Energy savings, emission reductions, and health co-benefits of the green building movement

Buildings consume nearly 40% of primary energy production globally. Certified green buildings substantially reduce energy consumption on a per square foot basis and they also focus on indoor environmental quality. However, the co-benefits to health through reductions in energy and concomitant reduct...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of exposure science & environmental epidemiology 2018-06, Vol.28 (4), p.307-318
Main Authors: P, MacNaughton, X, Cao, J, Buonocore, J, Cedeno-Laurent, J, Spengler, A, Bernstein, J, Allen
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Air Pollutants - analysis
Air Pollutants - economics
Air pollution
Air Pollution - analysis
Air Pollution - economics
Air Pollution - prevention & control
Air pollution control
Analysis
Asthma
Brazil
Built Environment - economics
Built Environment - standards
Carbon dioxide
Carbon Dioxide - analysis
Cardiovascular Diseases - economics
Cardiovascular Diseases - prevention & control
China
Clean energy
Conservation of Energy Resources - economics
Conservation of Energy Resources - methods
Cost control
Databases, Factual
Decision analysis
Developing countries
Emissions
Emissions control
Energy
Energy conservation
Energy consumption
Energy costs
Energy efficiency
Energy efficient buildings
Energy use
Environmental engineering
Environmental quality
Environmental sustainability
Fossil fuels
Germany
Green buildings
Green design
Green development
Green market
Health
Health Status
Hospital admission and discharge
Hospitalization - statistics & numerical data
Humans
India
Indoor air quality
Indoor environmental quality
Indoor environments
LDCs
Nitrogen Oxides
Particulate Matter
Pollutants
Pollution
Pollution control
Premature mortality
Respiratory symptoms
Retirement benefits
Sulfur Dioxide
Sustainable design
Sustainable development
Turkey
United States
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Buildings consume nearly 40% of primary energy production globally. Certified green buildings substantially reduce energy consumption on a per square foot basis and they also focus on indoor environmental quality. However, the co-benefits to health through reductions in energy and concomitant reductions in air pollution have not been examined.We calculated year by year LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certification rates in six countries (the United States, China, India, Brazil, Germany, and Turkey) and then used data from the Green Building Information Gateway (GBIG) to estimate energy savings in each country each year. Of the green building rating schemes, LEED accounts for 32% of green-certified floor space and publically reports energy efficiency data. We employed Harvard's Co-BE Calculator to determine pollutant emissions reductions by country accounting for transient energy mixes and baseline energy use intensities. Co-BE applies the social cost of carbon and the social cost of atmospheric release to translate these reductions into health benefits. Based on modeled energy use, LEED-certified buildings saved $7.5B in energy costs and averted 33MT of CO , 51 kt of SO , 38 kt of NO , and 10 kt of PM from entering the atmosphere, which amounts to $5.8B (lower limit = $2.3B, upper limit = $9.1B) in climate and health co-benefits from 2000 to 2016 in the six countries investigated. The U.S. health benefits derive from avoiding an estimated 172-405 premature deaths, 171 hospital admissions, 11,000 asthma exacerbations, 54,000 respiratory symptoms, 21,000 lost days of work, and 16,000 lost days of school. Because the climate and health benefits are nearly equivalent to the energy savings for green buildings in the United States, and up to 10 times higher in developing countries, they provide an important and previously unquantified societal value. Future analyses should consider these co-benefits when weighing policy decisions around energy-efficient buildings.
ISSN:1559-0631
1559-064X
DOI:10.1038/s41370-017-0014-9