It started by me cold-calling Metropolis magazine and asking for Susan. 

So I said, “Who should I talk to?” The receptionist said, “Martin Pedersen.” So they put me through to you. And because I knew no one was going to believe it, I asked you a question: “What’s the largest emitter of greenhouse gas emissions?”

You said the internal combustion engine. 

“No,” I said, “It’s architecture.” You were skeptical. “It’s architecture,” I said, “and we want to write an article about it.” You said, “Well, let me think about that.” And so I sent you all the data I had, and you called back a few days later and said it checked out.

Once I got you interested, I said, “OK, we want to write the article.” You said, “No, we don’t take articles, we write the articles.” I said, “Well, I don’t think that’s gonna work.” And we left it at that. Then you called back a few days later and said, “I’ll tell you what, I’ve got a great writer. We’ll send him out to New Mexico, and you can sit with him for as long as you want. Make sure he gets everything right. He’ll write the article.” And you sent Chris Hawthorne out, and he spent three days with me at my house. We meticulously reviewed everything. He was incredible. After he drafted the article I called and said, “OK, we need to publish right away, because we gotta get this information out. Can we get it out next month? … Oh, and we want the cover, too.” You said, “No, we can’t do that. We have our covers, stories, everything all set a few months in advance. But I can give you October.”

Right after the issue came out, I called the AIA. They were having a board meeting in Santa Fe, and I asked to be put on the agenda, but my request was denied. The meeting was held at a local hotel, and I remember a few architects walking in with the Metropolis in tow. Many years later, I got a call from Thom Penny, who was the chair of the board at that time. He said, “I was on the board, and I remember you calling, asking to present to us, and we didn’t invite you. It’s been nagging at me ever since. I’d like to nominate you for the Gold Medal.” 

By December 2005, we refined the data and issued the 2030 Challenge targets. And almost immediately, the AIA adopted them, which was amazing for an organization of that size to move that quickly. At first, I had one member in our practice working with me on research, Quilian Riano, now the dean at Pratt Institute. Once the AIA adopted the Challenge, things escalated very quickly. We were spending an enormous amount of pro bono time in our architecture practice researching, writing, developing, and presenting new material and information. Around that time, Rockefeller Brothers Fund came across our work at a conference and extended an offer to support us in order to expand our team. In late 2005, we decided to spin off Architecture 2030 from our practice and establish it as a nonprofit organization.

I was just looking at that. As I was going through the issue, I came across an equation that projected if the following steps were implemented and 20% of the country’s energy is produced by renewable sources within 20 years, then energy use and greenhouse gas emissions in the building sector would flatten out and reverse. The grid right now is at 20% renewables; energy consumption in the sector is down slightly, and emissions in the sector are down over 30% from 2005 levels.

Total CO2 emissions in the U.S., including industry and transportation, are down about 19% from 2005 levels. Although emissions in many countries are also declining, emissions globally still continue to rise.

Yes and no. There are millions of materials involved in various stages of the production and the lifecycle of buildings and infrastructure. This encompasses mining and transporting raw materials, handling and storing them, manufacturing them into finished products, storing and transporting those products, constructing buildings and infrastructure, and, eventually, their demolition and disposal. It borders on mind-boggling. So the yes part of the answer is very complex. 

But here’s the no part: only four materials—iron, steel, concrete, and aluminum—are responsible for almost half of all direct industrial emissions … half, so if we address those four, not only will it buy us time to tackle the hundreds of thousands of other materials, but it will also put pressure on manufacturers to transform their businesses. We say, in the immediate term, focus on those and the problem becomes simplified. And we’re beginning to see a rising availability of alternatives such as bio-based materials and mass timber. So the critical 20-year period we outlined in the article appears to have materialized.

Yes, we’re collaborating with landscape architects to lead the exact transition you mention—shifting towards nature-based solutions instead of high-emissions hardscapes and materials. The concept of nature-based solutions has evolved significantly since the passive solar movement in the ’70s. While that movement laid the foundation for harnessing the power of nature in design, our understanding of nature-based solutions have advanced considerably since then. 

Let me step back for a second. Susan and I conducted a symposium years ago with James Hansen. I was seated next to him while you handled the microphone. During someone else’s presentation, I nudged Hansen and asked, “Jim, when will we begin witnessing the effects of climate change?” This was shortly after the article was published. He whispered back to me, “Once the planet warms by 1 degree Celsius, we will start seeing the effects.” We have now reached that threshold, currently at around 1.02 degrees, and we are indeed witnessing the effects of climate change. How will we mitigate and adapt to all of this? Continuing to pour more carbon intensive concrete is not the solution. The most effective solutions lie in embracing nature-based approaches.

At Architecture 2030, we consider ourselves a catalyst organization. We initiate ideas and strategies, and once they take root, larger organizations step in and work with us to drive them forward. For example, years ago we developed the Zero Code and worked to incorporate it as part of the International Energy Conservation Code. At the time we faced resistance within the organizations we typically collaborate with. However, today we see great progress with cities and states adopting zero-carbon building standards, and the Biden administration is currently supporting zero codes and developing a common zero-carbon building framework. In an upcoming conference where I will be speaking, my focus will be on coexisting and interfacing with the natural environment. Similar to how the October 2003 piece marked a paradigm shift in our sector, we’re actively advancing the promotion of the integration of built and natural environments, their interdependence, adaptability and resilience. This is the direction we’re promoting.

 I am actively delivering talks to numerous schools, students, and academics in the fields of architecture, design, and planning, working to disseminate this new ethic as widely as possible. Recently I ran across exactly what you describe: the 2030 Project at Cornell, an interdisciplinary collaboration bringing together faculty members from diverse departments that transcends traditional boundaries and silos. These types of collaborations in design education are essential in addressing today’s complex issues.

From my perspective, landscape architects play a pivotal role in shaping viable solutions for the interplay of built and natural environments.

Featured image: October 2003, Metropolis cover story spread, designed by Criswell Lappin, via Architecture 2030.