Mitigating Climate Change through Green Buildings and Smart Growth

Abstract

IntroductionGreen buildings and smart growth strategies are key to reducing global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the future. In the United States, as in most developed countries, the energy requirements of buildings account for more than one third of GHG emissions. Approximately 43% of US carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) emissions result from the energy services required by residential, commercial, and industrial buildings, while transportation accounts for 32% and industry accounts for 25% (Brown et al, 2005). Thus, assessments of GHG reduction have itemized the many ways that building services could be provided in a more energy-efficient manner. It is also important, however, to consider other GHG impacts affiliated with the built environment, including: the effects of alternative urban designs; the use of on-site power generation; and the life-cycle GHG emissions from building construction, materials, and equipment. This broader perspective leads to climate change strategies that address not only how buildings in the future are to be constructed and used, but also how they will interface with the electric grid and where they will be located in terms of urban densities and access to employment and services.The United States has made remarkable progress in reducing the energy use and carbon intensity of its building stock and operations (figure 1). These improvements are largely the result of advances in the energy efficiency of US buildings following the 1973^74 OPEC oil embargo. Since 1972 primary energy use in buildings has overall increased at less than half the rate of growth of the nation's gross domestic product (GDP). Since the late 1970s, when detailed energy-use data first became available through the Energy Information Administration's (EIA) Residential and Commercial Building Energy Consumption Surveys, residential energy use per capita has declined by 27%, while energy use per square foot of commercial building space has declined by 25% (Brown et al, 2005, page 2). These energy intensities have decreased despite the fact that the size of homes has increased and the range of electric equipment provided in buildings has expanded, especially air conditioning (in the South) as well as electronic equipment, televisions, and other`plug loads' in buildings nationwide.

Connecting Regional Governance, Urban Form, and Energy Use: Opportunities and Limitations

“…Globally, urban areas are estimated to account for more than 80 % of total greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions [3,4]. Energy expenditures in the US constitute a significant and rising share of regular household spending, with a disproportionate impact on lower income households [5,6]. Consumption in other parts of the world, though lower, shows similar upward trajectories [7].…”

“…Pitt [37•], in a recent study of climate action planning, found that a compact housing scenario for future urban growth could decrease residential energy us by as much as 36 %. According to Brown and Southworth [5], approximately 63 % of houses in the USA are single-family detached units, accounting for 73 % of residential energy consumption. Schipper et al [38] estimate that housing characteristics account for approximately 50 % of a home's energy use, while household characteristics and their lifestyle activities account for the remaining amount.…”

“…In addition to direct approaches such as targeted pricing schemes that reduce usage [45], other measures are needed. They may include expanding the adoption of more energy-efficient green building codes, upgrading older structures for better energy efficiency and planning for an urban form that provides choices in housing types beyond the ubiquitous single-family detached housing [5,33].…”

“…In an average household, physical characteristics: the size of the structure [31][32][33], space heating and cooling, water heating, and lighting [5,[34][35][36]; household demographics [9,38], appliances in use [35], and climatic variability [31] have been shown to be critical determinants of household energy use patterns. Pitt [37•], in a recent study of climate action planning, found that a compact housing scenario for future urban growth could decrease residential energy us by as much as 36 %.…”

Walking the Talk: Mandatory Energy Efficiency in all Buildings in South Africa

“…If there are inefficient buildings, such will have tremendous impact on the environment during their lifespan (Darko et al, 2013). Carbon-emissions mitigations in building is beneficial, especially for the low-income household (Brown & Southworth, 2006) because it "increased access to energy services, improved indoor and outdoor air quality, as well as increased comfort, health and quality of life, job creation and economic competitiveness" (Li & Colombier, 2009). And, as such, proponents of energy-efficient buildings have argued that it is one of the least-costly approaches to mitigating greenhouse gas emissions by designing and constructing a climate-friendly built environment and how buildings are linked with other socio-economic amenities and infrastructures (Reddy, 2010).…”