Decarbonising Buildings Part 3: Policy and Regulation
In part 3 of our series about decarbonisation we look at the role of policy and regulation in this arena. It cannot be overstated that providing a framework that guides and accelerates efforts towards more sustainable construction and operation of buildings is essential. The use of carbon as a metric, while not without its limitations, plays a significant role in this process, especially in evaluating and promoting the health and sustainability of buildings.
Policy: The Catalyst for Decarbonisation
The implementation of policy and regulatory frameworks offers numerous advantages in the drive to decarbonize buildings. Policies promote sustainable practices by encouraging the adoption of low (embodied) carbon building materials and renewable energy sources, as well as increasing insulation requirements for buildings which leads to lower use for heating and cooling energy. They are instrumental in reducing overall carbon emissions from the building sector, which is a significant contributor to global greenhouse gas emissions. Moreover, such regulations stimulate innovation in construction and building management, leading to advancements in energy-efficient and carbon-neutral technologies.
Policies create a level playing field in the market, ensuring that all players in the construction and real estate sectors adhere to environmental standards, thereby preventing unfair competition. In the long term, these regulations are not just environmentally beneficial but economically viable, reducing operational costs and increasing property values.
However, the path of regulation is not without challenges. The high initial cost of implementing green technologies can be a hurdle. Over-regulation risks stifling innovation and creating bureaucratic complexities. A rapid shift in regulations could disrupt existing markets and disproportionately impact different regions. Moreover, ensuring compliance and effective enforcement remains a substantial challenge.
Carbon Metrics: A Double-Edged Sword
In this context, carbon emerges as a critical metric. Its quantifiable nature allows for setting clear targets and tracking progress in reducing emissions. Carbon metrics have global relevance and are pivotal in informing policy and strategy. They encourage the shift towards renewable energy by highlighting the carbon impact of different energy sources.
However, the focus on carbon can lead to an oversimplification of environmental impacts, neglecting factors like biodiversity loss or water usage. There is also a risk of misleading claims and a potential overreliance on carbon offsetting, which might delay direct action to reduce emissions. Furthermore, carbon metrics primarily focus on CO2, often overlooking other greenhouse gases.
The Intersection: Healthy Buildings with Low Carbon Footprint
In the debate around healthy and sustainable buildings, the argument often circles back to carbon metrics. A building with a low carbon footprint, both in construction (upfront carbon) and operation (operational carbon), is typically healthier and more sustainable. This is because such buildings often incorporate energy-efficient designs, use sustainable materials, and rely on renewable energy sources, all of which contribute to a healthier indoor and outdoor environment.
While carbon is a significant metric, it's crucial to acknowledge that truly great buildings go beyond just low carbon emissions. They encompass broader sustainability aspects, including efficient resource use, occupant health and well-being, and minimal environmental impact over their lifecycle.
Is Carbon the Better Metric to drive Policies?
The debate between using carbon as a metric versus prioritising the broader concept of healthy buildings is complex and not everyone agrees that carbon is the best metric. However, its widespread adoption and quantifiable nature make it a powerful tool in driving environmental policy and practice. The focus on carbon, particularly in the context of decarbonizing buildings, inherently promotes many elements of healthy buildings. By reducing carbon emissions, we often inadvertently support the development of buildings that are not only environmentally friendly but also healthier for occupants. For instance, energy-efficient designs and the use of sustainable materials, key strategies in lowering carbon footprints, also improve indoor air quality and overall building health. However, a comprehensive approach to sustainability should go beyond just carbon metrics. It should encompass a broader spectrum of considerations, including occupant well-being, resource efficiency, and long-term environmental impact. In this light, while carbon serves as an effective entry point or 'backdoor' for advancing the concept of healthy buildings, it should be part of a more holistic approach that equally values environmental, health, and social aspects of building design and operation.
