in this case, there is no serious debate within the scientific community on whether anthropogenic climate change is happening, consensus has been reached. The only debate is how to mitigate it as far as possible and then how to adapt.

Denialist views are deliberately contrarian, in the face of evidence and scientific consensus, and if not framed as such, can have damaging consequences. I am disappointed that our editors appear not to agree.

I have represented the arguments here as I understood them, which is not to say how they were intended. I would welcome debate and engagement on these issues; or correction if I have misrepresented any of the people mentioned above.

* At the time of the discussion, I did not know who the editor of the Daily Maverick was and could not find their details on the website, hence my engagement of other local editors. I have subsequently been informed that Branko Brkic is the man in question. Apologies to Mr Brkic for subtweeting him (I had to look that up, so thanks Mr Dawes for the lesson on Twitter etiquette). I hope the Daily Maverick editorial team feel free to engage...

Urbanisation and Poverty Alleviation

I must admit to being something of a rural idealist – imagining the life of the peasant farmer as one of simplicity and content. However, a quote from one of Africa’s most accomplished urban designers sticks with me as I think about urbanisation in Africa: “If you think urban poverty is bad, try rural poverty”. And he has a point...

The daily reality of most of Africa’s rural poor is not the rustic chic picture of Provencal or Tuscan peasantry: wine, pastis, olives, local bakeries and poaching grouse on a neighbouring estate. Rather it is a grinding poverty of failed subsistence crops, aid reliance, malaria, child mortality and uneducated misery. It is inter-generational and it is soul-destroying. It breeds hopelessness in the saddest sense of the word. And in the face of rising energy (and associated commodity) prices and climate uncertainty it is looking bleaker still.

There are two facts about Africa’s population: it is growing and it is urbanising. And the status quo model for this urban growth is slums - the slums that surround and permeate our cities - with violent crime and a sense of cultural displacement replacing the grinding poverty of rural areas.  This urban poverty has become known in some circles as the 'fourth world' - in development terms, a step below the 'developing' third world that seemed to define 20th century Africa.

So what, then, is the role of cities in alleviating poverty, and perhaps more importantly, what is the role of design professionals in taking up that battle? Government take the majority of the responsibility for poverty alleviation - social grants, education and public health care services for the most part. However there are opportunities for the physical nature of our cities to play an important role too.

Since the dawn of civilisation, cities have played a pivotal role in pulling people out of poverty through the provision of entrepreneurial opportunities and access to education and healthcare. Sanitation, drinking water, mass transportation and information technology are just some of the levers that have driven modern cities to the heights of human achievement. In short, cities provide reliable access to resources and a high 'hit-rate' of innovative interaction.

However, the other inescapable element of modern cities is that they are also the heart of ecological impact, resource consumption, waste generation and harmful emissions. Our cities are the face of humanity's unsustainable behaviour. The links between human endeavor and ecological health are becoming clearer and the picture that is emerging is that for successful social development, a healthy ecosystem is required. These socio-ecological systems are at the heart of current research into resilience.

So to be effective in alleviating poverty, our cities must provide reliable access to resources and high quality human interactions for the poor and must achieve this in a manner which complements natural ecological systems. Every design intervention must have its human face and it's natural face for resilient socio-ecological systems.

Sanitation, water purification and food security would be my highest priority in addressing urban poverty and there are design solutions which are able to address all three in an integrated manner. Current resource allocations to new human settlements (RDP housing in SA) prioritise roads and sewage connections to centralised city infrastructure - both expensive investments in industrial-age models.

I would prefer to see decentralised water treatment, using ecological filters (wetlands) where possible, and the use of recycled water and recovered nutrients for urban agriculture. Combined, this water-waste-food system provides huge opportunities for local economic activity while also promoting healthier lifestyles through access to drinking water and healthy food.

On the ecological side, a wetland-based water treatment system allows the reintroduction of biodiverse nodes into the urban environment, improving ecosystem services (to urban agriculture) and broad system resilience.

While reallocating funding from roads may be contentious in our car-based cities, I acknowledge the need for investing in functional public transport to enable this shift. However, I would suggest that this is a prerequisite for equitable cities and leave that discussion for another time.

My second priority for addressing urban poverty would be widespread information connectivity. The mobile data revolution in Africa is paving that way already, with among the highest smart-phone penetration rates globally. Access to fast information and communications is a core requirement for successful micro-businesses in a post-industrial economy and underpins the small, medium and micro-enterprise (SMME) approach to poverty alleviation.

It would also begin to allow better non-governmental intervention in education - another pre-requisite for human development. The mobile information revolution has already been applied to banking, but partnered with micro-finance, has the potential to unlock even more entrepreneurial creativity.

Again, on the ecological side, fast information and virtual-presence connectivity reduces the need for physical transport - a major household and environmental cost.

While there are huge requirements around basic services for effective poverty alleviation - healthcare probably being top of the list - my final design-related priority is the inclusion of basic child-care facilities in the buildings which comprise our cities. Architects should include provision for a crèche in every building.

Aside from the cultural barriers to women working, one of the major reasons Africa's urban women are excluded from the workplace is the lack of child care options which can realistically and affordable be accessed. Flexible work and child care options are an important gender justice issue, but beyond that, they are a critical issue to address urban poverty in Africa.

Guardian columnist George Monbiot, had the following to say: "If wealth was the inevitable result of hard work and enterprise, every woman in Africa would be a millionaire." Africa's women work, hard, and are responsible for a substantial share of the continent's development potential.

This does not mean women should be compelled to work, nor should new mothers be rushed back into the workforce so that a generation of Africans are raised by strangers (as we see in so many developed nations). But rather that the infrastructure supports their options to return to work in a manner that works for them. In short, our women must be able to be mothers and employees or entrepreneurs, at the same time.

I acknowledge that poverty is a complex issue, often muddied with past inequality, racial discrimination and, in Africa, the stigma of colonialism (past and present). However, as designers of Africa's new cities, there are clear steps we can take in prioritising systems and infrastructure which break some of the barriers of entrenched poverty,  while fostering resilient socio-ecological systems in our cities. 

COPing it in Debben 2011

Summer, Durban, 2011. It’s hot, muggy and very much not Cape Town, which seems to be struggling out of winter as though mired in treacle. The world’s climate negotiators have descended on the International Convention Centre with their entourages and the host of professionals, NGOs, corporates, government representatives and other climate trough-feeders in tow. The night before the conference, storms ravaged Durban with a number of casualties – a tragic (although timely) reminder of how our changing climate will change urban life, especially for the poor.


My reason for being here is the annual architectural side event organised by the South African Institute for Architects (SAIA) and the International Union of Architects (UIA) – Sustainability by Design: built environment strategies in response to climate change. I was one of the panelist for the interactive event attended by some 200 architects, providing some engineering perspectives on our urban response to climate change.

The broad context at this Conference of the Parties (COP) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), appears to be one of slow movement on global climate funding, amid threats of Canadian withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol (to join their North American neighbours in the dirty energy business). This amid a widening trust-gap between major players, developed and developing nations and even within negotiating blocs. My expectations for the global negotiations are low – I don’t foresee binding agreements soon, but I do have hopes for individual sectors, cities and other governance forums for substantial action in the absence of global agreement. Going into COP17, it was imagined that this round of negotiations would see the world’s premier cities rising to the challenge to address climate change and Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions. I still have hopes of that.

So then, what role for the built environment - a sector which is responsible for at least 40% and perhaps as much as 60% of global GHG emissions?

Let me first frame the conference… In contrast with previous built environment conferences, this was not “talking heads” – experts lecturing an audience on their latest project or opinion - this conference was a conversation. This was primarily an architectural audience interacting with an inter-disciplinary panel, exploring climate scenarios in the built environment (with expertise ranging from food security to urban design to ‘integral coaching’ – a full list of panelists can be sourced here: http://uiasustainabilitybydesign.org/panelists.html).

Short inputs of 4 minutes each from this panel were interspersed with discussions in a 'fishbowl' format (where vacant seats on the panel are temporarily filled by audience members to explore ideas). Day one of the conference was an introduction to COP, followed by an exercise in scenarios relating to the rate of climate change and peak oil. It was an exploration of the capacity we have in the built environment to address climate and energy scenarios. The scenarios explored were those presented by Permaculture co-founder David Holmgren (http://www.futurescenarios.org/) in the face of 'energy descent' (as cheap, high intensity energy sources peak and plateau). It was an eye-opening exercise in trying to describe what a low-energy future might look like, and especially so in the face of climate uncertainty.

My journey through the conference started with speaking in the 'green tech' scenario session (one of Holmgren's scenarios, consisting of relatively benign climate change and slow energy descent). This is probably what most sustainability professionals consider the likely scenario. What I learned from trying to visualise a true energy descent scenario, was the impact on current decision-making in terms of function. Buildings that are able to function without active mechanical or electrical systems will be at an advantage in any energy descent scenario. Similarly, any urban system which does not build in resilience to a low-energy world runs a significant risk of redundancy within its lifetime. The time-scale of Holmgren's scenarios are 5-7 years for 'fast descent' and in the order of 35 years for 'slow descent'. The economic life of built environment systems is longer than both these periods, so low-energy design should become a primary decision-making point for current projects, as energy descent is a credible scenario for major systemic change within building life-spans.

The other scenarios ('brown tech', 'earth steward' and 'lifeboats') explored a range of possible futures, from primitivism through to mega-cities, each with their compelling and terrifying aspects. The strength of exploring these scenarios was not in their predictive capacity, but rather in the way they opened one's thinking to consider alternatives to the dominant story around energy availability. I think most delegates and panelists left the first day feeling deeply unsettled, questioning the potential within our industry to function in a low-energy and climatically unstable world.

The second day consisted of a series of workshops to explore our capacity within the built environment to respond to these scenarios at local, national and global levels; as well as understanding the gaps in our capacity to play a meaningful role in humanity's response to climate change. Afterwards, panelists and delegates engaged with the global, national and city-scale debates; framed a range of priorities; and brainstormed actions to move the built environment forward. There were elements of heated debate on the role of cities, and mega-cities in particular.

In contrast to day one, day two was more empowering - the full audience was engaged to explore potential responses, and here credit must be given to the facilitators. A group of nearly two hundred people combined through three workshop sessions to explore what climate change and energy descent would mean for  our industry, and what immediate steps we can take. Initial discussions identified 'elephants in the room' and brought out some key options, which were in turn whittled down through a vote to four strategies for action. The final session provided for the exploration of these core themes in terms of actions.

One of the real eye-openers for me was the use of 'back-casting' to explore potential solutions - starting from a future point of having successfully negotiated climate change, and then exploring what steps would have been critical in arriving there. 'Back-casting' is a tool I'm excited about exploring in design workshops in the future. The outcomes of these workshops were four focus areas on which the industry could take immediate action:

• Developing a strategic plan for the built environment in the face of climate change;
• Building trans-disciplinary capacity for engagement with national government on climate policy;
• Telling a compelling story relating to climate change in the built environment; and
• Fostering professional ties with education facilities to build climate sensitivity into built environment training.

I threw myself into the strategic response workshop, but found the discussion difficult, with many disparate perspectives struggling to hold a cohesive conversation around responses. High levels engagement, some of it passionate - but what emerged for me was incredibly fragmented. Despite this, the outcomes could be useful in the local context, with some potential actions from which to build urban resilience. 

In summary, the key points of the strategy are:

• Establishing urban design standards for resilience;
• Shifting our financial mindset to life-cycle costing;
• Supporting an inter-disciplinary forum for climate-related issues;
• Focusing on affordable and appropriate technology;
• Devising tax or rates incentives for addressing climate change on projects;
• Matching adaptation and mitigation action with real development needs;
• Decentralising urban infrastructure; and
• Retrofitting the urban environment.

Immediate actions relating to this strategy are:

• Taking a report from the conference to all built environment institutes and convene a discussion between them (architectural, engineering, quantity surveying, urban design and building institutes) to address climate resilience.
• Making a bold call to the built environment to include adaptation and mitigation actions in their standards.
• Specifically approaching the Urban Design Institute of South Africa to prioritise climate change resilience in the urban design standards.
• SAIA requesting the assistance of the Institute for Quantity Surveyors in developing life-cycle costing standards and guidelines.

Actions from the other workshops included the drafting of a charter for addressing climate change through design in our built environment; and a wide range of education options for incorporating climate change awareness into training (including apprenticeships, professional development programs and leadership training). To me the charter is one of the most critical, and the one with potential to spark a global impact, however there is a long road ahead to gain wider support.

These actions appear credible to me, and the level of engagement was impressive for a conference where many delegates probably weren't expecting to work so hard. And for these reasons, the conference was a tremendous success. However, I left the final session with a deep sense of unease over the potential of the built environment to provide a sufficiently concise view of climate action that would be be useful in global negotiations. 'Fragmented' is the word that springs to mind again and again, and that within a gathering of people largely from within a single profession!

An element of real concern for me was the lack of an international perspective on climate action - as if the challenges at a national level were already too much to address suitably. In a previous post I have already explored the difficulty of looking at the built environment through just a mitigation lens, due to its complexity. This conference served to reinforce my view. We are dealing with such incredibly complex beasts in our urban spaces, that tell so many concurrent stories, that it might just not be possible to condense them into a single narrative and strategy.

I also believe that focusing on resilience and adaptation holds the most potential... and this can be addressed outside of any coherent international framework.

Adaptation: a path to reduced carbon emissions

The two key themes for the COP negotiations (of which number 17 is soon to commence in South Africa) are securing international agreement and commitment on the mitigation of climate change through reduced GHG emissions and adaptation to the inevitable effects of the currently locked-in temperature rise.

To date much of the focus within the built environment has been for the mitigation potential of green buildings. It has formed the basis of the NABERS rating system in Australia and is the rack on which Green Star largely hangs its hat. However the complex nature of the built environment does not match the certainty of emissions reduction required by current international and national policy instruments such as the clean develoment mechanism (CDM). The complexity of the built environment is largely why CDM has not been widely adopted in financing energy efficiency in the built environment.

It is important here to note that complex systems are different from complicated systems. Complex systems display a degree of chaotic behaviour, where the multiple cross-linked relationships mean that small changes can produce large and unexpected effects. Complicated, but simple systems often have many interconnected steps, but the relationship of input and output is well understood and predictable (such as the accelerator on a motor car).

One of the requirements for rewarding mitigation actions is that the potential emissions reduction must be verified before finance can be made available. This direct link of investment to predicted emissions reduction works well for straightforward (simple) industrial processes and renewable energy generation, but has proved a poor fit for investment in alternative urban systems. It is also clear that industrial and RE processes are primarily related to energy production/consumption (which is core to broad emissions reduction globally), but not to less tangible effects like place-making, livability, social cohesion or relationships which should be priorities in our built environment.

With advanced modelling systems, we have developed our ability to design buildings for a pre-determined level of energy consumption, given certain restrictions on tenant behaviour. This has driven a wave of lobbying to provide climate finance to the built environment for mitigation. However this call has largely been unsuccessful. The design solutions we are coming up with are seldom a step change from the status quo, and our predicted emissions reductions are still too reliant unreliable factors. These advanced tools have allowed us to deal with some of the complexities of climate, but not of human behavior and not to the degree required by international mitigation agreements.

That being said, there is broad agreement that the built environment has a large role to play in driving emissions reduction. The key challenge is how to provide incentives for more climate-effective design in the face on complex urban systems.

One option is to recognise that the design responses to climate change adaptation have potential to reward initiatives for their resilience. Resilience is a characteristic of complex systems and thus does not have tightly defined parameters in the sense that mitigation does. The emerging thinking on decentralised systems is also pointing towards resilience as having a large mitigation potential, as well as allowing our cities to adapt to a changing cimate.

When considering adaptation, it is far less important to verify emissions reduction than to demonstrate system resilience under a range of potential scenarios. Designing for adaptation will necessarily take a wide range of factors into account; energy security, water scarcity, food security, waste stream utilisation, social fabric, civil society and ecological system health among others. It shouldn't surprise us that in addressing adaptation, we start to look to the very systems that are emerging at the cutting edge of broad sustainability.

Furthermore, through current funding instruments such as the Least Developed Nations Fund, Climate Adaptation Fund and much of the bilateral funding available to African nations, we may have a direct source of international preferential finance for broad sustainability on the basis of adaptation.

The secret to successful mitigation action in the developing world built environment, as well as a renewed focus on much broader sustainability might well require the prioritising of design for adaptation to climate change. And a renewed focus on adaptation may well be the secret to unlocking climate finance in the built environment.

In light of this opportunity, I believe there are some key questions which need consideration, and I would welcome input from any readers:

•  What are the characteristics of resilient systems in the built environment?

•  What are the key urban systems at risk due to climate change?

•  Which urban systems are intrinsic to adaptation, but also have mitigation potential?

•  What are the key weak points of current city morphology in terms of climate resilience?

On the Topic of Avoided Power Stations

In sustainable design circles, we have become hugely focused on energy efficiency and renewable energy generation as the panacea to our climate change woes. And while there is huge merit in this, it doesn't tell the whole story. Here in sunny SA, the degree to which we are either locked into a high-carbon future or not depends hugely on how many new coal-fired power stations we build. Once built, these huge (4.8GW) power stations will operate at a relatively constant level, with variance in the national demand being taken up by more flexible generation (such as gas turbines or hydro, which are also typically lower in carbon emissions). Carbon emissions from electricity in SA come in of power stations, not kWh.

The current integrated resources plan provides the planned mix of energy in SA for the next 20-40 years. Right now that mix includes the construction of Medupi and Kusile power stations (as well as an increase in our nuclear power provision with its associated issues). From a carbon reduction point of view, we have missed the boat on Medupi - it is nearly complete and commissioning will begin in 2012. However, we still have an opportunity to address Kusile, and in terms of our long term carbon mitigation, avoiding the construction of Kusile must be the highest priority for any party claiming to strive for a low-carbon future.

The economic growth model currently pursued requires new generation capacity to come online faster than currently planned, so the political pressure to get large generation projects across the line is huge. The IRP includes an allowance for renewable energy, and one option appears to be an increase in the RE allocation. However the current debacle on the renewable energy feed-in tariff (REFIT) is likely to slow that process quite significantly.

So one of the only ways Kusile can be avoided in the time frames which are a reality, and our low-carbon path can be secured is if our urban spaces become significant decentralised generators of low-carbon or renewable electricity; not just for their own operations, but as distributed power networks able to power our cities. We need restorative buildings which will be both sources of wealth and sources of clean energy.

Our modern approach to rewarding sustainable design in the built environment is on a project by project basis. Boundaries of influence are drawn around each site and projects are rewarded on that basis. This can exclude restorative buildings as they seldom fit the neat boxes of project boundaries which would be a great shame.

Tale of an African City

Introduction

Cities. So much of our modern mythology is tied up in them - Gotham, Metropolis, The City of Angels, dark and dire Glasgow, sinking Venice, catacombs in Paris or sailing in Sydney; hell, London and New York probably set the scene for more than half our modern literature. So why, then, are cities strangely absent from our current discourse on sustainability in Africa - a topic very much a part of our immediate story? What is it that puts land and agriculture, large capital projects like dams and power stations (renewable or otherwise) and conservation (as important as they are) at the forefront of our efforts when so many of the drivers of the consumerist urge that turns the handles on the machine are in our cities? How did we miss them, these hungry beasts, growing daily and showcasing the best, and the worst, of humanity?

Well, the why's and wherefores aren't really the topic here, but rather, a discussion of how African cities are the pointy end of sustainability, the places in which either we will get it "right"; or we won't. "It" being our species' ability to shift from small communities that have worked before to large ones (that typically haven't). And when I say work, I mean work in the sense of resources, of human connections, of creativity, of experience, of spirit, of lifestyles, of beautiful, functional and present ecosystems and real upliftment from poverty.

I'm going to discuss some of the reasons our cities don't currently work; from how they are planned to keep people in boxes (little boxes, made of ticky tacky), to how they make people reliant on motor vehicles and the oil industry to how they are underpinned by centrally controlled services. These things: planning, transport and service infrastructure are at the heart of my approach to Africa's cities.

And why Africa? Well, most developed cities have sunk so much into the current models for service infrastructure, transport and planning that to re-imagine them represents an insurmountable waste of capital expense, and furthermore and admission of failure in design. Our modern cities are predicated on linear resource flows and some have even perfected them. How difficult then to shut down expensive, working systems (no matter how mis-guided) in preference for the unknown - decentralised systems without the hand of big brother controlling from above.

On the other hand, Africa's cities have not yet chosen a path. The old (in years and thinking) infrastructure is broken and there now exists the chance to re-imagine our cities without the huge opportunity cost of abandoning old ways faced by our rich global neighbors. It is the very fact of our disfunction that I believe gives us the opportunity to get it right here; at the pointy end of sustainability.

This discussion will run in three sections: service infrastructure and resource efficiency, transport and mobility, and finally planning and community. I hope you will engage with me and help develop these ideas further.

1. Service Infrastructure and Resource Efficiency

So, first infrastructure. African cities are critically hobbled by current infrastructure along the European model - started by Rome and perfected over the millennia. Poor maintenance, poor investment and lack of skills and accountability in government have all assisted in our basic services not reaching the majority of citizens and even those that do being woefully inadequate. In my home country, South Africa, this very lack of service delivery has resulted in extensive civil unrest as the expectations of political freedom leading to into economic freedom have not been achieved. Equally, one of the major backlogs in delivering low-cost housing, another political bug-bear, is the difficulty in rolling out water, power and sewer infrastructure fast enough - we can build houses faster than we can service them.

Further to failing these social servicing requirements, our cities are resource black holes: transported with oil, tons of material and food flow in to build and feed; millions of joules of energy are sucked through grids from dirty power stations to keep the lights on and millions of litres of fresh water are pumped from ever larger dams to keep us clean, cool and hydrated.

In some ways our cities appear to be designed specifically to take nutrients out of the earth, fresh water out of our rivers and deposit them into our lakes and oceans using vast amounts of fossilized sunlight while all the time degrading the very systems which provide these things in the first place. This seems to be a system ill-suited to realizing our dreams for the places we create.

One of the core responses to the resources dilemma is to mimic one of the complex systems that we do know works: ecological systems. Two of the principles which typify functioning ecological systems are to use cyclical systems with feedback loops and to decentralise core functions for resilience. The design response to these challenges lies in scaling infrastructure such that the nested systems which they can support are enabled in such a way that waste products are eliminated and there is no single point of failure. Key to this is the analysis of whole systems; in the words of Bill Reed "If it's smaller than a watershed (catchment area), then you can't talk about 'sustainability'".

So, where do the opportunities start to show themselves. Firstly on the water front: our cities do not have to deplete or pollute fresh water resources. We have the technology to collect, treat and re-use all our waste water. By decentralising water treatment, we open opportunities for nutrient recovery, which can in turn be used for biogas energy production or local agriculture (thus reducing some of the demand for centrally produced food). Localised agriculture thus becomes a water treatment question as well as one of health, eco-system functionality and poverty alleviation when community gardens provide both a dietary and income alternative to communities. Wetlands are another waste-water treatment mechanism with multiple benefits - treatment of storm water run-off and grey-water from buildings coupled with the introduction on biodiversity hotspots into our urban spaces. Sewerage treatment can be done through high-tech packaged treatment plants or low-tech composting toilets. All in all, by re-thinking our approach to water, energy, sewage treatment and food, and recognizing that they are in fact a single complex system, we can start to re-imagine our cities' water cycles.

Another key system for re-imagination is our approach to energy: currently a case of distant fossil fuel combustion for local electricity consumption. With the agreed end-game being a solar society based on an integrated renewable energy grid, there are many steps along the way.

The first of these recognises that large scale power generation is only about 20% efficient - 80% of all the thermal energy is lost as waste heat. This is criminal, especially as a significant at portion of that 20% is then used to generate thermal energy down the track for heating and cooling. One mechanism for capturing this is to decentralise power generation through combustion using clean burning fuels (natural gas, bio-diesel, biogas or biomass) and capturing the waste heat for use in hot water generation, space heating or cooling (via an absorption chiller). This allows us to re-imagine our energy loops from single purpose electricity systems to multipurpose electricity, heating and cooling mixes which optimise the nested thermal opportunities of power generation. When these systems are linked with biogas and biomass from local water treatment or agricultural by-products, the cross-links get closer and the resilience improves. Just like natural systems.

Of course the development of smart energy grids, which can balance thermal and electrical loads and storage requirements across an urban space will also be critical in balancing diversified renewable energy sources when we get closer to being fully reliant on them. At that stage we may find that a combination of solar thermal and solar electrical systems still fits our resource demands better than simply using large grid-connected RE power stations.

Further to these, when we decentralise all these systems, we lower the barriers to entry; so then private sector now have an opportunity to engage with the provision of basic services by-passing the often-inefficient government bureaucracy that typifies so many African cities. It also allows smaller scale business to work in the field; something to be further enhanced through at active financing options.

And so we start to see a city where the water, power, waste and food systems are all intricately linked, using each other's waste products and building value at every scale. We see green space and wetlands move into our cities, food production and a city which cleans up the mess made so far instead of adding to it.

Further to fixing our infrastructure, we must also fix our buildings; after all, it is ultimately the buildings in a city and their inhabitants which provide the demand for the resources we've just discussed. Sound design at a building level is a critical ingredient in creating beautiful, livable, sustainable cities. Designing for resource efficiency through passive design, meshing seamlessly with re-imagined infrastructure and building communities as well structures will all contribute to our new African cities.

It into this context that the Australian-born Green Star rating system is introduced; a rating tool based on the USA and UK tools and primarily focused on creating a market for 'green' buildings. It has been adapted to South African conditions, and recently permission has been given for certification in Ghana, but there remain some huge questions on it's ability to meet the challenges of Africa's cities, most particularly on the social and conservation fronts. However that must not detract from it's importance in delivering the resource-efficient buildings on which our re-imagined infrastructure true will rely. The wide-spread adoption of green building design is going to be critical to the success of our new cities, and the willingness of the Green Building Councils of Australia and South Africa to "let go" of their tools to be made relevant and accessible across the continent is also of vital importance.

2. Transport and Mobility

This is not a section on public transport, as important as it is. This is a discussion on moving people, and allowing them access to the resources they need in a manner that does not require moving thousands of tons of steel around our cities on congealed oil residue. Our African cities seem to have lost the art of moving people effectively - crowded taxis, impossible traffic, absence of options and high cost all typify the realities of navigating African cities.
So, what to do...

One option is move places of work closer to places of residence. Through the exploding cellular communications technology in Africa, the potential for remote work must be championed in all quarters. As the African middle class emerges, and services replace labour as the primary activity, so too do the options for moving information more than people.

From a design perspective, one of the principal focus points must be safety for non-vehicular commuters. Providing safe pedestrian and cycle spaces should accompany the public transport initiatives which have proven successful in most modern cities. The road infrastructure in Africa currently requires such enormous investment that the viability of alternatives become better in comparison. I would suggest that reducing road infrastructure in favor of diversified light rail, pedestrian and cycle paths with excellent communications technology will open a less congested road for Africa in the future.

Further to this, where roads are necessary, they must again be multi-functional: smart kerbs must assist in the treatment and management of urban storm water, green strips alongside must link intra-city parks and green spaces, creating a green web through our cities. Speed limits reduced, security improved and mixed zones encouraged where pedestrians have priority, not cars.

This may seem like a pipe dream to most inhabitants of modern African cities, but as oil prices soar, alternatives to cars will become meow mainstream and cities that are placed to offer alternatives will be in a position to fly.

3. Planning, Communities and Civil Society

Again, looking at my homeland where the Apartheid system institutionalized racism, the relationship of city communities and sustainability is clear. Among their varied instruments, the racial segregation through the physical layout of our cities has endured long after the legislation governing behaviour has been repealed; nowhere more than my current city: Cape Town. And while it is particularly evident here, planning along racial, economic or class lines is evident in most cities to a greater or lesser degree.

The segregation of rich and poor, black, white and coloured, privileged and forgotten is enshrined in the layout of our suburbs, roads, railways and services. These in turn break down our efforts at community building, peace, reconciliation, education and health. Our schools miss the crucial peer to peer learning as all peers in under-developed schools are equally lost, while the privileged shine and immigrate. Our clinics are burdened to the point of breaking with no local business or community leader with the resources to fight for better services. Our artists are unable to write or paint, as begging for food takes the day away and crushes the spirit. The story is told over and over in our cities across the continent.

Investment breeds surrounding slums as the poor flock to be exploited. Massive urbanisation pulls people into the threatening maw, with no services to support them. It is in these places that we have the opportunity to meet the needs of people in ways never yet imagined. To provide opportunities for economic freedom without the linear consumption models of our current city paradigm. These initiatives will by necessity deal with the provision of resources and services. However it is only by choice that they will also address our wide and varied challenges of nested systems, ecological health, community building and the lasting prosperity that is the hope of sustainability professionals globally. Without mixing rich and poor, our cities have no hope. Without opening eyes and hearts, our best efforts at transport and infrastructure will fail. Without encouraging genuine participation from all corners, we cannot expect to represent the people who inhabit our cities.

And so through design, how do we address these things? My thoughts are by no means definitive, certainly not sufficient, but none-the-less present.

As Africa urbanises, we can plan new communities that cross class and cultural boundaries. We can design for the surrounding communities that will be affected by new urban investment in such a way that they are included as participants, not silently exploited. We can design systems which open up new opportunities for entrepreneurship while improving resource efficiency and providing new services; especially if the public sector is failing in this regard. We can widen the net of stakeholders, voluntarily extending our design teams to include community leaders. We can ask for input and listen to the answers. We can start to design for value - value to people, value to natural systems - and not just cost mitigation in a short-sighted financial model. We can seek real prosperity.

These things are all within our reach as we re-imagine cities at the pointy end of sustainability; Africa's new cities. Shining.