Buildings Account for Half of All CO2 Emissions
by John Laumer, Philadelphia 
on 05.24.06
This post headline is more than just a reminder. It is the proverbial double-edged sword, poised to stick in the gullet of politicians, pundits, businesses, and citizens. Its blade is held above us by a largely unexplored question. Who is responsible for the CO2 emissions of fossil fuel fired electricity-generating plants: utilities or their customers? It is true what the American Institute of Architects (AIA) National Government Advocacy Team has pointed out: “the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions and energy consumption in America, as well as around the world, is buildings. Buildings account for an estimated 48% of all green house emissions.” But it is also true that if you deducted the portion of those emissions that go up the chimneys of the utilities that power the developed world’s buildings, this high level of significance would disappear. The focus would go to transportation.
Where then do responsibilities lie: with buildings or utilities? First a disclaimer: this line of reasoning is not applicable to developing nations where people heat and light largely without electricity. And it matters most in the US where Coal is King for electricity.
Lets start with an analogy only indirectly related to climate change. When the “ozone hole” issue was fully revealed by international scientific consensus, a fundamental choice had to be made by the world’s governments and industries. The significant control point choices for managing ozone depleteting substances included: the manufacture of ozone depleting substances (the chloro-fluoro chemical makers); appliance and vehicle making; and product end users. Our readers will recall that the Montreal Protocol treaty reduced CFC releases by controlling the manufacture of refrigerant products by nation, starting in the highly developed countries where refrigerant technology was invented. Everything else cascaded down from that decision. Appliance and vehicle design came afterward, and product recycling last.
The key difference between CFC’s and CO2 is that CFC’s were products while C02 is a nearly worthless byproduct of electricity production. We don’t really have any CO2 in hour homes or office, at least none incorporated directly into products we regularly rely on. Hence, there’s no personal sense of “owning the problem;” and, as a result, consumers feel removed from personal responsibility when electricity is “on the table.". This is not that case for oil and gas burning appliances of course. But there are many buildings that are chimney-less. Leaving us where? Blaming the utilities? Waiting for government to “control” their operations? Leaving building owners and designers to go without responsibility?
Architectural design and interior décor selection make the nexus of personal responsibility in this matter. (Engineering and "developement" take a close second.) So we were pleased to see a sense of ownership among designers when the American Institute of Architects (AIA) National Government Advocacy Team recently issued a press release with the following advocacy message. (SAD NOTE: this otherwise inspiring site is Internet Explorer browser-ready only.)
“The US Conference of Mayors understands the problem, and the Mayors of Chicago, Seattle, Miami, and Albuquerque recently jointly proposed Resolution No. 50, which sets a goal for carbon neutral buildings by 2030. The resolution closely mirrors the goals established in the AIA's Position Statement on Sustainable Practice and would further stakeout a leadership role for architects in addressing the nation's energy needs.
The US Conference of Mayors membership will be voting on final adoption of this measure during their Annual meeting, which occurs the first week of June. As such, we urge you to contact your Mayor as soon as you can, and ask your mayor to support Resolution 50, which is formally titled: Adopting the "2030 Challenge" for City Buildings”.
Follow @TreeHugger on Twitter & get our headlines with @TH_rss!
Thirsty for more? Check out these related articles:
- Green Glossary: Bagasse
- Top 10 Things to Bring On Your Cross-Country Bus Trip
- How to Cool Your Vehicle Quickly During the Intense Summer Heat and Reduce Your Carbon Emissions
- Why Do Some States Have Significantly Lower Carbon Emissions Than Others?
- Green Glossary: Benthic Trawling
- Trust Stella McCartney: Meat-Free Mondays are Hip, not Hippie!
Only partially relevant, but the NYTimes has an article on Chicago's Green Roofs and how citywide beautification initiatives have really managed to revitalize the city.
Slightly more related: The website mentions Shanghai and the Arup partnership to build that carbon neutral city right next to it. If we did to Shanghai something similar to what was happening to Chicago, would that reduce co2 emissions more than just building a new city?
==== author's response follows ====
For Shanghai...yes, absolutely.
What's happened in Chicago is real and the positives are due to much much more than just Green Roof stuff. The business community is excited by it because it has brought international tourists downtown and put them in hotels overnight. There is a plan in play and it is elegant. Great public art has been given as much prominence as "green designs" for example. The new bandshell over Grant Park with free outdoor movies and music give families a reason to stay overnight and business people a reason to go for a walk and eat in a cafe instead of the hotel. Having a mass transit system that works, flower lined boulevards, free tourist trams with trained conductors, a people friendly security detail for public spaces, and a massive swimmable beach and lakefront trail in the city core don't hurt the ambiance either. Burnhams vision for a cohesive park system and a renewed understanding of how important nature is to society is being resurrected to the great credit of a City State that "gets it". It is a marvel to experience.
Elaine,
CO2 can also be reduced by those green roofs. I remember Tokyo really got the ball rolling, ordering new buildings to all have green roofs, after they realized that their summer heat island effect was getting hotter every year, and people were responding by pushing up the AC, and then they would have spiking energy demand, and a vicious circle brewing. A green roof reduces the heat reaching the building itself, and enough green roofs can reduce the ambient air temperature, further reducing the need for AC.
Thanks for the compliments on my home city, John.
It's all about quality-of-life improvements. Makes people want to live here, which also improves our economy.
Just to make it clear,
Architecture 2030 is independent of the AIA, but is working together with the AIA to develop innovative solutions within the building sector to deal with global warming.
Architecture 2030 and the AIA lobbied Mayors from some of the major cities in the U.S. to have the "2030 Challenge" introduced at the US Mayor's Conference Meeting in Las Vegas June 2-6, 2006. As part of this effort they are asking people to contact their local Mayors and press with template letters provided in Architecture 2030's website:
http://www.architecture2030.org/news/index.php
Read AIA's "Angle":
http://www.aia.org/nwsltr_angle.cfm?pagename=angle_nwsltr_20060522&archive=1&
All of you tree-hugging environmentalist wackos are completely ignorant of modern society and global energy needs. You simply do not understand that this country (and all other modern ones) that support your ignorant, extremest selves cannot exist without mining and agricultural industries. It and you would cease to exist. Also, the methods being used are the most efficient, productive methods, and no one is going to die from them. You don't understand that while you don't appreciate these methods of production that are responsible for your unappreciative, biased, ignorant existances. I am a farmer from Indiana, and I know what productivity requires. YOU DO NOT. Quit complaining. No one cares.