The Great Awakening or a Narrative Grab?
It has been a reflective few weeks. After returning from the ASHRAE winter conference in Las Vegas—effectively spending a week inside the ultimate sealed box of the "Grand Chemical Experiment"—I’ve been struck by the sheer volume of noise, announcements, and high-level papers landing on my desk.
We are living through a strange, pivotal moment in the built environment industry. On the surface, it feels like the "Great Awakening" for air quality is finally here. We have the Global Commission on Healthy Indoor Air launching at the UN, high-level papers in Science calling for mandates, and ASHRAE’s new Center of Excellence. But looking closer at who is in the room—and who isn't—I’m forced to ask a difficult question: Is this a genuine revolution for public health, or is it a "narrative grab"?
In this week’s solo episode of Air Quality Matters, I take a wander through these thoughts, exploring the tension between the "Perfect" and the "Possible," and why I’m terrified that Air Quality might get lost in the noise of Indoor Environmental Quality (IEQ).
The Risk of a Narrative Grab
The momentum we are seeing is undeniable. Getting air quality discussed at the UN General Assembly is a massive victory for a sector that has long been the poor relation of the environmental movement. However, a close look at the participant lists for these new commissions reveals a heavy weighting toward corporate real estate, certification bodies, and Western technocrats.
While we need the "money people" and the science, there is a glaring absence of social science and voices from the Global South. My concern—and the focus of much of this episode—is that if the narrative is "grabbed" by commercial interests, we risk turning clean air into a premium product for the "Haves," leaving the "Have-nots" outside in the smog. We are in danger of sanitising the moral argument and replacing the messy, difficult conversations about social equity with sleek PDFs and "Business Case" ROI.
The Clash of the Titans: Mandates vs. Local Reality
I also dive into a fascinating debate currently playing out in academic literature. On one side, we have a recent paper in Science led by Lidia Morawska, arguing for strict, numerical legal mandates for IAQ in public spaces—effectively doing for indoor air what we did for outdoor air in the 1950s.
On the other side, a response in Indoor Environments challenges this with a critical question: Is a global mandate actually workable, or is it a "parachute solution"? Applying a strict PM2.5 limit designed for a sealed office in Toronto to a naturally ventilated school in New Delhi could lead to unintended consequences. This episode explores this clash between the "Mandate" camp (who want to stop the "Time Thief" of bad air) and the "Local Reality" camp (who argue that context is everything).
Will Air Quality Get Lost in IEQ?
Another major theme I tackle is the industry’s push toward "Holistic" Indoor Environmental Quality (IEQ)—combining air, light, sound, and thermal comfort. Intellectually, this makes sense; buildings are systems. But practically? I worry that Air Quality is about to be drowned out.
Thermal comfort is the "Marvel Movie" of the built environment—it’s loud, visceral, and people complain immediately when it’s wrong. Air quality is the subtle documentary—important, but quiet. If we bundle them together without care, budgets will flow to the things occupants complain about (temperature and noise), while ventilation gets value-engineered into oblivion.
The Broken Delivery Mechanism
Finally, none of these high-level debates matter if we don't fix the reality on the ground. We can write the most beautiful standards in the world, but they are meaningless if the ducting is crushed, the installer is untrained, or the maintenance budget is cut.
In this episode, I discuss the "compliance theatre" prevalent in our industry and why we need to shift our focus from the "What" (standards) to the "How" (delivery). The battle for healthy air won't be won in a conference room in Geneva; it will be won by the fan in your bathroom and the filter in your office.
This is a provocative episode. I’m critiquing friends and colleagues I respect immensely, but I believe we need to have these honest conversations now to ensure this "Shift" benefits everyone, not just the occupants of Platinum-certified office blocks.
One Take: Why Trust is the Boundary Condition for Clean Air
In this week’s One Take, we look at a fascinating paper from the International Journal of Urban Sciences that explores the psychology of air quality communication.
We often assume that if we just give people the right data—air quality indexes, sensor readings, or health warnings—they will take action to protect themselves. But this study, based on citizens in Seoul, suggests it’s not that simple. The researchers applied an expanded version of the "Extended Parallel Process Model" to understand what actually drives protective behavior against particulate matter (PM).
The critical finding? Trust in government information acts as a "boundary condition."
The study found that variables like "hope" (visualizing a future with clean air) and "collective efficacy" (believing society can fix the problem) only translated into action if the individual trusted the source of the information. If trust was low, it didn't matter how much hope they had or how effective they believed a mask would be—they simply didn't act.
For us in the built environment, the implication is profound. We cannot just be engineers and data scientists; we must be trust builders. If the relationship between the citizen (or occupant) and the system is broken, air quality monitors become nothing more than expensive ornaments.
The Air Quality Matters Podcast in Partnership with
The One Take Podcast in Partnership with
SafeTraces and Inbiot
Do check them out in the links and on the Air Quality Matters Website.
If you haven't checked out the YouTube channel its here. Do subscribe if you can, lots more content is coming soon.