In most respects, the problems that museums face in reducing their carbon footprint and adapting to climate change are similar to those of other organisations. They can - and should - follow examples set elsewhere. But they also need to rethink approaches that are specific to museums: in particular, the environmental conditions required for their objects.
Over the past 50 years, there has been an increasing tendency to specify standard environmental conditions both as a condition of loan and as part of the brief for designers responsible for galleries and stores.
Lenders and funding bodies such as the Heritage Lottery Fund normally require these conditions, so museums, galleries and libraries that include loans in their exhibitions or look to external funders for help are, in effect, required to install systems to carefully control the environment.
As a result, such schemes have a high carbon footprint. There is the embedded energy in elaborate plant, which requires regular maintenance, and the energy to run it.
If these conditions were genuinely required to preserve the collections, there would be a real dilemma. Museums' urgent need to reduce their carbon footprint would have to be balanced against their strong duty to preserve their collections. But, as many conservators have pointed out, such tightly controlled ambient conditions are rarely required.
Objects have different requirements and it would be rational for other museums to follow the example of the British Museum, which requires conditions appropriate for the loan in question, rather than imposing blanket requirements.
Most objects have simple requirements - metalwork needs to be kept reasonably dry, woodwork needs relatively stable humidity. Some, such as ceramics, are tolerant of most conditions.
Archives, libraries and prints and drawings have survived in unconditioned environments with wide variations in temperature and humidity for centuries. Most oil paintings have survived widely varying environments as they travelled across Europe and to other parts of the world, while furniture did well in the fluctuating environment of English country houses, until the introduction of central heating.
The lower temperatures are not required for the survival of objects, but for the comfort of human beings. Since rates of decay double for every 5C rise in temperature, from a preservation point of view, turning down the thermostat would clearly be better.
Some objects need closely controlled conditions. But such objects can be shown in conditioned cases or under glass without the high energy consumption necessitated by the control of a whole gallery or building.
It is just as well that most objects are able to tolerate wider variations in environmental conditions than current standards suggest because the plant installed to control these conditions seldom functions as intended. Power failures or malfunctions in control systems often produce conditions worse than those in unconditioned spaces.
But most museums do not properly understand the environmental conditions in their buildings, either because their systems are insufficiently sophisticated or because it is assumed that technical staff will sort out problems as and when they arise.
This means no one in a senior position takes the trouble to understand the significance of the data in question. And the computer modelling, which is used to predict the behaviour of new or refurbished spaces, is rarely checked against the historic behaviour of similar spaces.
It is unrealistic to expect those who earn a living from advising on or installing environmental control systems to suggest alternatives. But there are good alternatives to high-specification environmental control. BS5454 states that ventilation is needed for the preservation of archives (to avoid mould).
In fact, there are other ways of avoiding mould, and ventilation introduces the need to dry or moisten, cool or heat incoming air so that changes in the weather do not alter the environment indoors.
If air change is kept to a minimum, as in traditional stores, relative humidity and temperature remain stable. Materials capable of taking up and giving off moisture, such as paper or lime plaster on walls, will help to reduce the speed with which relative humidity changes.
Reducing solar gain, using low-energy light sources, insulating buildings and bringing in cool air in the early morning, but not hot air in the middle of the day, can keep galleries relatively stable.
It is time for museums and funders to stop imposing standard environmental conditions, and to recognise that objects have individual requirements. More effort must be put into understanding the environmental performance of existing spaces, so that a range of strategies for improving their output can be tried out.
And those commissioning new and refurbished spaces should specify the use of low-tech and low-energy methods of creating stable environmental conditions.
Mark Jones is the director of the Victoria and Albert Museum, London
Over the past 50 years, there has been an increasing tendency to specify standard environmental conditions both as a condition of loan and as part of the brief for designers responsible for galleries and stores.
Lenders and funding bodies such as the Heritage Lottery Fund normally require these conditions, so museums, galleries and libraries that include loans in their exhibitions or look to external funders for help are, in effect, required to install systems to carefully control the environment.
As a result, such schemes have a high carbon footprint. There is the embedded energy in elaborate plant, which requires regular maintenance, and the energy to run it.
If these conditions were genuinely required to preserve the collections, there would be a real dilemma. Museums' urgent need to reduce their carbon footprint would have to be balanced against their strong duty to preserve their collections. But, as many conservators have pointed out, such tightly controlled ambient conditions are rarely required.
Objects have different requirements and it would be rational for other museums to follow the example of the British Museum, which requires conditions appropriate for the loan in question, rather than imposing blanket requirements.
Most objects have simple requirements - metalwork needs to be kept reasonably dry, woodwork needs relatively stable humidity. Some, such as ceramics, are tolerant of most conditions.
Archives, libraries and prints and drawings have survived in unconditioned environments with wide variations in temperature and humidity for centuries. Most oil paintings have survived widely varying environments as they travelled across Europe and to other parts of the world, while furniture did well in the fluctuating environment of English country houses, until the introduction of central heating.
The lower temperatures are not required for the survival of objects, but for the comfort of human beings. Since rates of decay double for every 5C rise in temperature, from a preservation point of view, turning down the thermostat would clearly be better.
Some objects need closely controlled conditions. But such objects can be shown in conditioned cases or under glass without the high energy consumption necessitated by the control of a whole gallery or building.
It is just as well that most objects are able to tolerate wider variations in environmental conditions than current standards suggest because the plant installed to control these conditions seldom functions as intended. Power failures or malfunctions in control systems often produce conditions worse than those in unconditioned spaces.
But most museums do not properly understand the environmental conditions in their buildings, either because their systems are insufficiently sophisticated or because it is assumed that technical staff will sort out problems as and when they arise.
This means no one in a senior position takes the trouble to understand the significance of the data in question. And the computer modelling, which is used to predict the behaviour of new or refurbished spaces, is rarely checked against the historic behaviour of similar spaces.
It is unrealistic to expect those who earn a living from advising on or installing environmental control systems to suggest alternatives. But there are good alternatives to high-specification environmental control. BS5454 states that ventilation is needed for the preservation of archives (to avoid mould).
In fact, there are other ways of avoiding mould, and ventilation introduces the need to dry or moisten, cool or heat incoming air so that changes in the weather do not alter the environment indoors.
If air change is kept to a minimum, as in traditional stores, relative humidity and temperature remain stable. Materials capable of taking up and giving off moisture, such as paper or lime plaster on walls, will help to reduce the speed with which relative humidity changes.
Reducing solar gain, using low-energy light sources, insulating buildings and bringing in cool air in the early morning, but not hot air in the middle of the day, can keep galleries relatively stable.
It is time for museums and funders to stop imposing standard environmental conditions, and to recognise that objects have individual requirements. More effort must be put into understanding the environmental performance of existing spaces, so that a range of strategies for improving their output can be tried out.
And those commissioning new and refurbished spaces should specify the use of low-tech and low-energy methods of creating stable environmental conditions.
Mark Jones is the director of the Victoria and Albert Museum, London
