The term “built environment” is becoming a very popular way of describing the construction industry in broader terms.   And the construction industry is undergoing a radical transformation. Why?  Construction (or ‘the built environment’) accounts for an about 39% of energy-related CO₂ emissions when you combine operational use and embodied carbon from materials.  What’s embodied carbon?  When people talk about carbon in buildings, they usually think about the energy a building uses after it’s built — the lights, HVAC (Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning).  But embodied carbon is different. It’s the hidden carbon footprint that comes from making, transporting, and assembling all the materials that go into a building — like concrete, steel, glass, and insulation.

A big part of this is selecting materials – and you can have an effect on this!

For project leaders and project managers, this places material choice squarely into the realm of strategic, long-term risk, schedule impact and value creation—no longer just a technical specification item.  For example, as a project manager, we could be faced with a decision to use a cheaper material which meets our needs but would involve a massive amount of embodied carbon over a slightly more expensive material that has a much lower amount of embodied carbon.  A project leader could make the strategic decision to (OMG!) choose the more expensive material for the trade-off it would have in terms of embodied carbon.  That tough decision may become easier, thanks to technology and the availability of quality information about materials.  It's there for you.

For example, you can become familiar with Environmental Product Declarations (EPDs) which help you – or your procurement manager, with your encouragement – to make these decisions.  Here’s a guide on EPDs from the US Environmental Protection Agency.  My suggestion: bookmark that PDF, and read on.

Low-carbon construction materials—such as geopolymer concrete, recycled steel, mass timber, and bio-based insulation—are moving from “nice to have” to “must have” – and it’s becoming more available. A recent market report (see references) pegged the global low-carbon construction materials market at US$66.2 billion in 2024, projected to reach US$79.2 billion by 2030.  Why? Because regulation, investor pressure, ‘green’ demands from occupants of buildings, and material innovation are aligning.  Simply becoming knowledgeable about this makes you a better project leader in the 'built environment' industry.

But one often under-appreciated driver is the effect of international trade and (increasingly) tariffs. How materials are sourced, imported or produced locally can dramatically shift the business case—and that is a lever project leaders must master if they want to lead, not just react – and not be that project manager that is trudging along making one tactical (non-strategic) decision after another.

What is causing this shift to low-carbon materials?
 

• Regulatory & certification pressure: Governments and industry bodies are mandating or promoting embodied-carbon reporting, minimal carbon intensity thresholds, and green-building certification programs. For example, public procurement policies increasingly prioritize low-carbon building materials.
• Market demand / investor & occupant expectations: Developers, asset owners and occupants increasingly expect sustainability credentials. Low-carbon materials become a differentiator in a crowded market. The demonstrated market growth underscores that the demand is becoming volume-based, not a niche situation.
• Innovation & material science advances: Technical breakthroughs—such as alkali-activated binders, carbon-capture in concrete, mass timber systems—make low-carbon materials technically viable (see references below).
• Trade/tariffs & supply-chain disruption: Import tariffs on construction materials increase cost and create sourcing risk; at the same time, they open opportunities for local, sustainable alternatives. For instance, one commentary notes that summary-tariffs of  about 10% on imported construction goods in the U.S. will raise costs by US$7,500–10,000 per home (see references below).

Tariffs also make third-party low-carbon imports more expensive, shifting attention to locally-produced, lower-transport-carbon materials. But local sourcing itself carries risks: domestic production may be less mature, may not yet have low-carbon credentials, and may suffer supply scarcity or premium pricing. asuene.com+1

• Cost of carbon / lifecycle cost thinking: As the industry looks beyond just “first cost” toward life-cycle cost and embodied carbon, low-carbon materials win on the “total value” metric—especially when tariffs push up conventional material costs, making alternatives comparatively more attractive. For example, local sourcing reduces transport emissions and exposure to tariffs, improving predictability.

What does this mean for those who want to truly lead – and not just manage – projects?

Here are some of the many ways you can do this, aligned with the project management process groups:

• • Initiation: incorporating low-carbon material goals into charter
  • Planning: updating procurement strategy, supplier assessment, life-cycle carbon analysis
  • Execution: assuring real-time tracking of the supply-chain, quality assurance, change control for material substitution
  • Monitoring & Control: metrics for embodied carbon, cost/benefit, supplier performance, staying close to the news, as geopolitics can change things radically in one day
  • Closure/Transition: collect sustainability-oriented lessons learned, verifying sustainability claims, publicizing the low carbon content of your project
  • Applying Power Skills: increased engagement with stakeholders, building organizational capacity, special focus on Strategic Thinking, Innovative Mindset, For-Purpose Orientation.  You see the focus on life-cycle thinking, and this is one of the main attributes that distinguishes a project leader from workaday project managers.

In Part 2 of this blog post, I will provide an illustration of how this can work, a checklist for project leaders wanting to excel in reducing embodied carbon, and some tips on how AI can help you lead in this area.  Stay tuned – that’s coming by the end of the month.

References:

• Sustainable Development Goals+1
• cfp.energy+1
• Low-Carbon Construction Materials Industry Analysis Report
• asuene.com+1

AI-R ... for AI Research, or AI-Ruins?

In my last post I covered (briefly) the S1500 buoyant wind turbine, and I closed by saying I would continue the series with a bit more about wind energy from a project perspective.

In this post I provide readers with the result of some back and forth with AI that yielded a set of myths and facts about wind energy that was educational for me on two fronts.

1. It solidified some background science around wind turbines
2. It re-confirmed what I have been ‘preaching’ about AI – it takes a CON-VER-SATION and critical thinking to create anything of value with AI.

In fact, I must say, this turned out to be more of an exercise on AI use and lessons learned than on wind power.

So, without further delay, here are three infographics that cover myths and facts about wind turbines (and related projects).  I will comment about what it took to generate these and where AI succeeded, and where it fell down miserably.

First up: Birds

Next up: Whales

Next up: Windmills are not green (??)

And lastly, I asked AI to keep the same theme and give me sources.  Here it failed miserably, putting some of the valid sources under the MYTH column, counter-productive to the prompting and previous parts of the conversation. 
You need to watch AI’s outputs very carefully!  And even then, the source links it provided were often dead ends and I needed to go find them myself.

I gave up having it draw these and below I provide the sources in link form for you.

But wait!  I thought I would check the sources.  I did.  Many were wrong. Many were dead ends.  I think in many cases they were sites that have been edited by the new US Administration.  But whatever the reason, there is a lesson learned here - do not take verbatim what AI gives you, even something like a link for a source.  Maybe especially a link for a citation or a source!

Sources

Birds

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – Bird mortality data: https://www.fws.gov

May et al. (2020) – Blade painting study: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10336-020-01738-2

WRONG!  Here is a more valid link: https://tethys.pnnl.gov/sites/default/files/publications/May_EcolEvol_2020.pdf

Arnett et al. (2013, 2016) – Curtailment studies: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006320712005052

WRONG!  Here is a more valid link: https://tethys.pnnl.gov/sites/default/files/publications/Arnett-2016-Bats.pdf

WRONG!  Here is a more valid link:  National Audubon Society – Wind energy policy: https://www.audubon.org/conservation/wind-energy

Whales

NOAA Fisheries – Offshore wind & whales FAQ: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov

WRONG – Or at least too high up in the web structure!  Here is a more valid, specific link:

https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/new-england-mid-atlantic/marine-life-distress/frequent-questions-offshore-wind-and-whales

Marine Mammal Commission – Fact sheet: https://www.mmc.gov

WRONG – Or at least too high up in the web structure!  Here is a more valid, specific link:

https://www.mmc.gov/priority-topics/offshore-energy-development-and-marine-mammals/renewable-energy-development-and-marine-mammals/

With this (and other problems with links, such as being sent to “Forbidden” sites, I  gave up.  I stopped going to AI for sources and the remainder you see here were done by the (human)author.

Human-found sources:

Green/Energy Payback

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/383304335_Determining_Payback_Period_and_Comparing_Two_Small-Scale_Vertical_Axis_Wind_Turbines_Installed_at_the_Top_of_Residential_Buildings IEA –

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/392309203_Empirical_life_cycle_analysis_LCA_of_wind_turbines

So, my friends, please.  Use AI.  It can be helpful.  But each interaction requires your ATTENTION and CRITICAL THINKING to what it gives you - don't take it verbatim.  This applies to images, text, and, as I learned here, references and citations.

In this post I will discuss some new developments in wind power.

Wind power:  It has been a (in my opinion unnecessarily) controversial topic for some time, most particularly in the past 8 years or so.

For example, here are some recent comments from US President Donald Trump with his opinions about wind energy:

..and here is a more ‘engineering’ -based analysis and criticism:

But here, finally, is a fairly even-handed assessment from Newcastle, Australia.  Frankly, in my humble opinion, if you are going to watch one - this one is worth your attention because of its balanced and fact-based approach (with - of course - some Australian sense of humor thrown in).

One interesting (and cited) fact from that video is that cats kill more birds in an hour than wind turbines kill in a year. (Reference 1, Reference 2)

However, despite all the hubbub over towered wind turbines, and wherever you stand - even if it is in a bird graveyard under a wind turbine, this post is about some glowering over a non-tower-power from which some may cower.  China recently released very interesting news about its S1500.  Most information about this project is coming from the Chinese government and it is new and not as peer-reviewed as I would like it to be.

Here's a story from AviationWeek: https://aviationweek.com/aerospace/emerging-technologies/china-tests-worlds-largest-buoyant-airborne-turbine

...and a brief video about it:

Given the lack of information on this new 'launch', what I have done is provided you a table that shows – from my research – what the S1500 can do (again according to what is available mostly from the government – see below) and which compares it to other non-tower wind projects.

This idea is not new, by the way.  Back in 2014, MIT was touting its flying turbine.

Here’s the story on that effort from MIT: https://news.mit.edu/2014/high-flying-turbine-produces-more-power-0515

I will have more about this in a second post, hopefully not full of hot air – before the end of the month.

Inspired by the film, Cities of the Future (see last blog post, “An Optimist’s View of Construction Projects and Programs”), I wanted to look at the engineering, project management, and specifically to dig even further into the sponsorship and chartering of the initiatives I saw in the film. 

How did they get started?  What was the rationale?  Who were the sponsors?  How did they identify the key stakeholders for inception, construction, and use?  How did they get stakeholders to align?

Having already covered The Edge, an amazing office building in Amsterdam, I shift here to Singapore, partially because the IMAX images of things like the Gardens by the Bay, the Marina Sands Expansion Project, and the tree-planting efforts literally evoked a collective gasp from the audience.  I admit it – I was one of the louder gaspers.

It turns out that these efforts (as you may have figured) don’t happen on their own.  It takes a collaboration of government, industry, academia, as well as engineering prowess and, of course, great project leadership to get things like this started, done – done well, and maintained – thoughtfully.

I came across an interview in ASCE’s  with civil engineer Paul Lee, who was featured in the film – pretty much your tour guide to go along with John Krasinski’s narration.

In the interview from ASCE’s Civil Engineering Source magazine, one particular Q and A caught my attention:

CE (Q): Your own career path has not followed that of a typical civil engineer — you’ve worked as an engineer in technical and governmental policy positions. How might the civil engineers who design future cities need to expand their own experience or expertise in perhaps nontraditional ways?

PL (A): A lot of times we think of civil engineering as a field that has discrete, specific areas. In school, we talk about our track or specialization, such as structural or geotechnical engineering. But more and more, from what I’ve noticed, civil engineers have greater roles and responsibilities as far as project management, planning, and policymaking. And there will be greater opportunities in which our work will be more intersectional, more policy related, more holistic.

I think this speaks to the blurred lines we see even in my work at Boston University.  Civil Engineers need project management (and project LEADERSHIP) skills and traits.  Project Managers (and the certifications and training that go along with our field) need to know more about the technical fields in which they work.

Bloomberg has produced a short video which gives some context about the drivers for these initiatives – watch it here.

Singapore’s Green Plan is the portfolio of programs and projects.  I think that’s worth a deeper dive.

Singapore Green Plan

The portfolio has 5 key pillars (we can think of these as programs).

1. City in Nature
2. Sustainable Living
3. Energy Reset
4. Green Economy
5. Resilient Future

Here is a breakdown of the key initiatives within each pillar: 

1. City in Nature

This pillar aims to create a greener, more livable, and sustainable home for Singaporeans by restoring nature to the urban landscape. 

• Key initiatives:
  • Plant one million more trees across Singapore by 2030.
  • Increase the land area of nature parks by over 50%.
  • Ensure every household is within a 10-minute walk of a park.
  • Strengthen the connectivity between green spaces through park connectors. 

2. Sustainable Living

This pillar focuses on encouraging Singaporeans to adopt a more sustainable way of life, with an emphasis on reducing carbon emissions and waste. 

• Key initiatives:
  • Reduce waste sent to landfill per capita per day by 30% by 2030.
  • Encourage water efficiency and reduce household water consumption.
  • Reduce carbon emissions in schools and implement eco-stewardship programs.
  • Promote sustainable transportation habits, including public transport, cycling, and walking. 

3. Energy Reset

The goal of this pillar is to lower Singapore's carbon footprint by using cleaner energy and increasing energy efficiency. 

• Key initiatives:
  • Quadruple solar energy deployment by 2025 and increase it to at least 2 GWp by 2030.
  • Transition all newly registered cars to cleaner-energy models by 2030.
  • Deploy 60,000 electric vehicle (EV) charging points nationwide by 2030.
  • Make 80% of buildings in Singapore "green" by 2030 under the Green Mark scheme. 

4. Green Economy

This pillar seeks to create new job opportunities and transform industries by leveraging sustainability as a competitive advantage. 

• Key initiatives:
  • Position Singapore as a leading hub for green finance and carbon services in Asia.
  • Develop Jurong Island into a sustainable energy and chemicals park.
  • Implement programs, like the Enterprise Sustainability Programme, to help companies, especially SMEs, develop sustainability capabilities.
  • Attract and foster sustainable tourism. 

5. Resilient Future

This pillar focuses on strengthening Singapore's resilience against climate change, including addressing rising sea levels and ensuring food security. 

• Key initiatives:
  • Develop coastal protection measures for vulnerable areas.
  • Enhance food security by targeting to meet 30% of Singapore's nutritional needs with local produce by 2030.
  • Mitigate the urban heat island effect.
  • Strengthen research and development in climate resilience. 

Here’s a short summary video that covers the Green Plan, coming from the Singapore government (with more detail here).

Finally, since this month’s posts have been about optimism, I leave you with an enjoyable walkthrough of Gardens by the Bay

I recently had a chance to see a tremendous film at the Boston Museum of Science, in the Mugar Auditorium (in IMAX mode).  The film was “Cities of the Future”.  It was narrated by John Krasinski of “The Office” fame, and for those of you who are fans, you’ll understand that I kept thinking I would see him (as his character, Jim Halpern) turn to the camera and make an ironic face (as below)  However, that did not happen. 

It's OK.  If I want more of this, I can watch reruns.  

What did happen is that I saw – rather, experienced – a heartwarming, uplifting, optimistic view of some amazing infrastructure projects in progress, and some being imagined.  The film takes you on sweeping, beautiful views of Amsterdam, Singapore, Los Angeles and more, featuring construction projects that should inspire you as a project leader.

Here’s the trailer from the film:

As an example of one of the featured completed projects, here is an example from The Netherlands:  The Edge – a building in Amsterdam considered the greenest building in the world, and featuring 30,000 sensors connected to a single app for the community, making it also one of the smartest, most connected buildings on the planet.  Bloomberg has produced a wonderful 5-minute video about it which, although not the IMAX movie, gives you a sense of what kinds of wonders you’ll find in Cities of the Future.  Please have a look:

Although the projects were amazing and fascinating, it may be a program that really touched my heart.  

One of the most heartwarming threads of the film was the coverage of the Future City competition.  This is a STEM program for kids in Middle School and High School.  It’s a science fair on steroids.  more than 85,000 students annually from the US, Canada, China, Egypt, and Nigeria and other countries.

The kids are so passionate and interested in their projects.  If we could capture even one-tenth of this energy for our projects (construction or otherwise) and sprinkle it on our teams (and you can do this as a project leader), imagine the innovation and motivation it would produce.

Do you want to be inspired?  Watch this:

Or this:

I’m planning to do a follow-up post on some of the other content from the film, so be on the lookout here at People, Planet, Profits, and Projects.  But in the meantime, I do urge you to watch the short videos contained here for some inspiration and optimism!  I think we need it.