Better Buildings Can Reduce Global Warming
Between computer issues and a lot of reader comments, I've had a busy day and I haven't even posted anything new here. Some of the comments that have been interesting to me are those about more efficient buildings, from yesterday's Headline: Earth post. A lot of energy is consumed in the construction of buildings, but in most cases, the energy used in the building over it's lifetime - for heating, cooling, running appliances, etc. - far outweigh the energy consumed in construction. The U.N. Environment Programme has issued a new report today on how Buildings Can Play a Key Role in Combating Climate Change. The full report is also available online.
This is a very complicated issue, since buildings and their requirements vary sharply between the developed and undeveloped world and between climate zones. The report discusses not only ways to build buildings which will use less energy, through things like improved insulation, sunshades in hot and tropical areas, use of energy efficient appliances and use of energy efficient lighting, but also talks about the use of building materials which require less energy to produce - what they call lower "embodied" energy.
According to some estimates, nearly three times the amount of greenhouse gases scheduled to be reduced under the Kyoto Protocol could be reduced by the building sector worldwide. The report focuses mostly on new construction, but also touches on savings possible due to refurbishment of current structures. Any remodeling comes with a price, of course, which is often a stumbling block. The report suggests adding efficiency while making other repairs - adding insulation when repairing a roof, for example.
Comments (6)
Exactly, all we have to do is paint the roofs of all of our buildings white and reflect the sun energy right back into outer space where it can do no more harm. Maybe, we should use mirrors, that would be even better. Course, hail would be an issue. But I am certain that we can solve that easily enough, right.
Posted by Darren | April 10, 2007 5:07 PM
The UN discovered what homeowners have known for decades. It is strange, that an organization like the UN, built amongst the ashes of WWII is now in the buisiness of home design. For an organization that does such a poor job executing its orginal charter (fostering peace and understanding), it is absurd to think it can micromanage the home building marktet.
Posted by JP | April 11, 2007 8:22 AM
There was a great cover story article from last week's TIME magazine, and some of it was about green buildings. Many of the new green buildings built in cities like Chicago and San Fran over the past couple years cost only 5 to 10% more than what traditional buildings cost.
Posted by Mark | April 11, 2007 2:01 PM
For my part I have be trying to steadily improve the energy efficiency of my own home and reinvest that into more improvements. I created a blog to get more ideas from others and maybe if I can bring the usage down low enough and the prices drop I can put a solar system in in the future (not affordable now). I think showing everyone that it is doable would have more of an impact on people. For my part, I am reaping the benefit nearly instantly and by summer the real rewards will be felt. Without, really high costs. For example in Southern California the CFL bulbs had a double benefit the cheapper lightly the bonus was far less heat in the house therefore lower electric cost related to air condition which is a big issue where I live.
Save money and help the enviroment. But, do it in a way that middle and lower income folks can afford and get a benefit.
Posted by Aaron | April 12, 2007 2:21 AM
This isn't news to anyone besides the UN.
Amusingly enough, even though the insurance companies won't admit it, houses built before the 50s exceed the vaunted "Andrew" hurricane code here in Florida. So the issue isn't just energy, it is simple structural strength.
Posted by Kamatu | April 12, 2007 12:50 PM
It would be great if the discussion could be framed as "better buildings can reduce energy consumption."
There is zero evidence that any policy or lifestyle changes will make a significant change in the climate. Even the most optimistic predictions for the benefits of Kyoto put them as a small percentage of the noise of modeling uncertainty.
Misleading headlines like that make us skeptics even more incredulous.
Posted by Patrick Henry | April 17, 2007 12:28 AM