Editorial

Citation

Finch, E. (2001), "Editorial", Facilities, Vol. 19 No. 11/12. https://doi.org/10.1108/f.2001.06919kaa.001

Editorial

The year is 2040. The building manager is taking delivery of this week' supply of air for the building. Bottled in a cryogenic container in liquid form, it is carefully fitted to the building ductwork and slowly depressurised, heated and released into the office space. The air itself was extracted at cloud level in the Tyrol region of Austria, high in the Alps. The timing of its extraction in the preceding March ensured that the fresh fragrance of spring grazing meadows was captured and distilled, to be enjoyed on-demand by occupants at a busy London office in mid-winter. Other varieties of air source include a Greek island, a Hong Kong market and the Australian outback.

Is this the future of air-conditioning? Some might consider this a preposterous scenario but we only have to look at what has happened in the area of bottled water to understand that such a scenario is not far off. Maybe we will soon be paying for the air we breathe. Today we think nothing of paying a dollar for a bottle of water, believing that the natural origins of the substance somehow make us harmonious consumers in touch with our environment. Nothing could be further from the truth. The landfill implications of bottled water are disturbing. In the USA two kinds of bottled water are common. One is a substitute for tap-water the other a substitute for soft drinks. The tap-water substitute started out as a dairy sideline, so it is measured by the gallon and often sold in jugs. Bottled water, the beverage, on the other hand, is a European tradition, measured in litres and sold at premium prices. Since 1976, in the USA alone, the taste for bottled water of both kinds has grown more than tenfold, from 255 million to 3 billion gallons. Similar growth has occurred in Europe.

So why should this concern the facilities manager? Perhaps in the same way that we have an obligation to provide treated air in an environmentally responsible way we also have a responsibility for delivery drinking water for users of our buildings. Added to this are the growing health concerns of low intakes of water, particularly as the global warming phenomenon takes hold. The argument here is that environmental responsibility does not simply stop at energy-efficient boilers. Facilities managers should consider the implications of not providing drinking water in public and private spaces. The Editor would welcome feedback on companies’ policies on this and other related environmental issues.

Edward Finch