As I write this, the signatories (nearly 200 countries) to the December 2015 Paris Climate Agreement are meeting in Marrakech, Morocco, to thrash out how to put their aspirational intentions into effect. New Zealand is attending and will be presenting our plan for achieving the targets we have set following our recent ratification of the agreement. To the surprise of many, the agreement has come into force much earlier than expected ("94 countries representing more than 60 percent of emissions having done so"), but unfortunately the 'Intended Nationally Determined Contribution' (INDC) targets add up to a 2.7℃ — 3℃ future instead of the 1.5℃ or 2℃ international limit agreed at Paris.

New Zealand's INDC is to be met primarily through a mix of forestry planting, purchasing carbon market credits, and domestic emission reductions.

While growing trees do absorb carbon, they eventually get cut down. At present, the country is in the process of manipulating the carbon calculation rules to an 'averaging' approach. Recently the (Gareth) Morgan Foundation published a report, 'Climate Cheat III - Cook the Books' which estimated that we can claim about a year's worth of credit (around 79 million tonnes of carbon), without needing to do anything constructive. Paul Young, the author, is reported as saying "Playing hide and seek with our emissions is not going to do anything to address climate change and we need to be focussing our efforts on real action." Radio NZ has an archived recording of the 'Nine to Noon' interview from 2nd November at 9:40am with Paul Young.

Relying on purchasing carbon credits has been discredited and is a lazy way to abide by the rules without having to do anything except pay money. In the future, New Zealand is going to have to face up to the reality of carbon's contribution to climate change and the catch-up will be much more painful than making a real start now. Looking for fancy footwork is not the answer — we are not fooling the rest of the world.

Reducing domestic emissions is a positive approach, but will need to be accelerated if we are to reach our targets. It is in this area where the construction industry can lead the field and make substantial contributions. If we aren't proactive then we may find draconian measures, unrealistic from a practical and financial point of view, are compulsorily imposed upon us by a government forced to play catch-up.

In the distant past, building regulations did not require specific degrees of thermal performance for our buildings, but now minimal levels have been imposed and there is no reason why these cannot be increased in the future. The current NZ Building Code — clause H1 (Energy Efficiency) Third Edition was issued in 2007, which is now a long time ago. With New Zealand's commitment to reducing domestic emissions, and a rapidly growing public acceptance of the need, then it is very likely that the construction sector will be looked to for savings. Perhaps we should just get on with it and not wait to be directed.

An example of where the construction industry can be pro-active is BRANZ's current presentations of the concept of Life Cycle Assessments for buildings. As it becomes more well known, the property market is likely to take up the concept quite quickly, both as an objective measure of cost savings over the life of the building, and as a marketable feature at the time of sale. While the initial design and construction costs may be a little higher, these are dwarfed by the life-cycle savings. GreenStar, Nabers and HomeStar are other examples of non-governmental initiatives to improve the quality of our building stock.

Be it a domestic or a commercial building, at the design and the build stages of construction there is a lot which can be done now to substantially reduce emissions with only a minimum of effort.

• Intelligent site selection has a major influence. A poorly chosen site can only be minimally improved by clever design.
• Development of the client's brief. Is it a disguised description of what has been in the past, or a carefully considered exploration of what will be needed — allowing for the difficulty of predicting the future.
• The 'design' of the building. Carefully thought out orientation, planning, fenestration, maximisation of passive solar and environmental gains before the introduction of mechanical systems, detailed consideration of construction method etc, require little extra effort for substantial gains.
• Where appropriate, introducing the contractor into the design team so that ease of construction can be factored in, especially where it has little effect on the design.
• Materials selection. Extra thermal mass can be just as much a negative as a positive. What is the total 'embedded energy' of a material balanced against the positives for its selection?
• Construction. There are a multitude of opportunities to effectively reduce emissions in this phase, eg. the set-up of the site, delivery of materials, efficient use of construction water, waste reduction, minimising re-working, etc.
• Producing comprehensive user manuals for the owners and occupants of the building will substantially improve the use and maintenance of the building over its lifetime.

It would only take a small change in mindsets to make major changes to New Zealand's domestic emissions before there is a need for directives from the government. Because these measures will also result in a financial gain for the development, even the climate change sceptics will benefit.

From the thermal simulation analyses of projects I undertake through EcoRate Ltd, the clients and designers are able to quickly gain an objective comparison of different planning, fenestration and material options so as to inform their designs. I feel that there is a very rapid acceptance of the need to have energy-efficient buildings. In the past I was occasionally asked to determine how many double glazed windows could be removed while still achieving a Building Consent, now architects and the public are asking for an analysis of various options so as to inform their design and construction detailing processes.

If this all seems too hard for an individual, I remind you of the quotation from Edmund Burke:

"No one could make a greater mistake than he who did nothing because he could do only a little."