Zero Carbon Homes
How do we measure success??
This is perhaps the most important question when looking for improvement in any area of our lives. In the context to building and construction, investors look to the bottom line, products that sell with ease, components that save time and drive up margins.
This dualistic approach may have worked well in the past, with houses and other asset prices escalating in a steady upward trajectory, builders and developers that can bring assets to market quickly are safely are considered a reputable, reliable and successful individuals and enterprise.
But the question is, what is the consequence of our actions? Are there any seemingly unrelated consequences for our activities in the future? Are some of the most financially successful enterprises the biggest losers tomorrow when we have tipped the environment out of balance?
This is an especially apt question when it comes to climate change, particularly in relation to the amplification of CO2 into the atmosphere. Around 18 years ago, Daniel Roberts was submitting his dissertation on embodied CO2 in relation to wall insulation v a single source, gas heater for a traditional residential home. It was evident from the research that the CO2 used to manufacture the insulation would not be saved by the planet, the heat loss from the building did not justify the expenditure in CO2 of the additional building materials.
From earths prospective, the implication of the extra material is higher than the benefit over the life of the building. Daniel realised that if the unit of measure was not dollar savings or time, but implication or CO2, then most building products in common use do not meet the needs of the planet.
A "win, win, win" is for both parties, plus mother earth. Why is a three way relationship between human actions and the planet important for our future business models?
Imagine for a second that I invented a product so burdensome that it depletes all the natural resources for the entire planet and extinguishes all life on earth, however, at the start, the product provides a nice profits for share holders? There would be a tug of war between the supporter and investors seeking profit and the critics or activists who can see the failed epistemology of the supporters. However, once the supporters realise, become educated that their profit is worthless if we all die or have our planet destroyed beyond repair. When would be the time to stop such a business? Immediately would be my suggestion.
This may seem like an extreme example, however, when you look at the carbon outputs, there is already evidence that CO2 emissions are not without implication. No-one can say that the lifestyle we have promoted and support may not result in disaster, the risk is certainly not zero.
When we are calculating risk, even a 0.0000000000001% probability or risk of fatal damage to the planet and humanity is not a risk worth accepting. We only have one environment.
If were to pause for a second and ask, what would a solution look like?
Ancient texts promote the timeless message of balance, the middle road, zen. Clearly the environment and earth we share is affected by humans and the consequences of human actions are either in balance or they are out of harmony.
Just like in music, we all have an ear for a harmonious piece of music, or an item of art that is balanced or promotes a message of harmony. What we fail to recognise is that all humans are born equal under the sun and if 8 billion humans are out of balance, the environment suffers as a product of individual disharmony.
The underlying issue is not the expansion of our experiences, travel, goods, services and economy. It is the fact that a handful of individuals that control the largest and most impactful companies forgot to calculate the CO2 implication of the very environment we call home. Planet Earth.
On an individual level, we all resonate with mother earth, the planet is beautiful and we all want it to be in balance for eternity, no single soul would vote for total depletion of the earth. The traditional people of this land knew this. If we don't calculate the implication of our actions as closely as our attention to finances and balance sheets, we do run the risk of losing more than money can ever replenish or buy.
From a carbon prospective, some products are better than others. For example, steel has a value of 12,207 kg CO2 per 1 m3 of steel. A heavy burden to carry, comparatively, pine takes 25 years to reach maturity. There is approximately 1,200 trees per hectare; 12,000kg co2 per year is removed from the atmosphere and is embodied into the timber once used. there is approximately 80m3 of timer per hectare.
A simple comparison, but a powerful example of good decision making. Sustainably sourced pine is positive for the environment, providing the trees are replaced. In-fact, a pine tree consumes more CO2 whilst reaching maturity than when it is fully mature. Cutting down pine from sustainable forests can be positive for the planet. It is also true to suggest that planting more trees can offset the amount of CO2 omitted by steel manufacturing.
If we aim for zero, we achieve balance. Harmony. The truth is, if we don't aim for an outcome, or calculate the implications of our business activities, we shall live under the consequences of our actions. These consequences are going to show up in the future, in the environment we share. The environment shall fail us, it is law.
The average person is aware that our activities and industries are a one sided affair. More CO2 is emitted than we are offsetting or capturing, human businesses are out of balance, mother earth is being pushed out of balance as a consequence and we all suffer or face losing it all. An unacceptable consequence of our actions.
Time is of the essence to aim for zero implication in our business activities and priorities. Through a combination of carbon reduction and amplification of activities that capture CO2 such as pine production and carbon capturing homes, we can return back to an equilibrium we all, including mother earth feel comfortable.
The good news is, there has never been a better time to start a personal and industry return to harmony. Now is the time to make decisive actions and to vote with our individual actions.
Here at Quantus Solutions we are creators of Zero and Negative Carbon Homes. Simply put, we are on a path to produce homes that are either in balance "net zero" or "negative" i.e. offsetting the heavy load of other industries such as steel production.
Innovation is key, through innovation we have manifested revolutionary material usage such as recycled timber, hempcrete, sustainable pine, plywood and all components are calculated for both cost and CO2 implication. A revolutionary and intelligent approach to business.
A typical home in Australia is around 235m2 and has a negative CO2 implication of 66 Tonnes per house during the build. This excludes ongoing, maintenance and power usage. With carbon priced at $50,000 per tonne, the true cost of the average Aussie home is much more burdensome than most appreciate. The Australian house building sector is out of balance and change is required of the essence.
Quantus Solutions, Daniel Roberts and our trusted innovators and partners are proud to be leaders in balanced building techniques, success for us means success for all and we are here to support all reduce and offset the heavy burden we all share from the old, out dated dualistic business model of time and profit that pushed mother earth out of balance.