Todd Howard, AIA, LEED-AP

by Heather Livingston
Contributing Editor

Summary: Todd Howard is the founder and president of t. howard & associates architects in Dallas, a firm dedicated to the practice of sustainable design. Howard is a graduate of Vice President Al Gore’s The Climate Project. The Climate Project trained 1,000 volunteers to deliver the message of the film An Inconvenient Truth to community organizations across the United States, Australia, and Great Britain with the goal of challenging citizens and governments into action against global climate change.

Education: I graduated from Texas A&M University with a bachelor of environmental design.

Current read: American Theocracy by Kevin Phillips. It’s about our reliance on oil, religion, and government and how those affect each other.

Hobbies: When I have downtime, I love to be with my family. My wife and I have been married for 14 years, and we have an eight-year-old and a six-year-old. I’m also a private pilot. I love to fly, and I like to play golf.

Getting involved with the Climate Project: The first thing I want people to know is that this is not a political issue, although it was Al Gore who brought the message to the forefront and the movie. This really is a human issue.

My involvement started upon seeing the movie, An Inconvenient Truth. I commented to my wife that if Mr. Gore was serious about getting his message out, what he ought to do was train people in that presentation and allow them to give it to various organizations around the country. My wife brought to my attention that that’s exactly what they were doing. I submitted an application to the Climate Project and after about four months—quite honestly I’d forgotten that I’d even submitted the application—I received an e-mail congratulating me that I’d been selected to go through the training. There were 1,000 people who were trained in the Climate Project in the U.S., Australia, and Great Britain. I was in a class of 200 people in the third training session. We had to pay to get there and for our hotel, but all other costs for attending were paid for by the program.

At the training session: While we were there, I thought quite honestly that Mr. Gore might come in and say hello to us and turn it over to a group of trainers, but in fact he spent two full days with us, went out with us in the evening and had dinner with us, and completely committed his time to working with the group and training us in the subject matter. We were trained in the presentation and given the slideshow. We were taught how the various components of the slideshow went together and where the information was from. He had scientists there to explain where the data came from and to justify the data. It was an incredible experience.

Talking the talk: Our commitment to them was that we would make the presentation at least 10 times over the next 12 months. So far I’ve given the presentation 16 times. Group sizes vary from as few as 10 to as many as 100, and I have a couple of groups coming up that I anticipate will be in the 150–200 person range. The groups vary from neighborhood organizations to professional organizations to companies having their national meeting. The USGBC [U.S. Green Buildings Council] has been very supportive and has set up several presentations with the community college here in Dallas on its campuses.

Convincing others: I know that there are people who don’t necessarily subscribe to the fact that this is caused by humans, [believing rather] that it’s a natural cycle. I don’t believe that. The scientific community does not believe that, as is evident by the report issued a couple of months ago by the international panel on climate change that said that 100 percent of the rise in CO2 emissions is due to human factors. I don’t know where the [doubting] influence comes from. It’s hard to get a man to believe something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it. There are a lot of people in various industries that contribute to the rise in CO2 and greenhouse gas emissions. I think because of their involvement in those professions, it’s somewhat detrimental for them to take a position of going against their livelihood and what puts food on their table.

There are a lot of people who just are not educated on the subject. They’re not informed, and they don’t take time to read up on the subject. I think the ones who ride the fence as to whether it’s a cyclical issue or we’re contributing to it really don’t see the benefit of anything that they can do individually to help in this effort. They probably feel that no matter what they do, the issue is too overwhelming. For the people who are committed to the stance that this is a cyclical issue, let’s suppose for a minute that it is. Don’t we believe that some of the things that we can do individually are the right things to do for our environment? Using less energy is one example. Certainly one of the easiest examples is switching your light bulbs for compact fluorescents to become more energy efficient, and isn’t that the right thing to do regardless of whether this is cyclical or caused by humans?

Walking the walk: Because I do believe strongly in this cause, as a firm we have taken the position that we are only going to incorporate sustainable architecture into designs. We understand that it may cost us some business, but it is a commitment that our firm has made because the fact of the matter is that as architects we are the true leaders in change. In fact, some 45 percent of carbon emissions come from buildings. As we’re developing buildings and contributing to the built environment, we can incorporate elements into our designs that help to minimize the human impact on the environment. It’s essential that we do so. It’s really an ethical issue.

The architect’s role: I think it absolutely is the architect’s responsibility to educate the client, and there are several factors that we need to consider. First of all: education. Even in the practice of architecture we find on a regular basis that clients do not understand what we do as architects and how much of an advocate we are for them. We don’t do a very good job of educating our clients in what we do. If you expand that to look at the sustainable movement, there is a real obligation on the part of architects to talk to our clients, not only about what we do as architects but also to educate them on the amount of CO2 that comes from buildings and what clients can do to incorporate sustainable elements to minimize that. I don’t necessarily believe that a building has to be LEED™ certified, but there are a lot of things that we can do to help the built environment.

I do think it’s the responsibility of architects, but I also think it’s the responsibility of architects who are educated on the subject to get involved in the political process to influence legislative action that will benefit the clients, developers, and the built environment. There are a lot of things that we can do from a political standpoint that will help in this effort. It’s a real opportunity for the architectural community.

Should government subsidize alternative energy or pass through the cost to consumers? I think it may be a combination of both. More people need to be committed to the cause. Both at home personally and in the building we own for our firm we have 100 percent wind-generated power. It costs us a little bit more, but I’m optimistic that the cost will drop over time. If more people will say, “I don’t mind paying a little bit extra if I know I’m doing the right thing for the environment,” then certainly that works itself out. If the demand is there for alternative methods of producing energy, then technology is going to advance a lot more rapidly.

There’s a large power company here in Texas that wants to build coal-fired power plants, and we were able finally to reduce the number that they were going to build. But it’s just the mindset. Their argument is that the state has a higher demand of power. Well, the fact of the matter is that if we’re more efficient in our use of energy, then that demand [is lessened]. Right now, we need to focus on efficiency in order to bring that demand down.

In Europe, when they develop a building, they look at it on a 50-year period. Life-cycle costing is more beneficial when you look at a building in that manner. Your upfront costs are higher, but your overall operational costs drop. The developers here in this country look at the 12 months of holding a building. When you’re looking at it in very short terms, there is no benefit from an operational standpoint, but if we can start by encouraging those private development groups who plan on holding a building for a long time, I think we can start making an impact on the built environment.

Most important thing architects should do to combat global climate change: The number one most important thing that architects can do is to become involved in that movement and not take a passive approach to the opportunity that’s presented. This generation is the first and probably only generation that has ever been presented with the opportunity to change the entire planet. I think it’s a real missed opportunity if architects don’t get on board.