40% Global Energy Use: Impact of Building, Construction Industry - Essay Sample

Introduction

Ecological imbalance and climate change lead to a more susceptible position of our planet to various adverse environmental impacts. People are now more concerned about the Earth's capacity in dealing with adverse effects caused by global warming, natural resources exploitation, greenhouse gas emission, waste production, energy use, pollution, and land use. Conferring to United Nation Environment Programme, the construction and building industry is liable for forty percent of global energy use, 12% of water use, 30% of greenhouse gas emission, and around 40% waste (Dwaikat and Ali, 2016, p. 398). Additionally, the construction sector is also a primary area contributing to about 4-15% of the GDP of a nation, regardless of developed or developing countries (Chan, Darko, and Ameyaw 2017, p. 969).

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

Consequently, such substantial contribution of the construction sector is calling for more efforts in making the built environment more friendly and sustainable, thus implying that the existing global cities or in future/ new/ emerging cities will likely accelerate and promote the investment of the green building (Matisoff, Noonan, and Flowers 2016, p. 336). Moreover, considering the significant social, environmental, and economic impacts linked with the building and development industry, the construction sector in cities has considerable potential in delivering significant cuts of environment effects if the proper measures are introduced (Chan, Darko, and Ameyaw 2017, p. 969).

Developing affordable and eco-friendly homes in both developed and developing countries is part of a much larger effort to ensure that as the cities across the globe expand, they are built sustainably. At the current pace of urbanization and growth of the global urban population in cities, it is projected that over 400 million homes will be by the year 2020-most of them in developing economies (Olubunmi, Xia, and Skitmore 2016, p. 1618). Most scientists agree that Green Buildings are necessary to protect the environment in the cities from further harm (Olubunmi, Xia, and Skitmore 2016, p. 1613). The construction industry is associated with consumption of large quantity of resources and energy and creates significant pollution. For example, according to the Environment Protection Agency, in the US, development, and building sectors are liable for 39% of the nation's overall use of energy, 68 percent of the total use of electricity, 38% of emissions of carbon dioxide, and 12 percent of water use.

In fact, in the future, the owners of standard buildings are likely to face obsolescence (Matisoff, Noonan,and Flowers 2016, p. 334). Thus, to protect their investments, standard building owners' are reviewing their portfolios to evaluate how green their existing buildings are and what is required to meet growing market demand.

Benefits of the Green Buildings

All over the world, it is evident that GB is associated with various benefits. For example, GBs offer some of the most effective means to attaining several global goals, such as creating thriving and sustainable communities, addressing climate change, as well as driving economic growth (Allen et al. 2015, p. 255). The benefits of the GBs can be classified into three, including the social, economic, and environmental merits. As many knows, Green buildings are more environmentally friendly than standard buildings. Construction of green builds saves natural resources via use of the alternative building materials, minimizes onsite grading, and recycles development of waste instead of sending after truck to landfills (Darko, Zhang, and Chan 2017, p. 37).

Economically, as the green building becomes more popular in the construction and development industry, the financial benefits for homeowners and developers are becoming more explicit. Hundreds of the United States, and international surveys have depicted the economic benefits of going green (Allen et al. 2015, p. 254). The merits include job creation, high operating costs owners of the buildings, and higher property value for building developers (Chan, Darko, and Ameyaw 2017, p. 969). For example, well-designed green buildings are likely to have lower costs of the utility. In the first operation year, Genzyme Center in Cambridge, Massachusetts utilized 42 percent and 34 percent less energy and water respectively compared to standard buildings of the same size (Allen et al. 2015, p. 251).

Socially, green design is associated with high worker productivity, and use of green material increases health benefits. Green buildings can boost the productivity of employee by around 15% since they utilize alternative building materials which do not release toxins, such as formaldehyde, that is mostly used in standard building materials (Darko, Zhang, and Chan 2017, p. 43). At Genzyme Center, around 58 percent of the 920 workers stated that their productivity has increased than in the Genzyme's former building (Chan, Darko, and Ameyaw 2017, p. 969). The sick time of the employee in the headquarters is five percent lower than for all of other Massachusetts facilities combined (Olubunmi, Xia, and Skitmore 2016, p. 1618). Furthermore, the criteria of the greed buildings, including outdoor views, individual climate control, and abundant daylighting raise employee's morale and satisfaction, which also promotes productivity (Koebel et al. 2015, p.182).

The other reason why the existing or new cities in developing and developed countries will implement green building is due to environmental merits. Some of these environmental benefits include waste reduction, ecosystem protection, natural resources conservation, as well as improvement of water and air quality (Balaban and de Oliveira 2017, p.163). At a global level, the building and development industry has enormous potential for substantially minimizing the emissions of greenhouse gas compared to other main emitting sectors (Dwaikat and Ali, 2016, p. 400). Through direct measures in buildings such as renewable energy use, fuel switching, and energy efficiency, it is reported that by 2050, green building is likely to cut emissions to 84 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide (Allen et al. 2015, p. 257). Also, by 2050, the building industry is approximated to make energy savings of fifty percent or more, in support of minimizing the global rise of temperature to two degrees Celsius (Koebel et al. 2015, p.179).

Challenges of the Green Buildings

Regardless of a significant upgrading existing buildings and growth of green buildings with green technologies, there is no widespread green buildings' implementation in developing and developed countries due to challenges such as confusion, cost, and low coordination among key agencies, policy, and institutional problems (Darko, Zhang, and Chan 2017, p. 41). Unlike other sectors, the design and technology techniques for green buildings are both available and cost competitive: carbon-negative materials, energy-efficient storage, and equipment, passive design principles, as well as a combination of offsite and onsite clean energy production (Chan, Darko, and Ameyaw 2017, p. 969).

References

Allen, J.G., MacNaughton, P., Laurent, J.G.C., Flanigan, S.S., Eitland, E.S. and Spengler, J.D., 2015. Green buildings and health. Current Environmental Health Reports, 2(3), pp.250-258.

Balaban, O. and de Oliveira, J.A.P., 2017. Sustainable buildings for healthier cities: assessing the co-benefits of green buildings in Japan. Journal of cleaner production, 163, pp.S68-S78.

Chan, A.P.C., Darko, A. and Ameyaw, E.E., 2017. Strategies for promoting green building technologies adoption in the construction industry-An international study. Sustainability, 9(6), p.969.

Darko, A., Chan, A.P.C., Ameyaw, E.E., He, B.J. and Olanipekun, A.O., 2017. Examining issues influencing green building technologies adoption: The United States green building experts' perspectives. Energy and Buildings, 144, pp.320-332.

Darko, A., Zhang, C. and Chan, A.P., 2017. Drivers for green building: A review of empirical studies. Habitat international, 60, pp.34-49.

Dwaikat, L.N. and Ali, K.N., 2016. Green buildings cost premium: A review of empirical evidence. Energy and Buildings, 110, pp.396-403.

Koebel, C.T., McCoy, A.P., Sanderford, A.R., Franck, C.T. and Keefe, M.J., 2015. Diffusion of green building technologies in new housing construction. Energy and Buildings, 97, pp.175-185.

Matisoff, D.C., Noonan, D.S. and Flowers, M.E., 2016. Policy monitor-Green buildings: economics and policies. Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, 10(2), pp.329-346.

Olubunmi, O.A., Xia, P.B. and Skitmore, M., 2016. Green building incentives: A review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 59, pp.1611-1621.