The FuturArc Interview

Peter Head is a world leader on the subject of sustainable design. He has led several noteworthy projects including the Dongtan Eco-city near Shanghai and the Wanzhuang Eco-city near Beijing. In the 2008-9 Brunel lecture series for the Institution of Civil Engineers, he described his vision for an Ecological Age showing us what is possible and within our means. For his advocacy and pursuits, Peter has been highly decorated; the October 2008 issue of TIME magazine, for instance, featured him as one of 30 global 'eco-heroes'. This year Peter sits on the FuturArc Prize 2010 jury panel.

FuturArc Journal's Editor-in-Chief, Dr Nirmal Kishnani, discusses with him the Copenhagen Climate Change Summit. The Summit, in which Peter Head participated, was viewed by many as a last chance for a global treaty on climate change to replace the Kyoto Protocol.

NK: Some call Copenhagen an abject failure; others say it was 'a turning point', a way forward. We've had climate change conferences before: Rio, Kyoto, Bali; it seems like we've been talking about this for some time. How was this different?
PH: It's the first time in human history that 192 countries—that's most countries in the world—were in one place negotiating around a common interest, which was tackling climate change. Kyoto was signed up to by only 60 plus parties.

To have another 120 world leaders in attendance at the end of the Summit in itself shows a remarkable concern and interest in tackling the problem; this is completely unprecedented. The sceptic's view—is the science credible?—evaporated immediately because the science, proper science, closed in around it.

Second, the cities and regions that were present were saying to their national governments: we're already getting on with it because we think it's good for our regions. We think it's good for jobs. We think it's good for the long-term economics of our region or our city. We're going to do this even if we're not getting leadership at the national level. This was underneath the nation-to-nation dialogue which you've been reading about.

NK: Who was saying this?
PH: The C40¹ cities; there was a city mayors' meeting² which had, I think 80 mayors from cities all over the world, with their representatives. You had high profile people there: Bloomberg from New York, Boris Johnson from London, Edward Lau from Hong Kong, Clover More from Sydney, etc. It was a very powerful group sharing information about their plans. In addition to cities we also heard from the regions: Catalonia in Spain, Wales and Scotland in the UK, Victoria and Queensland in Australia, some states in the US, regions in Africa and South America—all saying the same thing: We're going to get on and deliver change regardless of whether national governments get their act together or not.

NK: What was the fundamental shift since Kyoto?
PH: The principal thing about Kyoto was that it didn't require developing countries to either monitor or set targets. It's now evident that targets are needed for the emerging countries as well, like China, India and Brazil. The big argument leading up to Copenhagen was whether those emerging countries would accept that change or whether they just wanted to propagate the Kyoto process.

I believe that China came to Copenhagen with a willingness to set targets and to have some form of monitoring for emerging countries. But they played a very hardball game, and that wasn't obvious right up until the last 24 hours. Until then they didn't concede to that point which obviously led to quite a difficult situation because nobody knew quite what the endgame might be.

The Accord³ that emerged from that final day creates a possibility that these emerging countries will set targets and open themselves to some form of monitoring. This is fundamental for countries like the US which enables them to have credibility with their home audience. The fact that the Accord was not signed up to by all the parties means there is no actual agreement from Copenhagen; negotiations continue into 2010.

The other big sticking point was the commitment to give money to developing countries. That in a sense has been addressed in the Accord because developing countries have more or less accepted a figure of hundred billion dollars a year by 2020. But this is way below what they were demanding in the first instance.

NK: The environmental landscape has changed as well, with it the bargaining power of countries. Since Kyoto, China has become the world's largest emitter. That fact alone puts it front and centre at the negotiating table.
PH: Emerging economies—China, India, etc.—as you say, were more accountable. The developing countries—that will be badly affected by climate change—now also have a strong voice. The African countries for instance were remarkably united. The island nations, threatened by flooding, are tiny but had a very strong voice. We now know the sheer horror these countries are facing.

You had to be there, to meet people from Africa, from South America, because they are seeing it every day now, it is not some sort of scientific idea, this is reality for these people. It's affecting their economy, it's affecting their people now; they see it getting worse. The intensity of their involvement in the meeting took everybody by surprise, this made the discussions that much more dramatic. People are seeing this much more clearly than they did at Kyoto.

What emerged from Copenhagen was a feeling that China and America are actually now not so dominant. Other voices are being heard on the world stage. Some commentators have suggested that this is a glimpse of a new world order. It hasn't arrived yet but there is just a glimpse of it coming through in the importance of these nations and the loud voice they're going to have as the climate warms and its impacts are felt.

NK: Tell us what you witnessed behind the scenes: what surprised you in a good way? What were the big disappointments?
PH: Of the encouraging things, there was definitely a consensus on moving forward to a low-carbon future among cities and the regions and the business community who were there in some force. Working with the cities presents businesses great opportunities to pull out of the global recession by creating jobs out of building retrofits and the construction of public transport systems and other things. There is a real sense of a win-win there; that private and public capital can come together to achieve significant economic momentum globally to create jobs. There are new business models emerging, new forms of partnership, new forms of supply chain, cooperation to deliver performance, and so forth. This was a powerful set of messages that kept recurring.

The biggest disappointment was the final 24 hours. Right up to then you had the commitment to a hundred billion dollars a year for developing countries by 2020; you had a position where the developed countries had made quite substantial commitments and the EU I think was on the verge of moving its target from 20 to 30 percent by 2020; you had strong commitments from Brazil who not only offered to control their emissions but also offered to put money into developing countries; you had Japan and Norway with strong commitments. So there was a real feeling of momentum, of arriving at a position where there could be an agreement. It was never going to be a legally binding thing but I think there could have been something signed up to by 190 countries. And that was completely blown out of the water on the last day. I think we were much closer to it than people imagined.

NK: What blew it out of the water?
PH: Politics really; the tensions between leaders and their home supporters. The political dimensions of such an engagement are very difficult because nobody is used to having a 30-way negotiation. Nobody knew how to handle it really.

NK: There has been a lot of criticism of the Accord, that it was a 'last minute deal' by a few, thrust upon the rest. Was that your take on it?
PH: I think so. It was appalling in the sense that the process is a consensual one with all the countries having a say. To suddenly move to an imposed agreement without any consultation is understandably upsetting for a large number of people who spent the past year trying to arrive at an agreement.

NK: Some commentators have suggested that consensual politics is at the core of the problem. Under this system, everybody has the right to consume and pollute. A few countries can easily 'hijack' negotiations. Isn't the value system that drives the process also the very thing that impedes progress?
PH: I am not sure that's the problem. I think the bigger problem is that an awful lot of people are not seeing consequences of climate change first hand. The human race has never been good at anticipating problems. We don't actually take action until the problems are evident. A simple example: we have pedestrian crossings on roads in the UK but you don't put a crossing in until a certain number people are killed in car accidents. I think that's the bigger problem.

One could argue that the only way forward is a sort of undemocratic process where governments drive action. I don't agree with that. I think you have to take people with you by communicating effectively with them. At Copenhagen we brought the world's art and culture community together to say that you have to help engage people, to help them understand what success means in the new world order in which renewables and efficient use of resources are going to be important.

You need strong top-down leadership—no question about that—but you still must engage people in communities and by doing that you build the political support.

NK: What specifically was discussed in the context of buildings and the built environment?
PH: Three things were at the top of that list.

Building retrofits, and by that I mean energy efficiency and to some extent water efficiency, and even waste management. Buildings and communities are now seen to be a very fast way of reducing energy demand and to some extent introducing some renewable energy supplies as well.

There is also a huge interest in building and investing in public transport as a way of switching from polluting cars, to public transport.

Lastly, the transition to electric vehicle seems to be gathering momentum very fast, partly because energy consumption is lower and partly because pollution in the cities goes down. In the transition to renewable energy, you have to have storage for the energy; electric cars are a way of storing energy in a controlled way.

NK: Your Brunel lecture⁴ speaks of an ecological age with current and emerging technologies. Following Copenhagen would you add a postscript to that?
PH: Interesting question. I wouldn't change the sense of direction; the mix of solutions in the technologies are perfectly valid but I think what is very evident in Copenhagen is the need to accelerate the implementation of change. This is not just my point of view; it was what everyone was saying.

NK: Looking back, were we simply expecting too much from Copenhagen? Commentators who had been following that process said that the best that could be hoped for was some kind of a political statement and yet, we went in with high expectations. This was to be the treaty that 'rescued humanity' from itself.
PH: Hard to know really. It is an important point that the Summit was never expected to achieve a legally binding agreement there and then. Even with Kyoto, a year was spent after the summit turning the proposal into a legally binding agreement. There was some misunderstanding about what to expect from Copenhagen. And that whatever emerged would probably take a year to develop into a legal format. That said, people in the know did genuinely expect to get further than they did.

NK: Where do we go from here? What can we expect in the coming year?
PH: Hopefully not too much damage has been done at the political level to enable the officials to continue the process and to accelerate it.

There's going to be a meeting in Bonn in about 2 or 3 months by which time there should be commitment from developed countries and emerging economies on the table to populate the annex to the Accord with targets. We may not be any further forward than where we are but at least we can see what the gap is between what's been pledged and what we need to do by 2020 to meet the 2 degree maximum rise. The next top meeting is in Mexico-COP 16; that will be another very critical meeting when hopefully we will be on track to deliver some form of legally binding approach to wrap up the rainforest deal and to consolidate the money going into developing countries to adapt to climate change. We should have some legally binding commitment then which hopefully will match the need to limit temperature rise to 2 degrees, which means much greater commitment from countries like the US than they are giving at the moment, which is something that, I am sure, President Obama will fight for through the laws in America.

One of the biggest problems in America is the idea that you have to cap and tax your way out of this. The big American corporations in particular have been talking about a low-carbon transition and a low-carbon economy. That is not what we think is the right way anymore. At Copenhagen somebody said: "No, it's not just a low-carbon economy; what we're now looking for is a resource-efficient, renewable economy." That's a very profound shift in thinking which of course is exactly what I've been promoting in the Brunel Lecture. There is a genuine understanding now that this isn't just about capping and taxing emissions; it's about moving to a different paradigm in which there can be socioeconomic development and less pollution and better health out of a resource-efficient, renewable system. This is the shift to the ecological age.

¹ C40 Cities - Climate Leadership Group: www.c40cities.org
² Climate Change Summit for Mayors: www.climatesummitformayors.dk
³ Copenhagen Accord: http://en.cop15.dk/files/pdf/copenhagen_accord.pdf
⁴ 'Entering the Ecological Age - The Engineer's Role' Full PDF text of Peter Head's Brunel Lecture: www.arup.com/~/media/Files/PDF/Publications/Research_and_whitepapers/Ecological_Age/EngineersRole.ashx

Table of Contents