Energy End-Use: Buildings. In: Johansson TB, Nakicenovic N, Patwardhan A, Gomez-Echeverri L, editors. Global Energy Assessment - Toward a Sustainable Future. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2012. p. 649-760.
Residential and commercial buildings. In: Climate Change 2007: Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press; 2007. p. 53-8.
Mitigating CO2 emissions from energy use in the world's buildings.. 2007;35(4):379-98. Abstract
Mitigating CO2 emissions from energy use in the world's buildings.
An overview of climate change mitigation opportunities in the world's buildings is presented, based on the key building-specific findings of the Fourth Assessment Report from the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change. Buildings and the building stock can play a major role in mitigating climate change in the short- to medium-term, since substantial reductions in CO2 emissions from their energy use can be achieved over the coming years. A significant portion of these savings can be achieved in ways that reduce life cycle costs, thus providing reductions in CO2 emissions that have a net negative cost. There are indications that the building stock has the highest share of negative- and low-cost greenhouse gas reduction potential among all sectors. Based on 80 collected national or regional studies estimating CO2 mitigation potential in five continents, the global potential for CO2 reductions through buildings is analysed and estimated. The co-benefits associated with the implementation of these measures are also substantial, helping policy-makers justify actions even in the absence of a strong climate commitment. Since the barriers to unlocking the high potentials in the residential and commercial sectors are especially strong, no single instrument can make a large impact. Instead, portfolios of targeted policies tailored to local conditions, combined with strong compliance and enforcement regimes, are needed.
An appraisal of policy instruments for reducing buildings’ CO2 emissions.. 2007;35(4):458-77. Abstract
An appraisal of policy instruments for reducing buildings’ CO2 emissions
The building sector currently contributes approximately one-third of energy-related CO2 emissions worldwide. It is economically possible to achieve a 30% reduction. However, numerous barriers such as financial and behavioural issues, market failures, and misplaced incentives prevent the realization of the high economic potentials. Which policy instruments are the most appropriate and cost-effective for reducing these barriers? To address this question, 20 policy instruments were assessed for their effectiveness in reducing emissions, cost-effectiveness, applicability and special conditions for success. The appraisal is based on over 60 ex-post policy evaluation reports from about 30 countries and country groups, representing best-practice examples of the application of these instruments. Appliance standards, building codes, tax exemptions and voluntary labelling were found to be the most effective policy instruments contrary to others such as Kyoto Protocol flexible mechanisms or energy/carbon taxation. The most cost-effective instruments, all achieving energy savings at negative costs for society, were appliance standards, demand-side management programmes and mandatory labelling. Since all policy instruments have limitations and only help overcome some barriers, they are most effective if combined into policy packages designed for the respective location, economy and culture
Mitigating CO2 emissions from energy use in the world's buildings. Building Research and Information. 2007;35(4):379-98. Abstract
Mitigating CO2 emissions from energy use in the world's buildings
An overview of climate change mitigation opportunities in the world's buildings is presented, based on the key building-specific findings of the Fourth Assessment Report from the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change. Buildings and the building stock can play a major role in mitigating climate change in the short- to medium-term, since substantial reductions in CO2 emissions from their energy use can be achieved over the coming years. A significant portion of these savings can be achieved in ways that reduce life cycle costs, thus providing reductions in CO2 emissions that have a net negative cost. There are indications that the building stock has the highest share of negative- and low-cost greenhouse gas reduction potential among all sectors. Based on 80 collected national or regional studies estimating CO2 mitigation potential in five continents, the global potential for CO2 reductions through buildings is analysed and estimated. The co-benefits associated with the implementation of these measures are also substantial, helping policy-makers justify actions even in the absence of a strong climate commitment. Since the barriers to unlocking the high potentials in the residential and commercial sectors are especially strong, no single instrument can make a large impact. Instead, portfolios of targeted policies tailored to local conditions, combined with strong compliance and enforcement regimes, are needed.
Appraisal of policy instruments for reducing buildings' CO2 emissions. Building Research and Information. 2007;35(4):458-77. Abstract
Appraisal of policy instruments for reducing buildings' CO2 emissions
The building sector currently contributes approximately one-third of energy-related CO2 emissions worldwide. It is economically possible to achieve a 30% reduction. However, numerous barriers such as financial and behavioural issues, market failures, and misplaced incentives prevent the realization of the high economic potentials. Which policy instruments are the most appropriate and cost-effective for reducing these barriers? To address this question, 20 policy instruments were assessed for their effectiveness in reducing emissions, cost-effectiveness, applicability and special conditions for success. The appraisal is based on over 60 ex-post policy evaluation reports from about 30 countries and country groups, representing best-practice examples of the application of these instruments. Appliance standards, building codes, tax exemptions and voluntary labelling were found to be the most effective policy instruments contrary to others such as Kyoto Protocol flexible mechanisms or energy/carbon taxation. The most cost-effective instruments, all achieving energy savings at negative costs for society, were appliance standards, demand-side management programmes and mandatory labelling. Since all policy instruments have limitations and only help overcome some barriers, they are most effective if combined into policy packages designed for the respective location, economy and culture.
Is there a silver bullet? A comparative assessment of twenty policy instruments applied worldwide for enhancing energy efficiency in buildings
While the commercial and domestic building sectors account for 33 % of all energy-related CO2 emissions worldwide, approximately 30 % of this energy consumption can be saved economically. However, numerous barriers such as hidden costs and benefits, distorted energy pricing, imperfect information, market failures and misplaced incentives prevent the realization of these energy saving potentials. For this reason, countries apply a variety of policy instruments such as building codes, energy efficiency obligations, subsidies and information campaigns. Since these instruments differ considerably in terms of their effects and costs, a research project conducted under the framework of the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has reviewed more than 60 ex-post policy evaluation reports for the 20 most commonly used policy instruments from app. 30 countries worldwide. The paper presents the results of this exercise regarding the environmental effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of these instruments, as well as identifies special conditions for their success.While most policy instruments achieved significant energy savings, appliance standards, building codes, tax exemptions and labelling were revealed as most effective policy instruments. Other instruments such as Kyoto Protocol flexible mechanisms or taxation have been less successful in the building sector. Several policy instruments achieved energy savings at negative costs for society; most cost-effective in our sample were appliance standards, demand-side management programs and mandatory labelling. Since no single policy instrument can capture the entire potential for energy-efficiency, buildings require a diverse portfolio of policy instruments for effective energy use reductions and for taking advantage of synergistic effects.