The audio on my phone plays at 0.7x speed instead of the normal 1.0x as I try and capture the words behind the gentle but firm voice of Engineer Denis (real names withheld) for an article. The change in pace makes us sound drunk and that makes me giggle a few times.
Giggling; laughing lightly and repeatedly in an excited, nervous, or silly way. Giggling should be the criteria for happiness, in fact, it should be the biggest sign of a safe environment, one that has slowed down, one that dances to its own beat, one that is carbon neutral or carbon negative as Denis puts it.
Denis is a specialist in eco-friendly construction, and what wonderful things go on behind the scenes at the frontline of the fight against climate change. Unsurprisingly, he had some scathing remarks about sustainable construction in Uganda but not in the way we ordinary folk debate about climate change.
When I asked him,
“Is there a way we can integrate vernacular building with modern ways of construction to make our buildings more sustainable?”
The immediate “Thank you for this question, thank you” told me this was going to be good.
He did not disappoint.
In her research “KAMPALA ‘S EMERGING VERNACULAR LANDSCAPE”, Teaching Asst. Jennifer Nalubwama Machyo from the Department of Architecture and Physical Planning, CEDAT, SBE, Department of Architecture and Physical Planning, Makerere University, echoed Denis’ words saying, “Three quarters of Kampala’s land is privately owned deterring local authority’s control over its development. Private land rights have fueled the growth of owner occupied houses which offer the best medium for showing individuals’ personality and aspirations.”
Though a blessing, this individuality is dragged down by construction standards dating back to colonial times.
Vernacular building materials include cob, rammed earth, bamboo, stone, thatch, wood, among others. These materials are usually climate responsive and tie to the culture and traditions of a region. The bulk of houses in the country, especially in rural areas, are vernacular building.
Now, before you even think about “modernising” your village house, consider the fact that while we use British standards for modern construction, “Britain has a carbon footprint of 15.07 metric tonnes per capita” more than 7 times the Paris 2015 threshold of 2.3 metric tonnes. The Paris 2015 threshold basically says that if we don’t want to boil the planet, we should all aim at a carbon footprint of 2.3 metric tonnes and less.
Uganda is currently at 0.12 metric tonnes. Which, I think, means we are very safe. At least safer than England.
The Headmaster Will See You Now For Violating School Rules Against Vernacular Speaking.
“To use vernacular architecture you would need standards that are going to guide designs that incorporate that vernacular architecture. This is a fundamental change that has to happen within the engineering fraternity to open itself up to apply science, knowledge and skills to integrate local material,” he says.
He goes into detail about changing the public mindset about construction to fit the environment we live in rather than emulating an environment miles away in space and in time.
“We also have to go back to the drawing board and define what a house or a building is and the importance of this building over a long period of time. We copy Europe in our construction but Europe builds because its environment is harsher than ours. When you look at Uganda, given our materials and our ever green climate, you shouldn’t be imagining putting up a building to last 100 years. So there has to be deliberate effort to make people understand that you can build a house you are comfortable in for 20 years and that after 20 years it can become something else. Consequently, the materials we use change so that we start looking at wood, for example,” he adds.
Immediately, I jump to the conclusion that relying on wood would exacerbate the attack on forests.
“It is important for us to cut trees and use them, and the people who say we should not cut trees or use them in construction, or use timber to construct our houses, are simplistic about sustainability.”
Huh?
Let’s break it down:
If we want to have more trees, we need to figure out how to add value to wood.
It is important that we conserve the natural forests, but commercial forests are good because when they grow they trap the carbon from the environment.
Their wood, when used in construction, is what gives a house a negative carbon footprint.
When they tell you that a building is net zero it means that part of the building is wood.
This is because the wood had already captured the carbon from the environment.
Once the carbon has been captured from the environment into wood, it cannot go back in the environment.
There’s no natural mechanism for trapped carbon to get back into the environment. So even when the wood rots, it’s not releasing that carbon to the environment.
It is a natural law that whatever you attach value to grows and increases in number.
“Take this analogy, for example; a cow gives birth to one calf in two years, and a dog produces 12 puppies every three months, but we have more cows than we have dogs. This is because what has value will grow. It is a natural law that whatever you attach value to grows and increases in number.”
When we use wood, we give it value then we give people incentive to plant more trees and the more trees we plant, the more carbon we extract from the environment.
This is my question now:
Is it creating value when we first risk losing something, then realise how much it means to us? Is that a form of value creation? Why get people to attach value to an omnipresent, “omni-valuable” world by risking it first?