Fire insurance and the ‘sustainable building’ 133
to put it simply, have appropriated an entirely novel methodology for thinking about fire safety precisely because it leaves everything unchanged.
Needless to say, the insurers, fire brigades, and passive fire protection
manufacturers all object to what they regard as the developers’ exploitation of LCA to pursue traditional cost-minimising fire safety priorities.
Essentially, the insurers’ argument runs as follows. Minimising both initial capital expenditures on fire safety and building operating costs, as the
developers are claimed to be doing, may well reduce carbon emissions. But
simultaneously it presents the potential to increase the contribution of fire
risk factors to sustainable design. This is because in the event of a fire in a
building designed in accordance with developers’ preferences for minimal
fire safety, the environmental impacts of the fire itself and of the ensuing
rebuilding process end up outweighing the carbon gains presumed by the developers (Gritzo 2009, p. 13).
Of course, this risk of fire is contested by the developers, especially by
pointing to the performance engineering advances in active fire prevention.
The point here is not to determine which side is correct, even were that possible, but to note that common adherence to LCA does not imply a shared
methodology of sustainability but a contested site of a traditional economised fire politics.
The tools of sustainability
Within the broad conflicting methodologies outlined under LCA, are
arrayed specific tools, largely tools of assessment and realisation, that give
more precise shape to the respective positions. In 2002 ‘green’ property
developers formed the Green Building Council of Australia (GBCA), whose
mission ‘is to develop a sustainable property industry for Australia and
drive the adoption of green building practices through market-based solutions’ (Green Building Council of Australia 2002). The GBCA stands as the
leading advocate of the green building industry in Australia, and has close
ties with the Property Council of Australia (PCA), the peak body for developers. The PCA itself has become involved in the practice of sustainability,
and both it and the GBCA endorse the methodology of LCA. Part of the
GBCA’s advocacy was the development, starting in 2003, of the first comprehensive voluntary sustainable-building rating tool, namely the Green
Star rating tool. Subsequent incarnations have appeared in the years since,
(the latest version in August 2016) applying to different categories of performance and building types. Both ‘resilience’ and ‘sustainability’ appear in
the tool but resilience is ‘resilience to climate change,’ while sustainability
focuses on the carbon neutrality in the building and day-to-day operation
of the building. (Green Building Council of Australia 2016) In this way,
the Green Star rating tool addresses at great length issues of sustainable
building with respect to communities, design as built, interiors, and performance. However, the contentious issue of fire safety has been sidelined.
to put it simply, have appropriated an entirely novel methodology for thinking about fire safety precisely because it leaves everything unchanged.
Needless to say, the insurers, fire brigades, and passive fire protection
manufacturers all object to what they regard as the developers’ exploitation of LCA to pursue traditional cost-minimising fire safety priorities.
Essentially, the insurers’ argument runs as follows. Minimising both initial capital expenditures on fire safety and building operating costs, as the
developers are claimed to be doing, may well reduce carbon emissions. But
simultaneously it presents the potential to increase the contribution of fire
risk factors to sustainable design. This is because in the event of a fire in a
building designed in accordance with developers’ preferences for minimal
fire safety, the environmental impacts of the fire itself and of the ensuing
rebuilding process end up outweighing the carbon gains presumed by the developers (Gritzo 2009, p. 13).
Of course, this risk of fire is contested by the developers, especially by
pointing to the performance engineering advances in active fire prevention.
The point here is not to determine which side is correct, even were that possible, but to note that common adherence to LCA does not imply a shared
methodology of sustainability but a contested site of a traditional economised fire politics.
The tools of sustainability
Within the broad conflicting methodologies outlined under LCA, are
arrayed specific tools, largely tools of assessment and realisation, that give
more precise shape to the respective positions. In 2002 ‘green’ property
developers formed the Green Building Council of Australia (GBCA), whose
mission ‘is to develop a sustainable property industry for Australia and
drive the adoption of green building practices through market-based solutions’ (Green Building Council of Australia 2002). The GBCA stands as the
leading advocate of the green building industry in Australia, and has close
ties with the Property Council of Australia (PCA), the peak body for developers. The PCA itself has become involved in the practice of sustainability,
and both it and the GBCA endorse the methodology of LCA. Part of the
GBCA’s advocacy was the development, starting in 2003, of the first comprehensive voluntary sustainable-building rating tool, namely the Green
Star rating tool. Subsequent incarnations have appeared in the years since,
(the latest version in August 2016) applying to different categories of performance and building types. Both ‘resilience’ and ‘sustainability’ appear in
the tool but resilience is ‘resilience to climate change,’ while sustainability
focuses on the carbon neutrality in the building and day-to-day operation
of the building. (Green Building Council of Australia 2016) In this way,
the Green Star rating tool addresses at great length issues of sustainable
building with respect to communities, design as built, interiors, and performance. However, the contentious issue of fire safety has been sidelined.