 Hello, everyone, and welcome to the Circular Metabolism podcast, the bi-weekly meeting where we have in-depth conversations with thinkers, researchers, activists, policymakers, and people on the ground that try to help us better understand the metabolism of our cities, and also how to reduce the environmental impact of them in a socially just and context-specific way. On today's episodes, I want to switch gears a bit and leave theory for a moment and come back down to earth, pun intended, okay, bad pun aside, today I want to focus on a great initiative based in Brussels that transforms excavated earth of construction sites into building materials. As such, they use probably one of the biggest waste of flows of cities, which is by the way a local resource, and reduce the need for new construction materials that are often imported in our case of our cities. To let us know more about these fascinating initiatives, I have Anton Martens, the business developer of BC Materials. And with all that being said, Anton, welcome to the podcast, and could you perhaps introduce a bit yourself and what BC Material does? Hi, Aristeed, thank you for having us. As I mentioned earlier to you, it's a real honor to be here at this podcast because we've had a lot of interesting insights by you and the guests that you have. So BC Materials is a startup. It's actually a spin-off of BC Architects. And BC Architects started around 10 years ago when a small group of architects, four young architects, went to Burundi to build a library. And at the spot, they noticed that the spot was so isolated. Muyinga is a very small village in Burundi, which is a very big country. And it would be practically impossible to import traditional materials like big bricks or concrete. And if you wouldn't want to make the bricks yourself, you would have to cut down the trees, which was very dangerous because it would be dangerous for the locals, for biodiversity, for all agriculture. And so they decided to think about what the local possibilities were. And there was an entrepreneur who explained to them that you can actually build with raw earth. And that was the big revelation that you can compress earth blocks and that you can build a construction with that. And so the library in Burundi was built with excavated earth on the spot, actually just dug out. And it was a real revelation. And then in Brussels, when the group came back, we saw all the excavated earth here on site that was not used. And we noticed that, in fact, people hadn't been building like that for centuries, but it was just never learned in architecture school. So on that time, it was a revelation. And it was started to be integrated into BC Architects projects, just specific architectural projects, but with earth locally excavated or close by. But because we wanted to nudge the market a bit more, it's really like you want to tickle the market. You see that construction sector is super polluting 40% of CO2 emissions, a third of waste streams, maybe a third of air pollution too, which is a big issue, especially because of corona. So we wanted to push the market a bit more. And then we said, like, what if we use the excavated earth that we see every day here in Brussels? In Brussels alone, it's 2 million tons that is excavated every year. What if we use that earth to make building materials? And we actually tried to sell them. It was like a bit of a crazy idea, especially because you have to have the infrastructure, the tools. You have to make the products, obviously, like a kind of finished basic material, like a plaster or compressed earth block and a round earth. And yeah, we're now three years further. We can definitely say there is a growing market for it because people are attracted to the fact that you have a local material, that you have a healthy material and a circular material. So it is only one startup that is doing this in Belgium, but it's showing what is possible with the metabolism of the city. And could you walk us through this whole? As you said, I mean, of course, it's not going from an anecdotic or, let's say, small architectural experiments, which we could do a number of small libraries, let's say, in Belgium or in Brussels, to actually becoming a manufacturer yourself. There are so many moving pieces, I can imagine. Could you? So are you the ones that are getting the excavated soil? Or can you walk us through this process and how this works? A good question because it can be quite complicated. And in that sense, it kind of starts when somebody else starts to build. So usually the floor has to be uniformized or earth has to be excavated for parking for a garage, for a cave, something like that, especially in Brussels with a lot of construction going on. There's a lot of earths going in and out. Nowadays, usually about 70% of that earth goes to Walloon or to Flanders, where it's usually a bit like dumped in inquiries and mines. Now they've already have some difficulty of getting rid of the earth because there's so much being excavated amongst others with the Austerweal connection, but it is a problem. So the flux is so big that it's considered as a waste for us. It's not really waste. Officially it is a waste. And so we see that the transporters, they have to drive pretty far to get rid of the earth. We can tell them, but we can actually use that earth. So we don't have to drive that far. So for them, it's a cost less. So we take up the earth that is tested unpolluted and good quality, virgin quality, actually, and we can start transforming it at our sites at BC Materials, where we have the different streams that arrive and that we have the right tools and the right infrastructure to mix it. That's one way of working. We can also work on the spots, but then we have to do more tests where we actually use the excavated earth fresh from the spots and directly into the materials. The nice thing about producing this way is that everything you do can be electrified. Even the water that you use, you can use rainwater. It's a very low tech approach, but you have to have the knowledge of the mixes, how you make a clay plaster, how you make ram dirt. And that is very important, especially because it has been a tradition for centuries. But we've just lost it over the last century with the industrial era, which brought good things, but also a lot of bad things amongst which forgetting traditional techniques. And it's a bit funny because, I mean, we both know Brussels a bit. The Sablon, which is like a bit of a posh neighborhood in Brussels. Well, it's called Sablon for a reason because they used to excavate sable sands from the spot with which the rest of the buildings in the neighborhood were built. And it's the same thing for the city hall of Saint-Gilles that used to be a quarry where sand was excavated. And I think that's a bit interesting about what we do is that we don't always know that within our city there are the tools, there are the resources to build, because we've started to think that a city is a place where you consume, where you go to concerts, where you have stuff going on, recreations, people are entertained, there are services, banks. But you can actually produce in the city with the materials that are present and do kind of urban mining, use the earth from the spot to integrate it in construction sites on the spot. Yeah, I mean, of course, it's such an evident idea once you present it that way, right? I mean, why should we or would we actually take out valuable and precious materials and just put a stamp of waste on it and then take it out of your city and then have to drive, I don't know, a couple of hundreds or 100 kilometers away of your city and then dump it. So I can imagine that takes off a lot of the steps because it's in any case the waste transporter that needs to do the tests, that needs to transport everything. And you already buy off from, let's say, the clean earth and then only you work on that locally on your site or you go to, because when you go on the sites, I can imagine you have to do the tests, it's not done. It's usually the building clients on the spot that have to do the tests because he orders the excavations and then based on the tests and the test results, the excavator can decide this is earth that is polluted. There's also polluted earth in Brussels and the industrial zones, for example. But mostly, especially when it comes from very deep, it's just unpolluted and you notice it immediately by the tests that it's useful. And in that sense, we've been maybe in the past to a bit is the same thing with secondhand materials and secondhand materials are considered low grade that you shouldn't really buy low quality. And it's a bit part of our economic system is that we've thought a lot about maximizing profit and just selling. And to maximize profit, you actually have to offer something new to a person every year or something like that. And in that sense, the approach, the circular approach and the doughnut approach that has also been talked about in this podcast is another way of thinking about the materials that you create and that you reuse. So I'm wondering, you know, so we also had some other people on the podcast that kind of reuse local materials of Brussels, such as Rotor with, as you say, secondhand construction materials or Stefan from Sonya and Woodcock and all of that. Do you think that there was an awareness stage that you or you still need to raise awareness to your clients, to, let's say, the clients that build buildings and build homes about what are the benefits of using your materials? So you mentioned your materials, Plaster and Bricks? Yeah. OK, yeah. So do they already get it 100 percent? So from the experience of Stefan, they kind of get it 100 percent, like, you know, wood from the forest. It is local, you know, the story kind of sells the products for itself. In your case, do you feel that it's also the same case? It's very easy for people to understand the value of using earth in their projects? We have a lot of similarities and we know each other well. And I think that's that's one of the points where we differ in the sense that that earthbuilding is really close, has been close to nonexistent in Belgium. It's very rare that people still are used to be very rare, that people constructed in earth. And in that sense, you have a kind of group, a segment of people that is very ecologically minded, that wants to build in a sustainable way and that is very quickly convinced of the assets. Once you mention it, the fact that it's circular, the fact that it's ecological, the fact that it's good for air quality inside, the fact that it's acoustically better, it only has advantages. That group is quite quickly convinced. There is an even smaller group of people that knows earthbuilding and knows that there are materials from a classic quarry that can be produced from that. But we go even further by using what is officially considered as waste. But then you have the giant, giant majority that doesn't know earthbuilding. And once you talk to them and you present your case with the assets, that you trigger them. And we are doing that as we speak. We've been doing it the last year. We first try to convince a bit of people who have already were ecologically minded and already worked with clay pastor. And just earthbuilding in Sey is still a bit, we have to be honest, it's still a bit thought of as something that you do in Africa or in Asia. But that is for a majority of the people not so common in Belgium, even though Bokrek is a very known example. And we are just updating and innovating in applying the materials in a, dare I say it, kind of sexy, contemporary way. Or we're trying to at least to do that. So I think in some cases, people come in here and they say, I went around the wall without knowing anything about the circular or the ecological aspects of it, just because they think it's very, it's very cool and it looks very cool. And for me, that's just as fine. And then we explain them a bit about the origin story and what we do. And they like it even more. But there are different ways of approaching it. And in that sense, we'll try to use every asset that earthbuilding has to convince people. And did you have any case where it was actually the client that excavated the soil, that used the soil within their own building? Yeah, there are people who really go all the way or all the way the last mile, you can say, and really ask for the test and really mix the materials on the spot. For them, it's a bit more expensive because we've now kind of standardized our approach in the sense that we have the materials from Brussels that we know the best and that we can produce to a 99 percent liking of the former material. And every time you do a new chantier or a new construction site where you dig up excavated earth on the spot in a specific site, you have to kind of fine tune it again based on the spot. But there are people who really go towards this trajectory and who love the fact that you cannot go more local than this when you when you start excavating earth on the spot. And we and it's also a bit the nice part about about our tools and our infrastructure that they are mobile and our people are smart and they have a lot of expertise. So they can judge if earth is usable on the spot and if we can and if we can transform it. We do have to do some tests. Obviously, it's just logical towards them, towards the clients to to be sure that this is a good material that you can use. But it is it is a possibility. It's a minority of the cases that you have to immediately add that. But it's it's it's it's definitely a possibility. And it's actually the way that people used to build. So I'm wondering where are some of the use cases because once you have the bricks and the plaster, what is the typical use of the plaster? I can imagine it's for inside walls, very frequently the the bricks is it for inside walls as well. Do you can you use it for any structural case? What is kind of the the main case cases or use cases for your materials? Good question. The blasters are clay plaster are sensible to humidity so they can only be used in the inside. They can be used in bathrooms and kitchens, too, if they're not in direct contact with with weather. The blocks can be used as walls or parts of walls on a structural level from ground floor plus two floors. So you can then go in infinity, 10 floors or 15 floors with with compressed air blocks. And then you have Ramdirt, which is a bit the the queen of earth building in the sense of it's it's a mixture of gravel, clay and sand. And it kind of offers you the possibility to go in a lot of direction. You can do floor with Ramdirt. You can do design pieces with Ramdirt. You can do walls with Ramdirt. You can go very high with Ramdirt, 15 meters even. We once constructed a wall like that. But it is a fact that Ramdirt is very intensive. It's a bit like concrete. But in contrast to concrete, you have to ram it. You literally have to put force into it. And so the more high you go and the ticker your walls need to be, the more effort and the more intensive it becomes and the more expensive it obviously becomes for the contractor for him to decide how much days he will have to spend on the material. So there are a lot of possibilities. And for example, Ramdirt can also be used externally. You can you can use it as a kind of external facade. You cover it a bit more, but it's a bit more resistant to humidity than then, for example, clay plaster. And do you have an idea of the quantities that you managed to save up from, you know, going to waste that you reuse into materials? For example, I think this year, I'm not sure, obviously, the year is not finished yet. But I think we're going to clock at at about 600 tons. Of which the the large majority, I would say 85 up to 90 percent will probably be excavated earth. So it is it is substantial, but one also has to admit that I mean, we're super happy with not going to not going to to dish it or something like that. But we have to admit that with regard to the flux of the stream of earth, it's still little. And with regard to other bigger players in the construction sector, it's not that big. But it's really for us, we wanted to show that it was possible. And now when we found it, when it was founded, it was really in the end of 2018 and 2019, we launched the products. We wanted to show that it was possible. And now we've shown that it's more than possible, but it's really viable and that it's not that it's a good approach. And that's really what kind of drives us now. And so how do you see the I mean, so now we're talking about 600 tons. And you said, what was it to to million tons? So we're talking about 0.1 percent or 0.01 percent or something like that. That leaves, of course, the room for such, you know, such an important production. Of course, out of the construction materials that we use, not all of it can be satisfied by your materials. But of course, that leaves like a huge margin to grow. Is that the idea or how do you perceive as well the, you know, the future of such activities? Yeah, good question. I don't think we'll ever tap into the capabilities. And I think about half of the materials or half of the two million could be could be reused. I don't think we're ever going to get there. But I do see that there could be a very bright future for construction and building, especially within the city, but also with the periphery combined, that you there are today fantastic possibilities to decarbonize your materials to use structurally with as the strong points within your material, to use secondhand materials, for example, tiles in your bathroom to be water resistant and to combine that with a good quality energy, water pump, solar pump and solar panels. And you have the building that is as close as you can get to being carbon neutral as is possible. So you have the finished, you have the, there's a house in Molenbeek that I really like by Hannah Ekelmans and it's actually like an extension with straw bales, wooden structure, clay plaster and hemp creeds. So a mix of hemp and lime. And it's really probably the closest that you can get today to carbon neutral building with a very good quality and with a very healthy approach. And it's really, I think these kind of examples should be upscaled and really kind of augmented at the kind of city level where you can see that it is possible if the architect is really immensely persevering and really wants to find the right kind of material for the tool. But it's that kind of approach that we will need in the future. And as you mentioned, earth materials will not solve everything. They will not do insulation, for example, or hard materials that are necessary in the bathroom. But they are an important part of the mix and the mix is there with the bio-based insulation. Secondhand materials, wood and reused steel, for example. So you said also that the important role of first of all the creativity and the persistence of architects and of the client who want this type of project as a demonstrator as something that they want to as an agenda, perhaps, that they want to push forward. So because BC materials are totally different or a number of other actors are actually coming from the architectural world, how do you feel that this type of approaches are or are not taught or are and are not as attractive to new architects, to common architecture? Do they need to relearn many things in order to use these type of materials? How do you see this kind of future of, you know, the constructive practices? Good question, but a tough issue, because I've met students who were in their last year of Master and who said, yeah, we didn't get any class on sustainable material use or not on a material level. And for me, it's still a bit of a shock that in 2021 that still happens. But we have to admit that there is a very big openness at a lot of universities to mix the practices with the theory by really touching the materials, doing workshops with the rotor, with Sony and Wood Company, with us too, to really get into the material side of the issue. And I think the openness has been much bigger. And I think in general in society, it is a bit pushed forward by the Green Deal that made it very clear on a European level that we as a society think that we should be CO2 neutral by 2050. And there is no escaping it, not even for construction, because if you look at the financial part, a person who drives a diesel car, he will pay more taxes on his CO2 emissions proportionally than a concrete producer, because the concrete producers are exempt from CO2 emission rights, that they get the rights to pollute and because they are deemed a bit essential, which is maybe partially true, but very partially. And so we are seeing that in every sector, they have to make their accounts, they have to check like, what are we all doing? How do we produce this? How do we approach this? And the construction sector cannot escape this, because at some point, at transport, they will say, but why do we all have to do the efforts? Those guys in the construction sector are just burning coals, burning fossil fuel to produce whatever they want. And they have an emission grade of 40 percent. It's really insane. We're not going to go forward. So we're all now in the same boat with the sectors. And in that sense, it's pushing the construction sector to rethink its habits. And it's seeping through. And I think in some universities, they're really leading on this that that we have to ask the question like, what are we going to do with our material and how are we going to use it, including the transport? How far do we look for it? How expensive does it have to be? And that will also be a big part of the issue. Can we do an affordable circular, sustainable house for the average Joe in our countries? And can we can we build that? And how cheap or how acceptable should it be? It's it's really, I think, for some architects. It's it's it's sad that they hadn't haven't gotten that education when they starting now, because these questions are everywhere in the public tennis circular criteria will become more and more important. If you don't have the tools to approach that, it's much more difficult. Yeah, I really see that as well. They how how ill equipped and not necessarily because they don't want to. But because, you know, yeah, it feels like they're completely overwhelmed with, you know, the embodied emissions, the embodied energy, the the circularity of it. How do I grade between two different circularities? How do I make sure the technical capabilities of it? So I feel there's just so so much on on their shoulders. And at the same time, it's great that public administrations are pushing towards, let's say, circularity. But there is like this huge gap, this huge divide between, you know, people like you do that you try to experiment and you you have everything the stacks against you. And at the same time, you know, that the mainstream architect that has absolutely no idea of what you're talking about and absolutely no idea how to pitch this to their own client. Yeah, yeah, it's it's a it's a it's a game of gaps and the gaps have to be transcended. And if you look in the past, yeah, in the 50s and the 60s, it was probably a bit of a dream period for an architect because you could practically construct whatever you want, wherever you wanted with whatever materials you wanted. And now you have the IBB for sure. You have to you have so many constraints in that that I think it's probably difficult to juggle all of these. And and our approach is a bit that you go towards a low tech approach where you I'm trying to remember the philosopher who said that the easy solution sometimes is the best. That is that the most straightforward solution is sometimes the best in energy dosing to in how much energy do you have to need? Do you need within within a building in that sense? I think that that can be a valid tool to work your way through the labyrinth of norming and rules within construction because otherwise, like you mentioned, it will be quite a burden for a lot of young architects to find their way through that to that to that labyrinth. Although, unfortunately, today, the common sense is not what rules neither the construction sector nor, you know, how we how the price reflects to to things if we see that construction materials, new construction materials cost less than we use construction materials. I don't know also how you position in terms of price. I don't know if if you also face challenges in terms of price compared to new materials. Also, this does not make sense, but still, you know, that's how it is today. You're you're really hitting the nail here because it's it's really the main point to make to every policymaker today is that we have to start pricing the externalities of how we produce, how we work. I think this week, it was in the newspaper that night, the the the brand shredded their shoes, their new shoes to avoid them having to offer them again to have the logistics to have to pay for the logistics or God beware that you that you would have to show them at reduced prices. This is the crazy world that we're in. And and and for example, the country producer that I mentioned to if we continue to say like they have exemptions to produce, you you create a very, very unequal level playing field where some get a lot of advantages and others none. I think for us, I don't want to complain too much about the price because I think our prices is quite reasonable and we are close to to market price. We're a bit more expensive in the sense that contractors with which we work, they ask their price and due to experience and effect, there are not that many contractors that work with earthbuilding, the total price for for for an application of clay, pastures or round dirt can be higher. That is true, especially round dirt is a lot higher because it is a very specific product and it has to be made in a very specific way. But I mean, if you look at the insulation level, do I think in Belgium practically 90 percent of the of the market is within the hands of push or equally may equally produced similarly made produced materials. If we don't change that fiscally, that the externalities are counted into we will continue to have this problem and it will be it will have to this will have to change. I mean, I think we we we can have a good market amongst people who are ecologically convinced and who can and we can pay for for material that we make. But if you really want to change the whole of society and the way that we build in the future, it will have to be mainstreamed that you pay for the externalities as a producer and the producer either will have to charge it to his clients or we he will have to do it in another way. In that sense, it's it's quite positive that the CO2 price per tonne has has quadrupled. I think it come from 15 euros to 60 euros this year. Yeah, it's it's it's a route to say maybe. But I mean, it will have to go higher. It will have to go towards 100 euros because with the carbon budget that we have left for the rest for the 30 years that are coming, it will have to become higher. And and every every mean that you kind of get out of that system, a part of it should be redistributed for socially just and equal initiatives. For example, social housing that can be renovated, CLT project, Community Land Trust project and that you really do the effort towards those who are less privileged to not make them pay the price. But it's it's it's also for policy makers. It's a lot of loops to jump through and that is that is quite the effort. But it's it's a certainty that we cannot accept that that the externalities go so unpunished and that they go so unpaid for as they are now. So I'm wondering, you know, Brussels, Flanders now, Wallonia as well, have or had ambitious circular economy programs. Within them, they also had, you know, call for projects where they funded numerous initiatives. I think you were part of the big circular initiatives. I don't know, once or twice. Do you feel that it really brings any support, at least to feel part of such a community and feel more or less reassured that the policy slash the government has a has a will into this? Or, you know, it's nice to get the extra cash, but at the end of the day, that doesn't change much. But I mean, what you mentioned is important in the sense that you have to have these starting subsidies. For example, the infrastructure that we have was partly built with the B circular price, and it is necessary because you cannot otherwise you cannot even start because the construction sector is so big and hegemonic in the sense that the big giants that have the best that have very tight margins but large volumes, they make a lot of cash. And so in that sense, their system is hard to disrupt because they have a constant flow. They have the clients and all. So it is very important that the government subsidizes the new initiatives in general, because innovation is important. And I think most of all in construction, where the innovation is sometimes really low, but in the government is sometimes like the seven headed beast where one where one minister does this and the other does that or where the other minister cannot change what has happened because the minister before and promised the sector that that wouldn't happen. And in that sense, I don't judge any specific ministers, but it is a fact that the externalities, if they are not calculated integrate into the price, we will still be fighting Goliath and maybe maybe we will win. But it's the same thing for other players, too, is that if you if you work in such a linear system, or most of our fiscal system is still linear while you're trying to push a circular initiative it's the odds are against you. And we shouldn't mince words about that. In that sense, I think it's really great in Brussels that you have this ecosystem, but on a wider federal and European level, things have to change on a fiscal level so that these kind of initiatives and we're not talking just about us. But for example, Roto has the same problem, too. And since their second hand tiles are sometimes more expensive than the Indian tiles that you can import really easily. In that sense, we have to change the system and not only the specific subsidies for X or for Y. So, yeah, I can imagine that through this ecosystem you have probably heard similar stories or similar challenges. We're all fighting, I guess, to have a storage space or common equipment or sometimes scales. Because I can imagine that you getting the scales to know what is the right mix of soil and earth to mix together is a lot to learn and you need to learn it from experimentation, from, I guess, experiment and fail. Do you feel that there is something useful or that there is something that exists to upscale a bit with all of these initial experimentations and then make them a bit more structural? Except, of course, I hear the argument for fiscality and for the right price, which I think it's, of course, one of the essential barriers. But I also feel that there is also a barrier of space, of being equipped and being skilled. Do you feel that these will exist or this is difficult? This is something that is getting better. What are your insights about this? Yeah, tough question in the sense that I don't know if you know Jan Janker, he's a professor, a Dutch professor on circular economy and initiatives. And I think in one of his studies, he analyzed that a lot of circular startups die after within the scale of five years. So the space issue, the market issue is quite a factor in that. And in that sense, I think within the city, it's always the question, we really love the city. We think it is our urban mind. We get inspired by it. We think that the market is also here because cities have to renovate a lot of their housing, a lot of their real estate. And so it's logical to be here. But at the same time, the price of real estate here is also much higher. And so you pay more per square meter. What I think is a really good approach is that you kind of combine and that you look for synergies within different companies to share spaces like the fab labs do or to kind of compartmentalize certain spaces and that you win in that department. And then the infrastructure, you always have to ask yourself, like, what do I really need? What I'm going to maximize? And we have the advantage of having a pretty low tech approach. And in that sense, in Sweden, for example, there's one of the biggest cement producers in the country. I think they have about 60 percent rate of the market. They had their environmental permit revoked this year. And the whole country was, yeah, it was like crushing. It was a really strange because there were people saying, you cannot do this. And then the judge said, but you're just passing several limits of what you do and you've been warned and you haven't done anything to remediate it. And then you could see a bit in the reactions of the plant that they said, but we're too important, you know, you cannot do this. And so in that sense, the easier the way you make your materials or the less you need, the more easy you make it for yourself to and making it possible within the city to find a place and an infrastructure. If you burn fossil fuels, you have a tougher environmental permit than if you don't burn fossil fuels. So that's a bit of my suggestion, but there's a lot of other answers to these two in the sense that infrastructure is still hefty, that you have to have kind of refinancing. And that on the other side of the road, where the traditional producers are, they've already amortized their infrastructure and it's still polluting. But yeah, but they have their clients, they have their infrastructure. In that sense, the odds are uneven divided and it's a continuous fight. And yeah, I mean, as you say, we can imagine a country being, you know, uncapable of constructing just because there is one plan that is going down, we see that the resilience as well, how unresilient it is based on, you know, well, still, I guess concrete is or cement is relatively easy to be made, is relatively locally sourced a number of times. Still, you need to burn a number of things, though, to do it. So yeah, it also shows how we're not prepared to face these type of, you know, hegemonic structures. Yeah, there is one question. We discussed before as well, but which was, let's say, that when I discussed with Stefan on the wood cooperative, you know, back in the day, we had the information that wood came or what was the amount of wood that existed in Brussels and how much of it was actually exported to Asian markets. And that kind of made theoretically at least a perfect idea or a perfect case for creating a company or a cooperative. The same, I guess, for for BC Materials, there is a theoretical, excellent initiative, but someone needs to do it at the end of the day. And there we kind of saw the limits of research and the needs of practice. And I'm wondering, you know, how do you, is there any exchange that you usually do with research? How is that helpful? Do you use useful insights from research? And also, vice versa, I can imagine that researchers comes now to you to to understand what you have produced and what is the potential of what you have done. Well, I mean, it's really good that you question that you may get question because we do your studies, too, to estimate, for example, the amount of bricks and plaster used in Brussels and discharged stuff. And for us, it's really a constant interaction with researchers. Some of us are inspired by the researchers and by the builders themselves. And at the same time, we give some inspiration, or I hope to other researchers who are asking questions about LCA's in our materials and others. And I really think there's an interesting flow of research coming out that is that is pushed amongst others by the ETH, by the VUB, by the LB that is really hitting the nail on some departments and that are showing the perspective that are possible within our country, within Europe for a much cleaner and healthier building than we're doing right now. So it is really, really super interesting to see what happens. And if we can mention like a builder, not an architect, but yeah, I mean, Martin Arauch is very known for Ramdirt buildings. And it's really he turned it into something sexy that a lot of people had not considered thinking about or looking at. And it's really, yeah, those kind of figures are sometimes underestimated because not for every student in architecture school, Martin Arauch is a name that Norman Foster is for example. Yeah, so I don't know whether I can imagine that you have a different way of seeing the city now, seeing what is around you as a resource. I guess your job has made you a different person now. Do you see, is there anything that you see in the city that tells you, oh, this we should absolutely reuse in some way or another, a particular flow that you see that seems so undervalued, so much underused and yet nothing exists? It is for me, I maybe give two examples. If I may, it's the city hall of San Gilles, where there used to be a quarry. It's so difficult to imagine because it's a really beautiful neighborhood and that the quarry was actually there on the spot where it is now. And the houses were built with so sometimes you really you are walking on the ingredients of what is what is built around you. And the second thing, especially in Brussels, but it's it's also always a bit confrontational if you go to Italy or to other southern countries, the roofs are used as a space. And I mean here in Belgium and in Brussels, you have some examples, but you see a lot of black roofing that is just not not used and underused. And it's so it's such a valuable space. We always say that the space is so valuable. But if you see the roofing, it's underused and it's underappreciated. And for some of the BC Architects projects, we're also working on that of really valorizing the roofs and the spaces and the views that it gives and the possibility that it offers. I think, especially from a circular point of view, we have to maximize the space that we have and use it to to to public good. Yeah, yeah, I often have also these, you know, they always wonder, you know, the single flows is that so we discussed about the pavement or, you know, the cobble zones. That could be something interesting. You could have a specific, I don't know, the copper of wires. Your your mind starts to wander. And of course, this is so relative to to price, right? I mean, how we how expensive and how valuable resources. And so every time I do this exercise of. Well, of course, I mean, you know, in in our in our exercises, we kind of see what comes in, what goes out and what goes out. We have an idea of the sink today. We know how much carbon we have still left to to stay within the one point five to two degrees on the inside. We know that we have less and less materials, but at the same time, we could always have more if we substitute or if we dig deeper with lesser concentrations and with more energy. So, you know, sometimes we we see perhaps the sink as being the limiting factor. So the CO2 emissions rather than what we have in front of us. But yeah, these are can absolutely. The general questions I always put in my mind. I don't know how to to answer them. I think I think what but it's also a bit of communication. And sometimes the talks about climate change and the challenges of construction are super depressing. I mean, we have to admit it is that you see that it's not going fast enough. You see in general that that we are counting on negative offsetting and it's crazy to see the kind of calculation that we make to kind of make it match with one point five. But on the other side, you could also say that there is a very positive future potentially lying ahead of us, where we're really re appreciating the stuff that is already here, the tools that are already here, that we have all this production capacity, but that we're just not using it in a very, very clean way. And that there is a future ahead of us that that will be healthier and that there will be less air pollution and that there will be more material use and less of a dump than than we then then you see at the professional container park right now. I mean, it's a super depressing place, but there are the tools to kind of in that sense, what I mentioned with the the exemplary building in Molenbeek. It's it's really that's what I think that we should try to scale is that kind of approach that kind of thinking, which is not obvious. No, it's not it's not it's not easy, but it is possible. And and that's really what we should be aiming for. Yes, organic agriculture. I don't think that agriculture was such a ripe, you know, sector to innovate as well beforehand. And still, I mean, now it's it's normal to find in all supermarkets, organic food, which which wasn't the case like 10 years ago. So I don't think that's a big issue is it's just a matter of habit. I guess I don't know. So I'm wondering, where are some of your plans for 2022? I think I read somewhere that perhaps you're wondering of exporting your your model to to other places. Well, do you see BC materials being in each European capital and and doing the same thing where we're having a big plan or project where we we want to aim for reusing the excavated earth of the subway tree line in Brussels and transform it into materials that could actually be used for certain construction projects. We think it has a lot of potential and we don't necessarily want a department of BC in every European country. But we think it would be great if the method would be there in every in every big city in I mean, Amsterdam, for example, has has also a very donut policy. They want to reuse much more what they already have. They also did the subway line a few years ago, but there is so many earths moving in the cities that is not used. Is that the potential is there and it's not only here in Brussels. It's not that our earth is so much more special than elsewhere. So we do sometimes export our expertise to different cities. And we have some projects going on of which some are already confirmed and some not. But for example, with the subway project, the ladies signed a kind of letter of intent. They're really enthusiastic about the ID, but we'll see how it how it will work out. But I mean, if we can export the IDs and export from time to time, a project where we say like we can do this with local earth because we're not planning to export the Brussels earth would be. Then I think we but I mean, even now we already have super interesting projects coming up in 2022. And we don't want to grow to grow. But it would be wonderful if a lot of other cities take up the ID and start reusing the materials that they have. Perhaps a last question we generally ask is, do you have any recommendations for for, you know, more inspiration either about the topic or something that you saw recently read recently and that was super impactful to you and you would like to share with us? Well, I would definitely recommend the listeners to continue listening to this podcast, which is very inspiring. For me, I really try to focus a bit on the positive things that are happening in general, because sometimes it's a bit of a hurricane of bad news. And it's just that you have to focus on the on the real stuff that you're doing and the inspiring projects that that you that there are present, for example, like the project that I mentioned in Molenbeek and a lot of others. I'm not really thinking about any medium for a moment, but you have some media and some people influencers who post a lot on climate positive news in the sense that they say, like we're facing a really tough battle, but this is what happened in the world that is positive towards towards the climate. And I think in that sense, and I hope that, for example, with the whole coal discussion and energy discussion, is that at some point the mechanical breakthrough of renewable energy will be so big and it will be at such a low cost. The development there is as I think is quite comforting is that it is replacing in a lot of countries the standard way of of of heating spaces or cooking stuff just by by by, for example, solar mirrors, which is a really cool concept video on it recently. And people are just cooking with with the combination of mirrors, actually, and it's really it's it's so low tech and cool that that you're like, wow, I mean, we are still on gas. We are still cooking on gas in Belgium, like most people and in other places, you can do it in a much clearer by using the natural heat that that has been given to us by Mother Son, you know, so there's a lot and a lot of interesting and positive initiatives going on. And sometimes you have to feed into that and sometimes you're energized by the bad stuff that's happening. And I think that's a bit of a mix that you have to look for. Well, thanks so much, Anton. I hope next time we meet, you're going to you're going to tell me more exciting news about new projects and new. Success stories. Thanks so much, Anton. And thanks, everyone, as well to listening until the end. I hope you liked this video. Please do share it with people that are curious about using low take approaches in the construction sector. And we'll see you in two weeks for another conversation. Thanks a lot, everyone.