Energy savings, emission reductions, and health co-benefits of the green building movement
Authors:
- Cao X.Cao X.
- Spengler J.SJSpengler J.
- Allen J.AJAllen J.
- 30 January 2018
- journal article
- review article
- Published by Springer Nature in Journal of Exposure Science & Environmental Epidemiology
- Vol. 28 (4) , 307-318
Abstract
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 CO2, 51 kt of SO2, 38 kt of NOx, and 10 kt of PM2.5 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.Keywords
This publication has 23 references indexed in Scilit:
- Temperature impacts on economic growth warrant stringent mitigation policyNature Climate Change, 2015
- Heating and cooling energy trends and drivers in buildingsRenewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 2015
- Building design and performance: A comparative longitudinal assessment of a Children's hospitalBuilding and Environment, 2014
- Chronic Exposure to Fine Particles and Mortality: An Extended Follow-up of the Harvard Six Cities Study from 1974 to 2009Environmental Health Perspectives, 2012
- Particulate Matter Air Pollution and Cardiovascular DiseaseCirculation, 2010
- Do LEED-certified buildings save energy? Not really…Energy and Buildings, 2009
- Do LEED-certified buildings save energy? Yes, but…Energy and Buildings, 2009
- Reduction in Fine Particulate Air Pollution and MortalityAmerican Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, 2006
- Ozone Exposure and MortalityEpidemiology, 2005
- Ozone and Short-term Mortality in 95 US Urban Communities, 1987-2000JAMA, 2004