In a parable written by 19th-century economist Frédéric Bastiat, a shopkeeper’s son smashes a window, causing a crowd to gather. The crowd believes that the broken window is a reason to celebrate as it will create work for the glazier. This concept, known as the broken-window fallacy, highlights the unseen possibilities that could have brought greater happiness to the shopkeeper if the window had not been broken.
Fast forward to present day, where the concern about “embodied carbon” is growing. The production of a pane of glass alone can require temperatures of over 1,000°C, leading to significant carbon emissions. Governments and cities are now implementing directives and strategies to reduce these embodied emissions, such as requiring zero emissions in buildings constructed after 2030 and encouraging more reuse rather than new construction.
However, there are complexities to consider when evaluating the carbon costs of refurbishing versus demolishing buildings. While refurbishing buildings may have higher embodied-carbon costs, the savings in operational-carbon costs could balance it out. This is crucial as buildings currently account for 39% of annual emissions worldwide.
Furthermore, the decision on whether to demolish and densify buildings can have a significant impact on emissions and the environment. Increasing density in urban areas can lower per-person public transport costs, reduce car use, and allow more land to be preserved for nature. Research suggests that a policy of “demolish and densify” could save substantial emissions over the lifespan of a building in countries like Britain.
To effectively address these issues, a carbon pricing system, along with targeted subsidies and efficiency standards, can help incentivize developers to make more environmentally friendly choices. By considering the true climate cost of each approach and rewarding developers who prioritize energy efficiency and lower embodied carbon, the built environment can decarbonize more efficiently.
In conclusion, the decisions made regarding the built environment have far-reaching implications for emissions, energy use, and overall sustainability. It is important to consider the unseen impacts and weigh the costs and benefits of each choice carefully. By utilizing carbon pricing and implementing targeted policies, we can work towards a more environmentally friendly built environment that benefits both the present and future generations.
Source link
