“World’s Greenest Office Building” Makes Net-Zero Look Easy

by Samantha Thomas, Yes! magazine:
http://www.yesmagazine.org/planet/world-s-greenest-office-building-makes-net-zero-look-easy

It’s a commercial office space equipped with composting toilets, rainwater showers, and a stairway designed to be so beautiful that no one ever takes the elevator.

Bullitt Center, Seattle (Ben Benschneider)

Peering down Seattle’s Capitol Hill, the Bullitt Center appears to be just another high-end commercial building - until you look up and notice the roof, which is overlaid with shiny silver photovoltaic panels that extend far beyond the building’s exterior walls.

Even in the cloudiest of cities, the panels generate all the electricity the six-story structure requires.

The building is a project of the Bullitt Foundation, which calls it “the greenest commercial building in the world.”

The foundation, which was founded in 1952, has focused since the 1990s on helping to create cities that function more like ecosystems.

Its new building provides office space for eco-conscious tenants, but also functions as a learning center that demonstrates how people and businesses can exist in harmony with nature.

The Bullitt Center was built according to a demanding green building certification program called the Living Building Challenge, which lists net zero use of energy and water among its many requirements.

The standards specified by Living Buildings far surpass those of the better-known Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design, or LEED, program, which even at its highest level still produces buildings that harm the environment.

Jason McLennan, the founder of the program, says the goal of the Living Building Challenge is to create a structure that is in harmony with nature. “Even when buildings are promoted as 10 to 30 percent greener than the traditional code, the building is still extremely harmful to the environment.” 

A tour of the world’s greenest office building

It turns out that making a building beautiful can help to make it green.

In an effort to encourage people to take the stairs instead of the elevator, the architects of the Bullitt Center created an “irresistible stairway” encased by floor-to-ceiling glass walls that allow for an abundance of light and offer captivating views of Puget Sound and the Olympic mountains.

Office spaces are airy and bright, so the center requires no artificial illumination even on the dreariest Seattle days. And since most of the walls are made of glass, employees can see straight through one side of the building to the other, creating a feeling of community and openness.

What do tenants think of the space? “Everybody seems to be wildly enthusiastic,” says Bullitt Foundation president and CEO, Denis Hayes.

“Psychological studies show that people perform better when they have the diorama going by outside - they are happier, healthier, take less sick leave, and are more productive.”

With no on-site parking for cars, tenants are encouraged to ride bikes to work and park them in a space the size of a three-car garage. And for those who arrive sweaty from the bike ride in, rainwater-fed showers are available on every floor.

While some developers may argue that it is too expensive to build this way, the Bullitt Center’s initial costs were only one-fifth above average for an office building of its class.

And that’s not mentioning savings from energy and water bills, which will amount to zero when measured across 12 months.

The sewage bill is also zero because the building requires no hookup to the city’s sewer system. Composting toilets produce biologically pure waste, which is mixed with King County’s compost facility to produce agricultural grade compost.

The Bullitt Foundation hopes others will replicate their building. Bankers, developers, appraisers, insurance companies and government officials are invited to visit the center to learn more about building and investing in sustainable buildings.

McLennan concludes by suggesting that the Bullitt Center demonstrates the viability of taking a stronger approach to sustainability. “Washington is the least sunny state in the United States, and this building is still able to obtain 100 percent solar,” he says.

He hopes that the Bullitt Center’s example will help to encourage others to build more enjoyable, sustainable, and affordable buildings around the world.

Samantha Thomas wrote this article for YES! Magazine, a national, nonprofit media organization that fuses powerful ideas with practical actions.

Samantha is Project Consultant for DreamChange, a nonprofit organization dedicated to creating a better world for future generations, by building cultural bridges between people, societies and corporations.

She is also a freelance writer, green business consultant, and eco-fashion model based in New York City.

Interested?

• Living Buildings, Living Economies, and a Living Future
  David Korten: Two ideas that bring me renewed hope that we can end our isolation from nature and from each other.
• The World’s First Living Buildings
  Once deemed too ambitious, the next generation of green building is now a reality.
• Big City Farmers Take to the Rooftops
  Space is expensive in Brooklyn, so Gotham Greens built their urban farm on a rooftop.

Subsidies for Unburnable Carbon Need to Go Up in Smoke

by Chris Riedy, University of Technology, Sydney

IEA prediction of future oil (Wikipedia)

More than half of global greenhouse gas emissions come from burning fossil fuels.

Reducing and eventually eliminating fossil fuel use is a critical priority.

Most of the world’s remaining fossil fuel reserves need to stay in the ground if we are to avoid dangerous climate change.

Yet governments around the world still pour billions of dollars into supporting fossil fuel production and use every year. Money utilised to prop up the fossil fuel industry dwarfs investment in renewable energy. This is a backwards policy that needs to change.

A growing chorus is calling for the removal of fossil fuel subsidies.

As well as environmental organisations, such as Paid to Pollute, and the International Institute for Sustainable Development, those calling for action include major international organisations like the G20, Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and International Energy Agency (IEA), International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank.

The latest estimate of global fossil fuel subsidies comes from the IMF. In a report earlier this year, the IMF valued global fossil fuel subsidies at a staggering $1.9 trillion, or 2.5% of global GDP.

The IMF estimate is a lot higher than previous estimates from the Earth Policy Institute ($620 billion) and IEA ($512 billion). This is because the IMF includes lost revenue from failure to apply efficient taxes to fossil fuels.

In Australia, a comprehensive 2007 study identified fossil fuel subsidies of between nine and ten billion dollars. More recent work by the Australian Conservation Foundation estimated that fossil fuel incentives amounted to $11 billion in 2010-11.

There are several reasons why fossil fuel subsidies are a concern.

First, fossil fuel subsidies contribute to climate change and air pollution. They reduce the prices of fossil fuels, encouraging people and organisations to use more. This, in turn, leads to more pollutants, including greenhouse gases that warm the atmosphere.

The IMF estimates that eliminating fossil fuel subsidies would reduce global carbon dioxide emissions by 4.5 billion tonnes, or 13%. The IMF also highlights the health benefits of reduced air pollution.

Second, fossil fuel subsidies create an uneven playing field for competing technologies like renewable energy. The Earth Policy Institute found that global fossil fuel subsidies were more than seven times higher than renewable energy subsidies.

In Australia, the disparity is even higher. Fossil fuel infrastructure has benefited from government investment and support over decades, putting renewable energy at a distinct disadvantage.

Third, fossil fuel subsidies can have negative economic consequences. They can depress investment in the energy sector, crowd out spending on public goods, diminish competitiveness, provide incentives for smuggling and make it harder to manage volatile international energy prices.

Finally, energy subsidies are regressive because they tend to benefit high energy users, with higher incomes. According to the IMF:

On average, the richest 20 percent of households in low- and middle-income countries capture six times more in total fuel product subsidies (43%) than the poorest 20% of households.

In other words, fossil fuel subsidies act to entrench poverty and reduce social equity.

Despite the number of heavyweight international organisations calling for reform, progress has been slow. Global fossil fuel subsidies have increased since the G20 first committed to their removal in 2009.

In Australia, there has been some limited progress. The rules relating to fringe benefits tax for company cars were changed in 2011, reducing that subsidy from $1.24 billion in 2011-12 to $930 million in 2012-13.

Support for renewable energy through the Clean Energy Finance Corporation and other measures has also increased in recent years, relative to fossil fuels.

However, many fossil fuel subsidies and incentives still remain. In 2001, John Howard stopped annual indexation of fuel excise. The foregone budget revenue from this decision now amounts to something like $5 billion per year in lost tax on fuel.

The Fuel Tax Credits Scheme, which provides exemptions on fuel excise, cost another $5.1 billion in 2010-11. Removing these subsidies and incentives would increase the price of fossil fuels and free up budget to support renewable energy alternatives.

Just imagine what the Clean Energy Finance Corporation could achieve with another $10 billion per year to invest in renewable energy.

Of course, politicians are likely to run a mile from any policy that would increase petrol prices, so the prospects for removing these Australian subsidies in the short-term are slim. That’s a shame, because subsidy removal could be a lucrative source of funds in an era when government budgets are tight.

Reducing support for highly profitable coal, oil and gas companies and redirecting those funds towards public goods such as renewable energy and education makes excellent sense.

The United States is already heading in this direction. The White House’s budget for 2014 recovers $44 billion by eliminating tax breaks and deductions for fossil fuel companies.

Although removal of fossil fuel subsidies clearly makes sense, it does require a cautious and well-designed approach to ensure that consumers are not hit with rapid price rises.

This is particularly important with respect to petrol prices, as many of the people that are most dependent on their cars to get around have few viable transport alternatives.

Nevertheless, a compelling case remains for removal of fossil fuel subsidies around the world to reduce environmental, economic and social impacts. Reversing the backward policy of subsidising unburnable carbon should be a key plank in international and domestic climate change policy.

Chris Riedy has previously received research funding from the Australian Conservation Foundation and Greenpeace Australia-Pacific to investigate fossil fuel subsidies in Australia. He is the President of the Climate Action Network Australia.


This article was originally published at The Conversation. Read the original article.