Is obfuscation one of your goals? I didn’t think so. It does seem to be a goal in many architectural, energy efficiency and sustainability circles though. The terms zero energy building, net-zero carbon, net-zero energy cost, zero net energy, net-zero energy site, net-zero electricity, near net-zero, and net-zero ready…are all tossed about to describe a certain category of buildings that I have made the personal decision to refer to as “net-zero energy buildings” (or NZEBs).

Now as a self-professed word nerd, I recognize you may think this concern about terminology is my problem. Yet Wikipedia’s neutral point of view requires no less than six distinct definitions for ZEBs, including interesting differences between use of the term in the United States, Canada, and the rest of the world. (Note that in addition to ZEBs, Wikipedia adds additional definitions with separate entries for green buildings and sustainable architecture.)

Why does it matter?

Buildings consume over 40 percent of all energy and over 70 percent of all electricity used in the United States, and are responsible for about 40 percent of US carbon dioxide emissions. If there’s any hope of mitigating the effects of climate change, we need to get this right. Instead it sometimes feels as if, (excuse me), all our energy is being used to debate fine distinctions that do not matter in the larger scheme of things. (Shuffling deck chairs on the Titanic comes to mind.)

Image via Wikipedia

Major Greenhouse Gas Trends

<<<<<<

Net-Zero as a Journey

I have written before about my aversion to thinking of net zero energy as a single end point.

I tend to think of net zero energy as a mindset rather than a single end point. True, there are those who favor purity, specific definitions and exact measurements whenever the term net-zero energy is used, but for a layperson like myself interested in change, there’s value in thinking in terms of a never-ending journey rather than a goal achieved.

Celebrate NZEBs

So, buildings use a tremendous amount of energy to operate and are a leading source of greenhouse gas emissions. We climate hawks need to work together. The goal of net-zero building design is to minimize energy use first through energy efficiency, and then meet any remaining energy needs with on-site renewable energy systems. Over the course of a year, these buildings will produce as much energy as they consume. That, to me, is a clear definition of a net-zero energy building. (In contrast, the term zero-energy building falsely implies to me that no energy was used to produce the building.)

If as Orwell wrote, we should use English to reveal rather than conceal, here’s to consistently using one term, net-zero energy building, and applauding every step on the journey to increasing their number. If you are interested in the fine distinctions, be sure to ask for the specifics of the definition being used for a particular structure — but please, only after celebrating the positive step forward.

Resources

• For a Premier Lab, a Zero-Energy Showcase (green.blogs.nytimes.com)
• Are We Nearing Net Zero? Archi-Tech
• Zero Energy Building for NREL Slideshare presentation

I tend to think of net zero energy as a mindset rather than a single end point. True, there are those who favor purity, specific definitions and exact measurements whenever the term net zero energy is used, but for a layperson like myself interested in change, there’s value in thinking in terms of a never-ending journey rather than a goal achieved.

One reason is innovation. If net zero energy, or any sustainability practice for that matter, is framed as an end point readily achievable with existing building, efficiency and development practices, what will motivate us to keep trying to do more?

I was reminded of this recently by a post by Chris Milton on Clean Technia entitled “Top Five Clean Tech Gamechangers.” Compiled from the World Wildlife Federation’s “Green Game-changers Databank,” Milton describes five energy innovations in development, but with great potential.

My favorite is the idea of energy from footsteps, by Pavegen. It just seems so fitting to convert the human energy in high footfall areas into clean electricity. Pavegen’s paving slabs generate energy from footsteps to power street lighting, information signage, and other energy needs in shopping areas, commuter stations, stadiums — just imagine! From Milton’s post:

How It Works: Each paving slab on a busy sidewalk gets stepped on over 50,000 times each day. Specially designed rubber slabs (made from recycled tyres) move a minuscule 5mm with each footfall, capturing the kinetic energy and converting it into electricity. This can then be used to power pedestrian lighting, shop displays, etc.

Progress To Date: Field trials are being conducted around the UK in 2010. The company’s aim is to have them installed in Times Square and Disneyland by the end of 2011.

Here’s Pavegen’s product demonstration video from a UK trade show last year.

It’s innovations like this that make me favor net zero energy as a mindset rather than an end point. Do you agree?

Resources

“Top Five Clean Tech Gamechangers,” by Chris Milton in Clean Technia
Pavegen, developer of footfall-to-electricity energy technology
World Wildlife Fund Green Game-Changers, Energy

Image via Wikipedia

As pleased as I was to see the new Jeffords building at the University of Vermont featured in The Chronicle of Higher Education, I must confess to being somewhat disappointed by the article. Although Dean Tom Vogelmann appears amiable and approachable in the first photograph, the remaining photos do little to convey the “functional elegance” of the exterior or interior design of the new home for plant biology, soil sciences, and life sciences at UVM.

The more important omissions to my mind, however, are details on the myriad steps and design choices made to enable a large building with teaching science labs to minimize its environmental footprint and to be potentially eligible for LEED gold certification. I yearned to know more about how that was accomplished.

True, the teaching landscape featured in the article is interesting, yet I’ve begun to fear we fall further behind in the battle to minimize the effects of climate change whenever we miss an opportunity to inform and educate.

I expected more from a building and grounds feature article in this publication for higher education. But then again, perhaps I’ll be more appreciative of specialized publications such as Greener Buildings News and Sustainable Facility.

Disclosure: I currently serve on the Board of Advisors for the UVM College of Agriculture & Life Sciences.

Image by climatesafety via Flickr

I’m jealous. I know it’s not becoming, but I can’t help it. We’ve been outdone not once, but twice. As a firm believer in the theory you’ll never get there if you don’t set a stretch goal, a BHAG, it’s inspiring but galling to find out from Alex Steffen and Amanda Reed that Britain has reaffirmed its goal of becoming Zero Carbon by 2030 (ZCB2030). Seattle, Washington has declared the same goal.

ZCB2030 report
The ZCB2030 report has a time line for implementation, five detailed sections, and a complete bibliography at the end of each major section of the report. It’s a tremendous resource. The report’s authors intend to demonstrate that “Britain has the potential to become a global leader in sustainable technology and policy” — that climate action is an economic development strategy– and spur discussion and debate on how “greenhouse gas emissions could be completely eliminated from a developed society.”

Vermont Businesses for Social Responsibility, Renewable Energy Vermont and others have been singing this song for years – seemingly to little effect.

Rural versus Urban
After commending the report, Steffen and Reed point out: “There are some major flaws and questionable assumptions in the report. One flaw is that it almost completely ignores urban issues, concentrating on green building and transportation, but ignoring planning, infrastructure and the role of services in a bright green city.” While I appreciate the fact that for the first time the majority of the world’s population now lives in urban areas, we should not forget nearly half still live in rural areas like Vermont.

A Question for Vermont Gubernatorial Candidates

It is exactly the focus on green building and transportation in this report that holds such promise for a rural state like Vermont. The Vermont Governor’s Commission on Climate Change came to the same conclusion, but Governor Douglas ignored its recommendations. The ZCB2030 report outlines a time line and action plan for an entire country. When can Vermont announce its zero-carbon goal and related economic plan?

It’s a question to be asked of each of our gubernatorial candidates.

Related articles by Zemanta

• A New, Bold Plan for a Carbon-Neutral UK by 2030 (worldchanging.com)

The Promise

A recent opinion piece by Alec Appelbaum in the New York Times caught my eye. In “Don’t LEED Us Astray,” Appelbaum wrote about the promise represented by the grand opening of 1 Bryant Park, a new LEED platinum-certified office tower in New York city. The tower is the first to rate platinum, the highest level of certification from the United States Green Building Council’s Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design program, known as LEED, which is recognized as “the most widely used green-building measure.”

The LEED program, which awards points for incorporating eco-friendly material and practices into buildings’ design and construction, has led to a sea change in the industry, introducing environmental awareness into everything from regulatory processes to rents.

But while the standard is well-intentioned, it is also greatly misunderstood. Put simply, a building’s LEED rating is more like a snapshot taken at its opening, not a promise of performance. Unless local, state and federal agencies do their part to ensure long-term compliance with the program’s ideals, it could end up putting a shiny green stamp on a generation of unsustainable buildings.

The Performance Gap

Image via Wikipedia

It’s this intersection between market forces and effective change strategies that interests me. Applebaum acknowledges the LEED program was intended to be simply a set of guidelines for architects and engineers, rather than a standard for building performance. But the marketing value of LEED certification is a proven factor driving rental and resale pricing, and that’s where the problem has arisen, which Applebaum clearly recognizes:

Such market-driven motives wouldn’t matter — if LEED in fact measured energy performance. But it can’t: some certified buildings end up using much more energy than the evaluators predicted, because the buildings are more popular than expected or busy at different times than developers forecast, or because tenants ignore or misuse green features. Bike racks merely encourage cycling to work, and operable windows merely offer the opportunity to use less air-conditioning.

The Green Building Council reformed the system last year to reflect actual energy use by having owners report annual performance data. But that’s not enough detail to measure energy consumption accurately, and there’s no clear way to repeal certification if tenants or owners miss their energy-saving targets. As a result, a five-year-old building can turn into an energy hog and still carry its LEED designation.

Solutions
How can we fulfill the promise of improved performance by building on LEED certification guidelines? Applebaum notes the solution “isn’t to replace the system, but to supplement it.” He suggests government agencies provide subsidies and tax credits that could be reduced or eliminated if building performance does not measure up.

We all know money talks, but initiating and establishing such programs at the government level takes time – and I’m wondering if it wouldn’t be more effective as well as faster to simply develop and publicize new norms for post-construction commissioning, as advocated by Yale360, in combination with annual reporting of performance, using the IMVP, or the International Measurement & Verification Protocol. The impact of norms is a well-established principle of behavior change. If every new building, and especially every new LEED-certified building, began publishing its annual energy use measurement and verification report, it might not take long to close the gap between LEED promise and performance.

So, the next time you hear a claim about a building’s LEED certification, how about asking what its annual performance report shows?

Related articles by Zemanta

• Op-Ed Contributor: Making Eco-Friendly Construction Work (nytimes.com)
• Bank of America Tower at One Bryant Park is First Commercial Skyscraper in U.S. to Achieve LEED Platinum (prweb.com)

Sometimes I agree with him. Sometimes, passionately, I don’t. But after reading Paul Krugman’s “Building a Green Economy” in the Sunday New York Times magazine, mostly I just wanted to hug him.

Klugman begins in a matter of fact way by observing that in the debate over climate economics, the “casual reader might have the impression that there are real doubts about whether emissions can be reduced without inflicting severe damage on the economy.” He then goes on to explain in significant detail why among environmental economists there is widespread agreement this is not so, regardless of country of origin or political persuasion.

After detailing the emissions problem, Krugman moves on to a dispassionate and detailed explanation of the costs of correcting the effects of climate change. His conclusion: “We know how to limit greenhouse gas emissions. We have a good sense of the costs — and they’re manageable. All we need now is the political will.”

I would have been satisfied if the article ended at this point, but Krugman moves on to detail the basics of the case for a market-based program to combat the problem carbon emissions represents. I have always had personal reservations about the potential for any significant impact resulting from a so-called cap-and-trade program. As a long-time believer in the power of many small acts by individuals, I had difficulty accepting the idea that my individual acts like walking instead of driving would simply free up additional carbon credits for large corporations to purchase so they could pollute more. Yet Krugman moves on to make a convincing case for the greater benefits of cap-and-trade, in particular when combined with a carbon tax and additional regulation for coal.

But this is a lengthy article worth reading. Krugman continues on to explore the key question of how to impose limits on carbon. He posits that the difficult question isn’t, as you might imagine,  whether to opt for a carbon tax or cap-and-trade. Rather, it is whether in either of those systems, the carbon price should be ramped up quickly or slowly. It’s easy to agree with Krugman that politicians lack the courage to impose a carbon tax substantive enough to effect change, nor will the public demand it until the effects of climate change are so advanced as to be irreversible. In comparison, the alternative of major investments in green infrastructure and a push to encourage research into alternatives to carbon-intense activities will seem reasonable. These activities wouldn’t be cheap, but they’d be easier to bear than an immediate price of $200 per ton of carbon. And politically, such measures should go down easier, given that they entail the doling out of government resources rather than the imposition of a tax on a negative and intangible externality.

The entire article progresses step by step into a full-blown green economics primer 101. Each term is defined; every key concept addressed. Krugman builds his case in a convincing, neutral frame, which preempts marginalization or premature rejection by the reader on the grounds of obvious bias. There’s a communication lesson here as well as an economic one for those interested in affecting public opinion or systemic change. A quick thank-you hug seems appropriate.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Building a Green Economy (New York Times)
• Al Gore says to read this article (ruffingtonpost.com)
• Krugman on incentivizing a green economy (increaseourtaxes.com)
• Krugman on the climate apocalypse (themoderatevoice.com)
• Does Paul Krugman Vastly Understate the Economic Argument for Climate Action? (worldchanging.com)

When I first viewed Bill Gates’ presentation on the importance of Zero, I quickly tweeted and posted a link to the Gates’  2010 TED conference video to share my dismay and so others could watch for themselves. As excited as I was by Gates’ endorsement of the importance of getting to zero emissions, I was discombobulated by his nuclear energy solution. I knew I’d need some time to sort out my thinking about the relative importance of Gates’ messages. Thinking time was necessary to decide if, from a change perspective, this was a step ahead or a step back.

Meanwhile over at the Worldchanging blog, Alex Steffen thinks faster and wrote an excellent, extensive summary of the speech and its importance. Bill Gates: the Most Important Climate Speech of the Year. “When We Talk Zero, We Sound Crazy. When Bill Gates Does It, Bankers Pick Up the Phone. On Friday, the world’s most successful businessperson and most powerful philanthropist did something outstandingly bold, that went almost unremarked: Bill Gates announced that his top priority is getting the world to zero climate emissions.” Steffen goes on to outline each of the key messages in the Gates speech succinctly, with one exception. He does not mention the nuclear solution.

The reason behind his omission may be explained by this statement: “But when Bill Gates talks zero, he sounds visionary. Gates, whatever else he did Friday, just made the most important idea on the planet mainstream credible. That’s a big, big deal.” Steffen seems to have made a calculated decision: “I will not sacrifice a huge ‘good’ in the name of perfect.”

It’s not as if there aren’t any critical statements about the Gates speech. Steffen acknowledges flaws. He simply chooses to highlight the flaws in Gates’ case that might keep us from moving ahead toward a zero emission future. “http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/010976.html.”

Several commentators took Steffen on for the omission of the strong nuclear element in Gates’ talk. “Not a single comment on his nuclear power ambitions? Kind of a big thing to leave out of a summary, don’t you think?” asked Tod Brilliat. It’s Steffen’s response that makes clear his choice: “I’ve talked quite a bit about how I don’t think nuclear power is a smart (or necessary) way to go, so obviously I differ with Gates on that. For that matter, I think CCS “clean coal” technologies are a crock, too. But I really don’t think that’s what’s important here. I think the goal of zero emissions is much, much more significant than choice of energy path (or even whether to emphasize clean energy generation or a more holistic approach). If we can agree on that goal as a society, all sorts of changes will tumble forward.”

Reluctantly, I must agree with Steffen. Nuclear energy is a distraction, a red herring in this context. The goal of zero emissions, and Bill Gates’ endorsement of that goal, is where our focus needs to be for meaningful change.

This is a clear and fascinating explanation of the CO2 challenge and why we must do something about reaching net zero, starting now. Personally though, it’s distressing to hear that rather than pursue renewable energy and battery technology solutions, a to-me frightening new nuclear technology has caught Bill Gates’ attention.

My mind is having difficulty grappling with that thought. What do you think?

Bill Gates at TED 2010: Climate and Energy

So the S.E.C. has now said that companies have an obligation to tell investors of any risks, or potential benefits, that climate change poses to their business. To quote the New York Times:

The S.E.C., on a party-line 3-2 vote, issued “interpretive guidance” to help companies decide when and whether to disclose matters related to climate change. The commission said that companies could be helped or hurt by climate-related lawsuits, business opportunities or legislation and should promptly disclose such potential impacts. Banks or insurance companies that invest in coastal property that could be affected by storms or rising seas, for example, should disclose such risks, the agency said.

Via S.E.C. Says Companies Should Disclose Climate-Related Risks – NYTimes.com.

United States Securities and Exchange Commission official seal

Can anyone think of a company that won’t feel an impact one way or the other as the climate goes nuts? It’s easy to grasp that if you have a plant in a hurricane zone, then big trouble. But what if you don’t, but your main competitor does? Big boon. What if neither you nor your competitors have plants there, but your main customer does? Mucho big trouble. Closer to home here in Vermont, what if you run a tiny clothing store, and you’ve made a good living selling parkas and ski clothes. The snow melts too soon – or doesn’t come at all, and Chapter 11, here you come. And the ski areas, lodges and restaurants will follow closely after you. Our food and natural resources-based companies would be hard hit — maple syrup producers, Christmas tree farmers, and crop producers devastated by the greater spread of insects and diseases that survive in warmer, wetter conditions. (The Vermont Governor’s Climate Change Council 2007 Final Report details a list of impacts and recommendations.)

If you accept that the climate is changing, then it seems to me you must accept that every single SEC-regulated company would now have to list how different scenarios would affect its business. Perhaps the thought of all those disclosures frightened the SEC, because a standard disclaimer was added:

“ We are not opining on whether the world’s climate is changing; at what pace it might be changing; or due to what causes. Nothing that the commission does today should be construed as weighing in on those topics.”

Hmm, we are not saying that the climate is changing, but we are saying that you’d better disclose how you will be affected? The language of climate change is certainly rife with mixed messages.

Deep down we all probably recognize that despite good intentions and occasional spurts of progress, the lifestyle changes needed to successfully lower carbon footprints and increase energy efficiency will not be easy. We’ve seen and heard it many times: Old habits die hard. How can we make and sustain the change needed to help Vermont become net zero energy? Five key steps are needed, based on recent studies in behavior change, social psychology,  decision making and communications.

Share Norms for Individuals and Groups
A widely-cited study in Sacramento, California demonstrated that the single most effective measure to reduce household energy use is simply to share the average energy use, or norm, for similar homes. When the local utility added average monthly use information to their bills, people began changing their behavior. The simple, reader-friendly Home Electricity Report also showed how much money people were paying, extra, per year as a result of their own inefficiency. Those using far more electricity than their neighbors began cutting back. Those who saw a “smiley face” because their monthly use was already below average, did even better. Overall, the community achieved a 30% reduction in electricity use. Why couldn’t every Vermont utility start doing this?

Provide Real-Time Feedback Information
Individuals who see in real-time how much energy they are using, save up to 15 percent on their electricity use with behavioral changes. (Darby S (2006) The effectiveness of feedback on energy consumption. A review for DEFRA of the literature on metering, billing and direct displays. Environmental Change Institute, University of Oxford.) Within a few months of its announcement of the PowerMeter last year, Google had signed up nine utilities, including one in Europe. How can we get smart meters in homes coupled with a smart-grid utility infrastructure in Vermont?

Make it Easy to Do the Right Thing
Our lives are complicated, over-scheduled and tiring. Temptations to slip into old behaviors are abundant. If a new behavior requires extended effort or inconvenience, only the purists will make the behavior shift — and even they may not maintain it. Efficiency Vermont has made great strides in getting energy efficient light bulbs and the EPA’s Energy Star-labeled appliances into stores more widely, but getting an energy audit or evaluating alternative fuel sources still requires an investment of time and coordinating effort that is off-putting or unaffordable to many. The recent rise of local energy committees acting as town or neighborhood “captains” is a promising start for Vermont, but there’s much more we need to do to make it easy to change behaviors on the home energy use front. How about changing our electrical codes to require an on-off switch at the wall outlet, as they do in New Zealand, to make it easier to avoid the wasted phantom electricity used by our inactive toasters and coffee pots during the day?

Transportation, a major carbon emission source for a rural state, is another arena where it’s not easy to change our ways. When public transportation is a hassle, those who have other options will resort to driving their single-occupancy vehicle instead. I was reminded of this recently when overseas house guests pointed out that the Chittenden County Transportation Authority’s (CCTA) online schedules and route maps include no information on the location of the attractive bus shelter structures, a not inconsequential factor in bitter cold or rainy weather, nor do they mention how to flag down the bus at locations other than the scheduled stops. One-stop regional transportation information — with sidewalks, shelters, bus, car pool and car-share information gathered together — would be a helpful first step to making changes to our transportation behaviors.

Add Some Competition
While over time social norms can move large groups of people away from or toward a certain behavior — think of the seismic shift over the past 25 years in the acceptability of smoking in public — adding some competition can galvanize effort quickly. It’s often easier for people to take the first small steps to change when their attention is focused on an immediate goal. How about town-to-town competitions to reduce our energy consumption? And of course, I look forward to the Vermont legislature or governor challenging another northern state to become the first net zero energy state in the U.S.