The Key to Preventing Catastrophic Climate Change

Daimon Sweeney is executive editor of CitiesGoGreen magazine. You can see the promotional issue of this digital magazine at http://CitiesGoGreen.com. You’re also invited to send it to people you know in local government (any local government, in any role), who can receive free subscriptions.

CitiesGoGreen is a new magazine, published in Bellingham, focused on how local governments across the U.S. and Canada, and their areas of responsibility, can become sustainable as quickly as possible. Before the first issue was published, a conference called Global 2008 took place in Vancouver, British Columbia. A major gathering of experts from around the world, it was entirely focused on sustainability in terms of cities, commerce, technology and so on.

The nascent magazine had nothing to show yet to justify a press pass, but Whatcom Watch was kind enough to request passes for two of the CitiesGoGreen staff. As one of the beneficiaries of this act of faith, I want to express my appreciation to Sally Hewitt, the editor of Whatcom Watch. This article is a summary of some of the most important information to emerge from that conference and other research conducted since, as it could apply to Bellingham and Whatcom County.

One of the most important current concepts is the 2030 Challenge. Ed Mazria, the architect behind the 2030 Challenge, is basing much of his analysis on the work of NASA scientist James Hansen, and on that basis says the worst consequences of climate change can be prevented if we do two things. The first is to make new and remodeled buildings much more energy efficient than they are now and the second is stopping new coal plants (see sidebar, “Stopping Coal”).

The focus of the 2030 Challenge on buildings is crucial because building construction and operation produce 48 percent of the greenhouse gases (GHG) generated in the U.S., making them our largest single source. They also consume 76 percent of all the energy produced at coal plants, themselves prodigious CO2 generators.

Combine this information with the fact that right now, with existing knowledge and little to no extra cost, new buildings can be 50 percent more energy efficient than average, or better, and the opportunity to make a significant difference begins to shimmer into existence.

Multiply that greater efficiency by the official projection that 75 percent of all buildings existing in 2030 will be new or extensively remodeled between now and then, and we see a great opportunity, not available in any other single sector of society. If those buildings operate at increasing levels of efficiency we can make a huge difference in the amount of greenhouse gases produced. If we fail make this change, whatever else we do may well be insufficient.

The 2030 Challenge is, very simply, to adopt higher but practical energy efficiency standards now, requiring no new technology or other innovations. The efficiency standards would rise 10 percent every five years. New technologies, methods, materials and understandings will emerge, making higher standards feasible. By 2030, new and remodeled buildings would be carbon neutral. (See sidebar for details, and Mazria’s site, http://www.Architecture2030.org for more information.)

The power and promise of this simple insight and practical plan have won endorsement from the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the American Institute of Architects, the U.S. Green Building Council, the Royal Architecture Institute of Canada, the Environmental Protection Agency and many others.

Fortunately, there is a very popular energy-saving innovation in building technology. It’s not a new material but a building certification standard many readers will be familiar with. Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) has levels of building certification ranging from certified to Silver, Gold and Platinum.

It’s based on a checklist and points approach, addressing five areas: sustainable site development, water savings, energy efficiency, materials selection and indoor environmental quality. Because it is third-party certified and does produce much more energy efficient and desirable buildings, the number of LEED buildings is growing very rapidly.

Green buildings are proving their worth in better health, higher staff productivity, lower turnover, higher rental rates and occupancy, lower operating costs, faster sale at higher prices and more. Green schools, for instance, save on average $100,000 a year in operating costs (enough for two more teachers), and asthma rates in the student body are about 35 percent lower.

The key to building green, experts agree, is an integrated design approach in which all parties are involved from the beginning: builders, architects, owners, and the specialties like heating and air conditioning (HVAC), lighting, electrical and landscaping. This approach allows synergistic benefits to emerge, which cannot be attained in a more traditional approach.

This approach also allows for monitoring expected energy use of the final product, which can drive the search for more effective solutions. Adding green elements as an afterthought does not work well, and will inevitably be regarded as additional cost. Building in energy and resource efficiency from the beginning can keep the premium above conventional costs very low or zero.

How might all this relate to Bellingham and Whatcom County? In an interview on the http://CitiesGoGreen.com Web site, Mayor Dan Pike discusses his interest in requiring all buildings in the waterfront development to be LEED Platinum. Part of the outcome he anticipates from doing this is an environment attractive to very desirable businesses. Even more ambitiously, it could be a step toward transforming Bellingham into a national and international hub of green research.

This transformation would build on Huxley College’s research and talent and draw in other organizations as well. A public/private partnership could be part of the mix. In the interview Pike espouses this goal as central to his administration.

It’s a laudable and creative vision. It looks beyond the least first cost approach to include a range of benefits accruing later. Certainly buildings can be put up more cheaply than by building to a LEED Platinum standard. But when one factors in the cost of personnel over the lifetime of a building, construction is actually a tiny percentage of the total outlay.

Because of the increased productivity, lower operating costs and so on, building to a high level of environmental quality is a very smart investment for long-term owners. With the social and economic benefits of making such a substantial green statement and of potentially catapulting Bellingham into green research leadership, the positives multiply.

A growing number of cities are specifying that all government construction be LEED Silver. Some say this is too easy, that Silver can be accomplished so easily now that municipalities ought to set a higher standard. Some cities, such as Santa Barbara and Austin, are taking another tack. They have actually incorporated the 2030 Challenge goals into their building codes. This is probably one of the most effective steps possible to limit global warming.

For its part, Bellingham has a 2005 City Council resolution in place stating that, Where feasible, the City commits to meet the LEED “Silver” rating for the construction of all new and renovated City buildings over 5,000 square feet where the City provides the majority of funding.

From the same resolution: The City of Bellingham is dedicated to promoting LEED and Green Building construction practices in the private sector and to educating city staff on LEED and Green building strategies, in conjunction with ongoing efforts to promote and implement Low Impact Development (LID).

“Low Impact Development” is a planning approach with the goal of “maintaining and enhancing the pre-development hydrologic regime of urban and developing watersheds.”

In line with this intent, the new Children’s Museum is being built to the LEED Silver standard.

In the community at large, the new Community Food Co-op store in Cordata is going for Gold LEED certification, and the Matthei Place development by Kulshan Land Trust in Fairhaven is applying for LEED Silver certification. There may be other LEED projects in the area as well. Perhaps no new development in buildings has been adopted more quickly, as growing thousands of buildings nationwide are being designed for LEED certification, in response to the growing recognition of the advantages of third party certified green buildings.

Whatcom County has virtually the same resolution as the city, has achieved Existing Building certification for the County Courthouse, but has built no new buildings since adopting the resolution.

Setting standards is good but not enough, as experience shows. Before doing that and as an ongoing focus there must be education for builders and city staff, importantly including building inspectors, about what code changes mean and how to work with them. Obstacles to building green must be identified and removed from the code, or altered.

Incentives play an important role as well in making it attractive to build green, not just necessary. One incentive approach being contemplated by Portland, Oregon, would charge the developer a fee based on the energy efficiency level predicted for the building in relation to a standard. The fee would go up with worse efficiency, and go down with better efficiency. If it performs very well the fee would turn into a cash bonus paid to the developer.

Another city charges builders a fee roughly equivalent to the cost of LEED certification, which is refunded if certification is achieved. That makes certification essentially a no-cost choice. As you can see, a great deal of creativity is possible.

When more demanding requirements are discussed there is always a cry to leave it to the market and use “market-based incentives.” There is indeed a place for incentives, and for public/private partnerships as well. There is also a place for setting responsible community standards, which after all are the minimum legally allowable limits.

If a new building standard is the same for everyone, no one is disadvantaged. Higher standards brought us seat belts, safer food and drugs, fire codes, electrical codes and so on. If we consider climate change a health hazard, which we certainly can, the public safety rationale is clear. Coastal flooding from higher sea levels is not a trivial concern, nor is a changing water supply regime, with less snow pack predicted long term to store and conveniently release our annual water supply.

Growing population adds more reason to do it right, as our influence on the environment grows in proportion to our numbers. It is responsible to take action to forestall dire consequences, and changing the status quo means something has to change, doesn’t it? “Market-based incentives” too often means, “Don’t change a thing.” The reluctance of some to learn and use better methods is not a good enough reason to forego healthier, more cost-effective buildings which lessen our destructive impacts on the environment.

The final discovery I’d like to share, though there are many more, is a standard called Living Buildings, which goes significantly beyond LEED. The goal of this standard is truly sustainable buildings, not just more efficient ones, good as that is. Living Buildings produce their own energy with renewable resources, capture and treat their own wastewater, use resources efficiently, avoid a “Red List” of prohibited materials and are beautiful, among other requirements.

Daunting as it sounds, buildings are indeed qualifying for this standard and it is serving as a catalyst for a new level of thinking and design. This is an example of the quality of buildings we truly need if we are to live sustainably, not just less parasitically. A community standard based on this idea is being developed as well.

Because I like to push the envelope, I’ll ask this question: What if the waterfront development consisted entirely of Living Buildings, and Bellingham, with due preparation and support systems in place, adopted the 2030 Challenge standards across the board, with all that implies? Personally, I’d be so proud of Bellingham.

If there is a rock star among urban planners it is Brent Toderian, director of planning for Vancouver, British Columbia. Reducing Vancouver’s ecological footprint is high on his list of priorities. He says, “If you’re not changing business as usual, you’re failing.” And, “Cities go green through leadership at the political, professional and civic levels.” So now we know what’s possible, and what it takes. §