The big picture

Our roundtable at FOOTPRINT+ 2024 asked how an evidence-based approach can help all stakeholders responsible for built assets prepare for a changing climate.

All guests acknowledged that decarbonisation to mitigate climate change, and adaptation to prepare for the undisputed impacts of a changing climate, are two sides of the same coin.

However, in his opening remarks, Josh Bullard, divisional director for smart energy and sustainability at Hydrock, now Stantec, noted that whilst broad understanding of net zero commitments has informed strategies to fund, cut energy use, and meet stated targets, it's harder to pin down the pathway to adaptation and who funds it.

Josh's take is that responsibility and commitment varies depending on different perspectives. The planning system has often led new development and its approach to flooding and over-heating. At an organisational level, standards such as the new International Financial Reporting Standards and the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive, will drive organisations to understand the impacts of climate change on their wider ecosystems of suppliers and customers, and in turn their built assets.

But, ultimately, it's the capital markets - the funders - who will push stakeholders to understand the likely long-term impacts of climate change. They provide the access to funds, and will want to minimise risk and impact, so they will need evidence of physical and transitional risks being managed.

Why is adapting to climate change not centre stage?

Our roundtable felt that stakeholders remain reactive rather than proactive to climate change.

If there's a flood, there's a response to deal with the immediate crisis and to conduct flood risk assessments. But there's not a long-term plan to understand the likelihood of the risk and, as a consequence, adapt.

Adaptation doesn't benefit from the focus on targets and goals that is associated with the net zero agenda. The sense is that the cost-of-living crisis has driven the pace of change to reach net zero.

If investment in energy efficiency measures reduces energy bills, this cuts through with the public and commands attention. There is some logic in mitigating first, and then adapting. Clearly, we should be doing both in parallel, but this is regarded as too big a pill to swallow by most stakeholders.

The impacts of a changing climate are also more long-term, and therefore there is a degree of 'out of sight, out of mind' thinking.

READ ON

By Graham Munday

Hydrock