THE 2030 CHALLENGE
By Robert Ebisch
When a 2007 survey asked Americans to name what they thought was the top cause of greenhouse gas emissions today, 40 percent responded, “Cars and trucks.” In fact, according to the Department of Energy’s Energy Information Administration, buildings burn nearly twice as much of the nation’s energy output as transportation.
Buildings account for 48 percent of U.S. energy consumption, 76 percent of U.S. electricity consumption and 43 percent of CO2 emissions. Factor in another seven or eight percent of CO2 emissions coming from constructing buildings and fabrication services, and that means just buildings produce just over half of the nation’s CO2 emissions—as much as power plants, transportation, industry, etc., combined.
“When we discovered that the building sector was a major contributor to greenhouse gases both nationally and globally, we began to talk about it and try to do something about it,” said architect Edward Mazria, a senior principal in the Santa Fe, NM, architecture and planning firm of Mazria Inc. “We figured that if we’re the major source of the pollution, then we’re a major part of the solution to the problem.”
In 2002, Mazria established the nonprofit organization Architecture 2030 to transform the building sector from a major contributor of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to a zero percent contributor. In January 2006, the organization issued its “2030 Challenge” for the nation to reduce carbon emission from new and renovated buildings by:
• 50 percent by 2010
• 60 percent by 2012
• 70 percent by 2015
• 80 percent by 2020
• 90 percent by 2025 and
• 100 percent by 2030.
A Global Reach
A large number of public and private organizations have since adopted the 2030 Challenge as a goal, from the U.S. Conference of Mayors and the American Institute of Architects to assorted U.S. cities and counties and the World Business Council for Sustainable Development.
“The federal government has adopted the 2030 targets for all federal buildings, and in the latest energy bill they have put it into law,” Mazria said. “Beginning in 2010, federal buildings will need to meet a 55-percent energy reduction target and they’ll be carbon neutral by 2030. Now we have cities, states, counties and the federal government adopting the targets.”
The “Sustainable Buildings 2030” proposal that passed the Minnesota legislature this spring and was signed into law in May by the governor, for example, institutes standards for publicly funded buildings on a schedule of increasing carbon emission reduction similar to that of Challenge 2030. The state’s goal is to achieve building carbon neutrality by 2030.
“It didn’t affect the bonding bill we had this year,” said state Senator Yvonne Prettner Solon, author of the bill, “but I do know that a huge ice arena being built in my area is already planning to reduce their carbon emissions by 50 percent. This has not been hard to sell. I think people recognize that we need to reduce carbon emissions. It will save costs down the road once the higher standards are met, and they (the ice arena) hope to reduce the costs of operations.”
Setting the Example
California will probably be the first state to implement 2030 standards for every building, said Mazria. “California is working on its building code for all buildings to meet or exceed the 2030 targets. They’re calling for net-zero-energy residential buildings by the year 2020 and net-zero commercial buildings by the year 2030.”
The 2030 Challenge is an attempt to generalize a trend that’s already happening in many places around the country, to publicize why it is necessary and possible. The possibility of achieving the Challenge’s ambitious goals without ruinous cost is something that many people find difficult to accept.
“Over the Top” Standards?
The BuildSmart program that went into effect at the beginning of May in unincorporated areas of Boulder County, Colo., for example, raised a few local hackles with its energy-efficiency thresholds. The requirements become more strict with the size of the new home until requiring energy neutrality at 5,000 square feet or larger.
“What about the extra hundreds of millions it will COST individuals, businesses and governments,” complained one resident, “when they are forced to comply with these Draconian green regulations?”
Even the editorial page of the Rocky Mountain News in Denver fulminated against what it called the “over the top” building code, asserting that the mandated energy neutrality would have “no measurable effect on total greenhouse gas emissions.”
“There’s a lot of inaccurate information being circulated,” said Jeff Dwight, chief building official for unincorporated Boulder County. “We had testimony during some of our public hearings that you can reach a net-zero house for three percent above average construction costs. The highest we heard was eight percent. When you factor in the long-term payback of that, paying through mortgage versus monthly utility bills, factor in cost of natural gas, which is going up all the time, it maybe cost a little more up front. But even if you’re not concerned with climate change, there’s a long-term payback.”
“You have to look at the risk,” Mazria said. “The risk of not doing anything would basically devastate our country. If we let global warming accelerate, within a matter of decades we could see a meter of sea level rise. There are 4 million people in this country who live within one meter of sea level rise. Fifty-four percent of our population lives in and around coastal cities and hamlets.”
Three Ways to Save
The 2030 strategy focuses on three options, he said. The first is design and innovation—how you site and orient a building, how you use elements such as glazing, passive heating and cooling, day-lighting and natural ventilation systems.
Second, the option to employ after the first option is exhausted is to add technologies that range from photo voltaics and solar hot water and heating to small-scale wind and energy management and daylight control systems.
Third is to buy clean power from a centralized or community utility provider.
Efficiency, Mazria said, is the cheapest option. “The 2030 Blueprint” released by Architecture 2030 in April details how the 2030 Challenge can dramatically reduce U.S. GHG emission and stimulate the economy at the same time.
Number Crunches
Energy Information Administration statistics show, according to the Blueprint, that coal produces 81 percent of CO2 emissions from the Electric Power Sector, and 76 percent of electric power is used to operate buildings.
An investment of $21.6 billion in building energy efficiency—incorporating “just straightforward, off-the-shelf” residential and commercial building efficiency measures—would cut the nation’s building energy consumption by 29 percent, according to the Blueprint, and:
• Replace 22.3 conventional 500 MW coal-fired power plants;
• Reduce annual CO2 emissions by 86.7 million metric tons;
• Save 204 billion cubic feet of natural gas and 10.7 million barrels of oil per year;
• Save consumers $8.46 billion in energy bills per year; and
• Create 216,000 permanent new jobs.
And as for dollar savings in energy production, according to the Blueprint, building new coal-fired power plants adequate to deliver one quadrillion Btu (QBtu) would cost $256 billion. That’s anticipating the use of carbon capture and sequestration technology, which, Mazria said, is presently very expensive and still largely in the future.
The cost of sufficient nuclear plants to produce one QBtu would be $222 billion. Energy efficiency measures could save (or “negate the need for”) one QBtu at a much lower cost of $42.1 billion.
Mazria noted a recent report in the news that showed that 10 percent of people in the United States are behind on their utility bills because of the increasing cost. “We’re going to force people to choose between food and utilities at some point as we run out of gas and oil,” he said, “so in the whole notion of cost, you need to look at payback as energy prices go up, and the payback becomes shorter and shorter, and the cost of renewables keeps coming down year after year.”
“The United States is a very inventive country,” he said, and when we get an economic signal, we begin to look at alternatives. We’re in the beginning phases of that; of figuring out all the alternatives to meet the challenges ahead.”