Last week, a 1,656 page report was published that included collaboration from 13 federal agencies on the future of the US economy and the impacts that climate change will have. The report was a warning for the consequences of climate change and predicts that if significant steps are not taken to inhibit climate change, there will be dire consequences. The report estimated that 10% GDP of the American economy will be diminished by the end of 2100, more than double the losses of the Great Recession.
A NY Times Article noted that the previous National Climate Assessment report, issued in May of 2014, concluded with scientific certainty that climate change is already causing damage across the country. However the 2018 report put tangible numbers and data to the conclusions of the previous report and furthered the call to action, citing water scarcity in dry regions, torrential downpours in wet regions, and more severe heat waves and wildfires. The breakdown of these economic impacts are startling:
$141 billion from heat related deaths
$118 billion from sea level rise
$32 billion from infrastructure damage
So with these costs and impacts laid out, how could it be that the US Government is at odds with the report, amidst the deregulation of the environment, pulling the US out the Paris Agreement, a reemphasizing fossil fuels from coal, petroleum, and natural gas? In an issue that will affect every square inch of the US, what are the solutions for moving forward? The inter-government agency report provided three main solutions:
Putting a price on greenhouse gas emissions
Establish government regulations on how much greenhouse gas pollution can be emitted
Spend public money on clean energy research.
These three solutions are important, yet broad and far reaching, coming from the top down. They are aimed at curbing the emissions of some of the largest US polluters and holding them accountable, while focusing on a transition to clean energy, which is great. It's clear that regulation must come from the top down and must work to curb emissions of those who are largely responsible, but these solutions can be broken down into more comprehensive directives that are actionable for not just huge industry and polluters.
Climate change is a complex issue and a top down approach is absolutely necessary, albeit troubling that the Executive branch is denying it being an issue. What this report does however, in addition to listing solutions for a top down approach, is elevate the collective understanding in our society at the importance of the issue. To deny climate science is becoming an increasingly more difficult position to take, and this elevated collective consciousness may inspire individuals to look at their own habits and their possible impacts. If the government is unwilling to enact important measures, doesn't it still maintain that we are morally culpable for our decisions and actions? In an article titled, "This is how your personal consumption affects the climate," the author interviews Diana Ivanova, a PhD candidate at Norwegian University of Science and Technology’s Industrial Ecology Programme.
Ivanova states:
“We all like to put the blame on someone else, the government, or businesses,” Ivanova says. “But between 60-80 per cent of the impacts on the planet come from household consumption. If we change our consumption habits, this would have a drastic effect on our environmental footprint as well.”
As consumers, as well as inhabitants of the built environment, we consume energy and water without much of a second thought. It can be easy to overlook our own personal responsibility and shift blame elsewhere, but it's important to understand how our energy consumption and built environment has an impact on our domestic carbon footprint. Many are surprised to find out that the built environment is responsible for more of a carbon footprint than transportation and manufacturing industries here in the US.
A US Green Building Council Report cites:
"Over the next 25 years, CO2 emissions from buildings are projected to grow faster than any other sector, with emissions from commercial buildings projected to grow the fastest—1.8% a year through 2030"
The data shows the impact clearly.
The built environment poses a problem, but it can readily be turned into a solution by correcting its course over the foreseeable future. New technology is emerging to make buildings more energy efficient, more operable, and there are a number of incentives out there to make the switch to more sustainable building practices. Further, renewable energy and onsite energy generation for buildings can reduce their impact. There is also a growing radical notion that buildings themselves can be used to take carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. This is a notion that our company firmly believes in, since our material process itself can sequester carbon dioxide. Our last project alone absorbed an estimated 15,000 pounds of CO2.
The comprehensive solution to climate change must address a radical reconsideration of how we design, build, and live, coupled with the top down approach of regulating emissions and expanding research and innovation for renewable energy generation. What will the point be of spending billions on renewable energy generation if it is being used primarily by the incredibly inefficient built environment? The two must be furthered in tandem.
While the traditionally conservative building trades are often reluctant to embrace new technology, materials, and techniques, it may be the case that we are on the edge of radical progression. The building industry as a whole has a problem: vacant job positions in a booming industry.
An article titled "Where are all the builders," published in US News states:
"The labor shortage is so acute that 91 percent of more than 2,700 contractors, construction managers, builders and trade contractors surveyed in the latest Commercial Construction Index reported having a difficult or moderately difficult time finding skilled workers."
"Among the contractors expressing concern about worker skill levels, more than one-third (37 percent) believe the problem has worsened in the last six months, and almost half (47 percent) believe it will continue to worsen in the next six months," according to the report.
The shortage doesn't end just with the labor force, but also the intellectual thought leadership of this hierarchical industry is disappearing in droves. As the baby boomers are set to retire, who will fill the void? The answer is it will come from a generation that will be more affected by climate change than any other generational group prior. This generational vacuum may not intentionally pull in sustainability champions at first, but it ultimately will as the awareness of the climate change peaks. Perhaps this report and the awareness it is generating will inspire new leadership, leadership that won't deny the importance of the environment over unbridled capitalism in favor of unfettered environmental regulation.
It's not all doom and gloom. By looking at some of the biggest problems, we can look at ways to turn them into new solutions. This in its own right will foster innovation, a growing green economy, and expand the realm of what's possible to achieve better balance on our planet.
A separate article published in the NY Times cites 5 different ways for adapting to the seemingly inevitable changing climate. Two favorites from their list are:
Build for the future, not for the past.
Enlist Nature to help.
These two points are so important and drive home the message. If we build like we're thinking about the future, and not just the bottom line for a project, we'll get greater returns in energy savings and increased resilience for our own habitats as well as our ever changing planet. Last, let's not forget nature and enlist natures help to reconsider what's possible. Utilizing carbon dioxide sequestering materials in our built environment can help realize that vision of buildings consuming less of the carbon footprint piechart and to begin accounting for carbon dioxide footprint reduction.
Comentarios