Investment in Energy Efficient Buildings Secures Jobs & Growth

As Julia Gillard works to build a consensus on an emissions trading scheme for a low-carbon future, a policy solution is already available. And it promises a 7.7% reduction in national emissions by 2020, and at the same time creates jobs and drives economic growth. Lend Lease’s Maria Atkinson shows the way.

 Maria Atkinson in The Australian (2 July 2010):

AS Julia Gillard works to build a consensus on an emissions trading scheme for a low-carbon future, a policy solution is already available.

The policy promises a 7.7 per cent reduction in national emissions by 2020, and at the same time create jobs and drive economic growth.,

The focus is the building sector, one of the biggest employers of labour in Australia and the world.
Studies point to investment in energy-efficient buildings securing existing jobs in the building sector and driving growth in skills, jobs and innovation.

It also happens to be a sector responsible for 40 per cent of global energy use and more than a third of global greenhouse gas emissions.

At the same time, it has enormous potential for emissions reduction and presents the lowest cost abatement opportunity.

Since buildings are the places in which we live, work and play, and spend about 90 per cent of our lives, it is a sector that can affect our health and wellbeing. The good news is that the solution doesn’t demand substantial government funding. The role of government is rather to create a framework that will enable delivery of those benefits, and more.

From a global perspective, it is a solution that addresses current realities and is in step with international directions, as evidenced by discussions in Paris last month involving all the peak bodies for sustainable buildings, along with the lead author for the building chapter of the International Panel on Climate Change’s 4th Report, the International Standards Organisation, the Global Reporting Initiative Construction & Real Estate Sector Supplement, and the UN Environment Program Sustainable Buildings and Climate Initiative.

Diana Urge-Vorsatz, lead author for the building chapter of the IPCC 4th Report, presented research showing the emissions reduction potential in buildings was much higher than estimated in the report.
With her sights firmly on energy performance contractors and energy service companies, Dr Urge-Vorsatz said: “Sub-optimal retrofits should not be supported.”

This reinforces the argument that government should not direct funding towards incremental improvements in energy efficiency such as upgrading or replacing lighting or fans.

Such equipment upgrades are limited to energy savings of about 20 per cent when we know savings of greater than 50 per cent are achievable by allowing more natural light to reduce artificial lighting loads, and removing the need for fans and pumps by installing passive heating and cooling systems.

The Paris discussions also highlighted the number of players trying to standardise, or create, methods for measuring environmental impacts in the property sector, and reinforced that we should be aiming to help people make good decisions, not compounding the confusion with an ever-increasing volume of measures and tools.

Enter the Common Carbon Metric project, a joint effort of the World Green Building Council, the Sustainable Building Alliance and the UN Sustainable Buildings and Climate Initiative — chaired by Australia’s Che Wall.

Last month’s discussions affirmed that this work provided a roadmap to unify the efforts of the property industry and governments.

The Common Carbon Metric project has shifted the dialogue to simplification and distillation.
How do we measure things consistently and concisely internationally while enabling local baselines, inputs and targets?

How do we provide the simplified metric in a way that can meet key decision-making needs without superfluous information, excess cost or lack of attention to key issues?

The Common Carbon Metric targets three key needs:

• Baselining and inventory reporting to allow consistent reporting of operational carbon footprints from buildings for both portfolio reporting and national emissions inventories.
  It will also facilitate comparisons of buildings across cities and countries with the same climatic conditions.
• Market benchmarking to provide a consistent framework for mandatory disclosure and harmonisation of decision-making rating tool metrics.
• Monetisation of greenhouse abatement from energy efficiency, subject to Kyoto-compliant methods for targeting, monitoring and verification, to facilitate capital allocation.

Ultimately, this work will help property companies decide whether their assets are better or worse performers against the city average for that class or type of building. Lend Lease is one of the companies participating in a trial of the Common Carbon Metric for Baselines.

This work will also be important for organisations that use sustainability performance frameworks. And of course it will be an important component of national greenhouse gas emissions reduction action plans.

Looking to the future, while the focus is on the sector reporting framework for energy and carbon, the same framework could be used for other environmental and social indicators, such as water.

For the moment, it is time for governments to recalibrate their efforts and look at a policy suite for carbon in buildings that complements the simplicity and breadth of the work started by the Common Carbon Metric project.

Maria Atkinson is group head of sustainability for Lend Lease

Source: www.theaustralian.com.au

Book Highlights Amateur Sceptics Radically Empowered by the Internet

“With a heavily politicised issue like climate change – and one in which stalled action may lead to disastrous consequences – there is a huge risk in growing over-focused on behind-the-scenes details of small corners of climate research to the detriment of the big picture. Global warming is real and human-caused, and no email can change that.” So writes Chris Mooney in his New Scientist review of “The Climate Files” by Fred Pearce.

Reviewed by New Scientists Issue 3 July 2010:

IN THE grand saga of political battles over climate research, there is no event more pivotal, or more damaging, than what has come to be called “climategate” – the late-2009 theft and exposure of a trove of emails from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia in the UK. Fred Pearce’s The Climate Files, based on his 12-part investigative series for The Guardian newspaper in London, is the first book-length attempt to cover the furore.

Some scientists faulted the Guardian series when it appeared, and similar objections apply to this book. Pearce (who is a consultant for New Scientist) writes as though he is covering a real scandal, and takes a “pox on both houses” approach to the scientists who wrote the emails and the climate sceptics who hounded them endlessly – and finally came away with a massive PR victory. But that’s far too “balanced” an account.

In truth, climategate was a pseudo-scandal, and the worst that can be said of the scientists is that they wrote some ill-advised things. “I’ve written some pretty awful emails,” admitted Phil Jones, director of the CRU at the time. The scientists also resisted turning over their data when battered by requests for it – requests from climate sceptics who dominate the blogosphere and don’t play by the usual rules.

But there is nothing very surprising, much less scandalous, about such behaviour. Yes, a “bunker mentality” developed among the scientists; they were “huddling together in the storm”, in Pearce’s words. But there really was a storm. They were under attack. In this situation, the scientists proved all too human – not frauds, criminals or liars.

So why were their hacked emails such big news? Because they were taken out of context and made to appear scandalous. Pearce repeatedly faults the sceptics for such behaviour. Yet he too makes the scientists’ private emails the centrepiece of the story. Pearce’s investigations don’t show any great “smoking gun” offences by the scientists – yet he still finds fault. And who wouldn’t, when they can read their private comments in the heat of the battle? (I can’t help but wonder what Pearce might think if he had the sceptics’ private emails too.)

Pearce is an ace climate journalist, deeply conversant with every debate in the field going back several decades. This expertise, however, makes the arcane climategate emails a kind of kryptonite for him. Again and again, they drag Pearce into the weeds of complex technical arguments between scientists and their sceptic detractors. And so we plunge into debates about the validity of certain data from Chinese weather stations and about whether bristlecone pine tree rings show evidence of climate change. And this is precisely where the sceptics want journalists to go – into the weeds – because it confuses the public.

There is a place and time for hashing out these kinds of detail. But with a heavily politicised issue like climate change – and one in which stalled action may lead to disastrous consequences – there is a huge risk in growing over-focused on behind-the-scenes details of small corners of climate research to the detriment of the big picture. Global warming is real and human-caused, and no email can change that.

With a politicised issue like climate change there is a huge risk in growing over-focused on the minutiae

There are other important storylines here, though Pearce subordinates them to his email sleuthing. There’s the radical empowerment of amateur sceptics by the internet, which has crucially changed the dynamic between climate scientists and their attackers. There is scientists’ lack of preparedness for the kind of mud sceptics have learned to fling at them. And there’s the foolish bunker behaviour of the University of East Anglia as the crisis communications game played out in the media.

Climategate is certainly a story for our science-politicising times. But so is our failure to zoom out – way, way out – and understand it.

Chris Mooney is a science and political journalist in Washington DC

Source: www.newscientist.com

Lucky Last – Did you hear the one about “Efficiency Knocks for Australia”?

Prime Minister Julia Gillard has one golden opportunity to restore the Labor government’s credentials on climate change policy and the good news is that it doesn’t even have to show global leadership, all it has to do is follow what’s been happening in most other major economies for years.  Energy efficiency has long been touted as one of the ‘low-hanging fruits’ that could help Australia meet its emissions reduction targets for little cost and keep its economy on a competitive footing with other major industrial countries. Giles Parkinson writes in Business Spectator (2 July 2010):

Prime Minister Julia Gillard has one golden opportunity to restore the Labor government’s credentials on climate change policy and the good news is that it doesn’t even have to show global leadership, all it has to do is follow what’s been happening in most other major economies for years.

Energy efficiency has long been touted as one of the ‘low-hanging fruits’ that could help Australia meet its emissions reduction targets for little cost and keep its economy on a competitive footing with other major industrial countries.

But government and business have been so blasé about energy prices and energy security that the issue of efficiency has been largely ignored. So much so that Australia is now ranked last among the OECD countries and pales in comparison with countries like China.

This has not gone unnoticed. Australia’s lax energy efficiency standards in areas such as construction and automotive, as well as its glaring absence of renewable energy sources – particularly solar – are a constant source of amazement to overseas visitors and observers.

“It is an embarrassment, quite frankly, that a country with as many qualified engineers, scientists and entrepreneurs (has) not just a high carbon footprint but poor energy efficiency,” Stanford University’s Steven Schneider told journalists this week.

Now, however, a long awaited review on energy efficiency standards is being presented to the government this month, and should provide the platform for a raft of new policies.

The Energy Efficiency Council last week released a report pointing out Australia’s energy efficiency improved by just 0.7 per cent a year in the 25 years to 1998, less than half the OECD average.

It advocates three key policy measures: An energy efficiency target that aims for a 20 per cent cut in energy demand below business as usual by 2020, a national energy efficiency scheme supported by higher standards, a sophisticated loan scheme and less red tape, and targeted investment by utilities.

The sum total of these policies could mean billions of dollars in saved energy costs by the corporate sector, reduce the need for investment in new baseload power generation and help limit energy price rises by making much of the $42 billion planned to reinforce existing infrastructure redundant.

And they just might help create a whole new industry. According to the EEC report, the global market has been doubling annually and already stands at $US164 billion a year.

Which is why many major industrial groups – such as those that make up membership of the EEC itself – are right behind it. The EEC, quoting a 2008 report by the ACTU and the ACF, estimates that Australia could create a domestic and export industry with 75,000 jobs in energy efficiency by 2030.

Indeed, the only groups arguing seriously against energy efficiency targets and standards are parts of the energy utility sector, fearful that the business models that have held them in good stead for the past few decades may be under attack. But they are anyway – the conjunction of new technology, energy prices, energy security and emissions targets will create an economic case for change that is simply irresistible.

A recent survey by Johnson Controls underlines the international business interest in energy management. The survey of 2,800 executives across Europe, Asia and North America (but not Australia) indicated that most have increased investment in energy efficiency over the past 12 months. And their motivation makes interesting reading.

Cost savings was the most important factor, with most respondents anticipating a 9 per cent increase in energy prices over the coming year. The second most important consideration was lowering greenhouse emissions (74 per cent) for all regions with the exception of North America, where boosting public image (63 per cent) and taking advantage of government/utility incentives (62 per cent) ranked higher in importance.

Johnson Controls is one of five partners behind the refit of the iconic Empire State Building in New York, which is expected to cut 38 per cent of the building’s energy usage and $4.4 million in costs per year.

That will deliver a return on investment within three years, which is hard to argue against, and Johnson Controls expects the refit market in the US alone to reach $18 billion and 360,000 jobs.

Go to the website to pre-register now for Climate Spectator, edited by Giles Parkinson, launching soon.

Source: www.businessspectator.com.au

Where am I this week? Speaking to the Doctors and Scientists for Sustainability and Social Justice (D3SJ) at Taringa, Brisbane on Wednesday 7 July. See www.d3sj.org for more info. On Friday 9 July I’m back at Angus & Robertson, Post Office Square, Brisbane 11.30 to 2.30 to sign books.  And an advance alert for the next Business Eco Forum on 14 July at Samsara, Milton, Brisbane. Too good to miss!