Sectoral carbon budgets as an evaluation framework for the built environment

Steininger, K W; Meyer, L; Nabernegg, S and Kirchengast, G (2020) Sectoral carbon budgets as an evaluation framework for the built environment. Buildings & Cities, 1(1), pp. 337-360. ISSN 2632-6655

Abstract

The objective of the United Nations Paris Agreement to limit global warming to well below 2°C, with efforts to reach 1.5°C, requires a strict limitation of future global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions based on a global carbon budget. Applying equity considerations allows for the derivation of national carbon budgets. A key question then arises: How can these national budgets be allocated at the sectoral level? A new method is proposed to allocate carbon budgets at the sectoral level. First, a cost-based approach is used to indicate a necessary carbon budget for each sector. However, the aggregation of these initial sectoral carbon budgets usually exceeds the available national carbon budget. This indicates the relevance of working with sectoral carbon budgets and the required reductions to remain within the overall national carbon budget. This conceptual approach aims at, first, a cost-effective sectoral effort-sharing; second, the design of corresponding strict carbon emission reduction pathways (at both the sector and aggregate levels); and, third, the redesign of investment policies for capital stock improvements to remain within the aggregate carbon budget (involving trade-offs in investment induced emissions for operational emission reduction). Policy relevance Limiting global warming according to the United Nations Paris Agreement requires a strict limitation of future global GHG emissions. A new method is presented to allocate national carbon budgets to the national sectoral level. The carbon budget concept has the potential to provide a transparent and informative tool for the analysis, policy design and monitoring of GHG emission pathways, particularly for the long time horizons involved. The area of activity involving the construction and use of buildings, termed embodied and operational GHGs, requires a particularly large fraction of the national carbon budget. Compared with other sectors, these activities have the highest potential for keeping countries within their national carbon budgets as far as enabling capital stock improvements are concerned that over-proportionally reduce use emissions. The approach can link carbon budgets at the municipal, city and regional levels. It could lend itself to an initially voluntary initiative, later compulsory policy framework for substantial and cost-effective emission reductions.

Item Type: Article
Uncontrolled Keywords: buildings; carbon budgets; climate policy; construction sector; Paris agreement; policy stringency; retrofit; sectoral carbon
Index terms: United Nations, global warming, policy design, aggregate, evaluation, carbon emission, greenhouse gas, redesign, climate policy, construction sector, operational emission, built environment, capital stock, monitoring, Paris
Subjects: Geography, infrastructure and transport systems, industry analysis, policy studies, climate science, control systems, design methods, materials science, climate policy, institutional frameworks, economic analysis, data analysis and analytics
Topics: Sustainability, Governance, Research Practice, Geographical Context, Engineering Principles, Business Strategy, Site Management, Design Practice, Urban Studies
Descriptive scope: 4 PCTA

N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here