“Solving Climate Change Saves Billions.” That’s the sub-title for Architecture 2030’s new blueprint for how to tackle the climate crisis here in the United States. Not bad, huh? The report is worth a read, both for the innovative solutions that are offered, but also for the tone and approach.
The graph above should be in the board room of every investment firm in the country - certainly all the banks, like Bank of America and Citi, who are still dumping money into the coal industry. Here’s a sample from the report that drives the point home:
Many times, complex problems require the simplest of solutions. One of the most important questions facing those attempting to solve the climate change crisis is, “How do we reduce CO2 emissions dramatically and immediately?” The simplest answer is, “Turn off the coal plants.”
Subscribe by Email!
Subscribe by RSS!
Share on Facebook
While I would agree that efficiency is the first thing to do, it cannot do the whole job. The McKinsey study quoted in 2030 Blueprint said that we could save about 20% of our current energy [similar studies such as LBL give a similar value]. That would still leave 80% to be generated. Even with renewables, there would likely be some baseload that will have to generated by CCS and nuclear.
My favorite part of the report is the figures on permanent job creation. It’s time for more green jobs!
The report uses the conservative estimate of 1 permanent job for every $100k invested in efficiency, but their researchers found these figures, which are even more promising:
A report analyzing the federal New Markets Tax Credits program, determined that a federal investment of approximately $3,500 to $50,000 in building projects created one permanent job (http://prattcenter.net/reports.php).
A National Renewable Energy Laboratory report determined that each investment of $67,045 by the Sacramento Municipal Utility District in building energy efficiency measures created one permanent job.
The Economic Policy Institute estimates that an investment of between $82,000 and $100,000 in infrastructure renovation creates one permanent job (http://www.epi.org/subjectpages/stimulus.cfm).
The 2030 Challenge, which calls for an immediate 50% reduction in building energy consumption and continued gradual reductions to carbon neutral by 2030, has been adopted by the US Conference of Mayors, National Associations of Counties, most building sector professional organizations and the federal government for all new and renovated federal buildings (see: http://www.architecture2030.org/2030_challenge/index.html). California is currently updating its building energy code to meet the Challenge targets by requiring all residential and commercial buildings to be “net zero” energy consumption by 2020 and 2030, respectively. Once the states, cities and counties update their building codes to the 2030 targets (now in progress) or the national energy conservation code standard is revised (also in progress), total building sector energy consumption and emissions will stabilize and begin to decline. This is due to the fact that over the next 30 years, three-quarters of the built environment in the US will be either new or renovated. The 2030 Challenge targets are met primarily through design, efficiency and on-site renewables, as well as through the purchase of utility scale renewables. This leveling out of demand in the building sector negates the need for additional coal-fired power plants, and the continued reduction of demand over time allows for the phasing out of existing plants. This same process also allows for the phasing in of renewables.
Architecture 2030
How would an immediate 50% reduction be accomplished? Most commercial buildings already have fluorescent lights. Did the 2030 Project examine the economic cost of early replacement of the heating and air conditioning systems [the other source of efficiency]. I am all for efficiency (we have energystar appliances and compact fluorescents in our home), but everything has diminishing returns. 50% sounds high to me for an immediate change.
The 2030 Challenge targets are being implemented by updating building codes. The cost of efficiency outlined in the McKinsey report is the total cost, at point of sale (the time when equipment, fixtures and appliances are normally replaced) to upgrade to the most efficient off-the-shelf items.
Architecture 2030
R Margolis, I think you underestimate how ridiculously wasteful our buildings are in the United States. I live in St. Paul, MN, undoubtedly one of the coldest cities in the nation, and a significant percentage of our houses have no insulation. In Minnesota. One of my friends has ice growing on the inside of his wall during the winter.
It’s not just efficient appliances and lighting, although when aggregated those can be significant too. It’s looking at our buildings as systems, and understanding how they function and lose or conserve energy. Back when energy was cheap, no one cared about these things - even heating! The amount of change we can make in efficiency (especially when combined with education and metering systems) is huge!
My house is insulated too…
If I understand correctly, the 50% is for any new buildings under construction. Certainly it is easier to put the efficiency in at the beginning. For older buildings, I agree you can put in insulation, but other improvements for older buildings and homes (e.g., replace heating and air conditioning systems before they have worn out) come with a higher cost. My guess is that such improvements will come slower than assumed in the reports.
In January of 2006, Architecture 2030 officially issued the ‘2030 Challenge’, a measured and achievable strategy to dramatically reduce global GHG emissions and fossil-fuel consumption in the Building Sector by the year 2030. Specifically, the Challenge calls for 1) all new buildings and developments to be designed to use half the fossil fuel energy they would typically consume, i.e., half the regional or country average for that building type, 2) at a minimum, an equal amount of existing building area be renovated annually to use half the amount of fossil fuel energy they are currently consuming, and 3) the fossil fuel reduction standard for all new buildings be increased to 60% in 2010, 70% in 2015, 80% in 2020, 90% in 2025
and carbon neutral by 2030 (using no fossil fuel GHG-emitting energy).
nah, the 50% is for buildings both new or renovated . Something like 70% of our built infrastructure for the next fifty years has already been built and needs to be renovated; only a small percentage of new buildings will be built in the meantime. Like it or not, we can’t tear down the entire built infrastructure of the United States and build a new, more energy efficient one. It’s all about retrofitting, or as Nina Utne has reframed it, “future fitting.” More on how futurefitting can reduce energy consumption ~50% or more when I have time to blog again after finals week…
Good luck with those finals.