“She highlighted that the IPCC told us in 2018 that we have 12 years to avoid a catastrophe, and we see growing evidence all around the world that it is happening – with floods, droughts, fires and melting ice caps."
Except that (a) the 12 year deadline was a lie (b) the 1.5°C threshold is arbitrary (c) the Paris Accord commitments are nebulous, undefined, and irrelevant, (d) floods, droughts, fires, and melting ice caps have always been—and always will be—part of the natural climatological process, and finally (e) throwing "mo' money, mo' money, mo' money" at a problem doesn't necessarily solve it.
I will guarantee that in 2030 we're using more energy and more fossil fuel energy than we are today in 2023.
I will also guarantee that the only climate "crisis" is one manufactured by dishonest, disingenuous fearmongering prostitutes at NOAA and NASA because that graph above that shows a "near-linear relationship between cumulative CO2 emissions and the increase in global surface temperatures" is an outright lie, produced by cooling the past instrumental record in a singular direction and which violates statistical probability law. We don't have good instrumental or palaeogeological records for the 2/3rds of the planetary surface covered by the world's oceans, either—nor do we have good records for vast swaths of Africa, South America, Siberia, the Middle East, and many parts of Asia.
In other words, any "data" that supposedly demonstrates a near-linear relationship to cumulative CO2 is nonexistent and fabricated from thin air via fake inputs and double-homogenization algorithms.
Retrofits have a significant problem with cost, both to improve the building envelope and to reduce operating costs. If the environmental impact of a retrofit is better than a demolition and rebuild, but the cost of doing so to the owner is too high, then what? Should we subsidize renovation? How do we find the sweet spot between a very costly deep energy retrofit and a less thorough one that reduces future carbon emissions by less?
Thirty years ago, we bought a 4000 square foot, 200+ year old house. Over the years, we spent a lot of money maintaining it, while only marginally improving its energy efficiency. It was too big and costing us $6-7000 per year in fossil fuels to heat. In 2015, before we understood the problem of upfront carbon, we sold the house and built a new, 1650 square foot, very energy efficient house. Knowing what we now know, what would have been the better course, a pretty deep retrofit to save future carbon and annual cost, or building new?
Source check - I believe you need to credit the graph to a different publication, not World Green Building Council. I see a lot of circular references on this graph and it looks like it goes back to:
Opportunities to reduce embodied carbon reduces as the project progresses (Decarbonizing construction, 2021, World Business Council for Sustainable Development)
If the upfront carbon problem is as urgent as you say, then historical preservationists need to get with the game and stop opposing exterior insulation. It is the best way to lower both operational carbon emissions and preserve the structure of the building, which delays upfront carbon emissions further into the future. If it's worth sacrificing comfort and money to avoid emissions then aesthetics are also worth sacrificing.
Great presentation on Saturday. It is inspiring me to ask my municipality for council to go back to approving demolitions -- and a chance to delegate and share some of this information about why they should not automatically approve all demolition applications.
Projects that are unacceptable today due to upfront carbin will move towards acceptability in the future as improvements in green technology and architecture reduce the upfront carbon of the projects.
Very clear and well crafted, Lloyd, as always! One thing I've been grappling with in the past couple years is the huge amount of *new* upfront carbon that cycles through during operations. Especially all those commercial fit-outs (changing out carpet every two years, ugh). And major mechanical system components also get replaced a few times during the 50-year life cycle. There's precious little data so far on the baselines here, but the "upfront" carbon of many building typologies is not anything like a straight line over 50 long years. So ... even more important to reduce and reuse.
“She highlighted that the IPCC told us in 2018 that we have 12 years to avoid a catastrophe, and we see growing evidence all around the world that it is happening – with floods, droughts, fires and melting ice caps."
Except that (a) the 12 year deadline was a lie (b) the 1.5°C threshold is arbitrary (c) the Paris Accord commitments are nebulous, undefined, and irrelevant, (d) floods, droughts, fires, and melting ice caps have always been—and always will be—part of the natural climatological process, and finally (e) throwing "mo' money, mo' money, mo' money" at a problem doesn't necessarily solve it.
I will guarantee that in 2030 we're using more energy and more fossil fuel energy than we are today in 2023.
I will also guarantee that the only climate "crisis" is one manufactured by dishonest, disingenuous fearmongering prostitutes at NOAA and NASA because that graph above that shows a "near-linear relationship between cumulative CO2 emissions and the increase in global surface temperatures" is an outright lie, produced by cooling the past instrumental record in a singular direction and which violates statistical probability law. We don't have good instrumental or palaeogeological records for the 2/3rds of the planetary surface covered by the world's oceans, either—nor do we have good records for vast swaths of Africa, South America, Siberia, the Middle East, and many parts of Asia.
In other words, any "data" that supposedly demonstrates a near-linear relationship to cumulative CO2 is nonexistent and fabricated from thin air via fake inputs and double-homogenization algorithms.
Retrofits have a significant problem with cost, both to improve the building envelope and to reduce operating costs. If the environmental impact of a retrofit is better than a demolition and rebuild, but the cost of doing so to the owner is too high, then what? Should we subsidize renovation? How do we find the sweet spot between a very costly deep energy retrofit and a less thorough one that reduces future carbon emissions by less?
Thirty years ago, we bought a 4000 square foot, 200+ year old house. Over the years, we spent a lot of money maintaining it, while only marginally improving its energy efficiency. It was too big and costing us $6-7000 per year in fossil fuels to heat. In 2015, before we understood the problem of upfront carbon, we sold the house and built a new, 1650 square foot, very energy efficient house. Knowing what we now know, what would have been the better course, a pretty deep retrofit to save future carbon and annual cost, or building new?
Source check - I believe you need to credit the graph to a different publication, not World Green Building Council. I see a lot of circular references on this graph and it looks like it goes back to:
Opportunities to reduce embodied carbon reduces as the project progresses (Decarbonizing construction, 2021, World Business Council for Sustainable Development)
If the upfront carbon problem is as urgent as you say, then historical preservationists need to get with the game and stop opposing exterior insulation. It is the best way to lower both operational carbon emissions and preserve the structure of the building, which delays upfront carbon emissions further into the future. If it's worth sacrificing comfort and money to avoid emissions then aesthetics are also worth sacrificing.
Great presentation on Saturday. It is inspiring me to ask my municipality for council to go back to approving demolitions -- and a chance to delegate and share some of this information about why they should not automatically approve all demolition applications.
Projects that are unacceptable today due to upfront carbin will move towards acceptability in the future as improvements in green technology and architecture reduce the upfront carbon of the projects.
Very clear and well crafted, Lloyd, as always! One thing I've been grappling with in the past couple years is the huge amount of *new* upfront carbon that cycles through during operations. Especially all those commercial fit-outs (changing out carpet every two years, ugh). And major mechanical system components also get replaced a few times during the 50-year life cycle. There's precious little data so far on the baselines here, but the "upfront" carbon of many building typologies is not anything like a straight line over 50 long years. So ... even more important to reduce and reuse.