Study Says North America Needs To Build Greener, Faster

The Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC) has released a report saying that green building is a ripe opportunity for CO2 reduction. The group was established to help solve environmental challenges in North America as a supplement to the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) - i.e., that thing Senators Obama and Clinton have been beating each other up over.

The group says that buildings are responsible for 35%, or 2,200 megatons, of North America's CO2 emissions. That percentage is larger, in the U.S. at least, than emissions from transportation or industry. Using the best available technology, efficient buildings can reduce energy use by up to 70% over their single-paned, poorly insulated counterparts. The study finds that a rapid adoption of green building technologies could reduce CO2 emissions from buildings by over 1,700 megatons over the business-as-usual scenario. To put that number in perspective, the total emissions from the U.S. transportation sector in 2000 summed to 1,756 megatons.

The report, Green Building in North America: Opportunities and Challenges is the fruit of two years of labor by CEC. "This report is a blueprint for dramatic environmental progress throughout North America—mostly using the tools and technology we have on hand today," says CEC Executive Director Adrián Vázquez. "Green building represents some of the ripest 'low-hanging fruit' for achieving significant reductions in climate change emissions."

Although the sustainable building sector is growing at an impressive clip, CEC says we need to do more. Currently, less than 1/2% of the residential market in the US, Canada and Mexico, and 2% of new non-residential buildings are green. This is a sobering fact given the multitude of news stories aboutLEED Gold this and zero emissions that.

Although the evidence shows that green buildings more than make up for extra initial cost over time, the benefits often go to tenants and owners rather than those who put up the cash. Other barriers are wonkier, such as the practice among governments and institutions of separating capital and operating budgets instead of providing life-cycle funding. To combat this problem, and to spur interest, the authors recommend a host of incentives, from updated zoning and building regulations to fast track permitting and government supported research.

The report recommends what appears to be the usual bureaucratic prescription of multi-stakeholder meetings, goal-setting, and outreach/education strategies. However, when I dug a little deeper into the report, there was some actual meat there. Notably, the authors promote adoption of the Architecture 2030 Challenge, which would involve a death drop-like cut in building energy emissions to make all new U.S. buildings carbon neutral by 2030. Other recommendations in the study include graduated utility rates that discourage energy waste, rigorous green certification systems and improvements in related practices in watershed use, sprawl, and toxics.

Often when I read a report from a government-initiated organization, not to mention a multi-country, treaty-born, after-thought of an organization, it comes across as watered-down and short on specifics. Not this one. Time will tell whether anyone listens, but at least they aimed high.