For developers or builders, the operational carbon emissions of people who buy or lease buildings will fall into their downstream range 3 emissions.
Our experience in working with a wide range of engineers and designers on ultra-low energy consumption and carbon projects shows that some key factors are important for achieving the most cost-effective results: design, positioning and shape – efficient design can significantly reduce energy demand and carbon emissions.
However, many organizations have collected data ranging from travel expense reimbursement, water and commuting surveys to procurement records or data on energy consumption by residents.
However, if the space in the building is leased by the organization but its operation is not controlled, the energy consumption and the resulting emissions may be better explained under the scope 3 emissions of the organization.
The most widely used carbon accounting tool is the greenhouse gas agreement, which divides greenhouse gas emissions into three groups or “ranges”, as shown in the figure below.
This debate is not surprising, because in my experience, trying to determine whether the cost of a building meets the zero carbon standard is like trying to nail jelly to the wall.
The benefits of carbon accounting are mandatory or voluntary for any organization, Carbon accounting can provide many beneficial opportunities: understand their own climate impact, promote energy efficiency and reduce cost opportunities, improve the energy efficiency awareness of customers and partners through business travel and commuting to reduce the emissions of their value chain suppliers, promote the demand for low-carbon products or services, develop sustainable competitive advantages in the field of building environment, and the largest climate impact of organizations comes from development, sales Construction and use of leased and operated buildings.
Range 3 emissions are probably the most difficult to measure or monitor, and many organizations are afraid to try to explain their prospects.
Scope 3 emissions (“other indirect emissions”) are generated by activities conducted by the organization through its “enterprise value chain”, but do not have ownership or control over these activities.
For developers or builders of new buildings, “hidden carbon” or carbon emissions generated by new building construction can be included in their organization’s scope 3 emissions.
However, these emissions typically account for the largest share of their climate footprint, including those related to business travel, procurement, waste and water.
For many organizations, the pursuit of net zero carbon buildings may be the result of the enterprise’s sustainable development strategy, so it is very important to understand the position of their building emissions in their climate impact measurement and broader carbon emissions accounting.
Incorporating these Scope 3 emissions into their accounting operating boundaries will help developers and builders identify the broader climate impacts of their businesses and ultimately develop plans and improvement measures for them.
The cost and delivery of net zero carbon buildings Since the concept of zero carbon buildings was first widely recognized in 2007/8, the cost of meeting standards has been a constant topic, sometimes even a heated discussion.
If these buildings or parts of them are under the operational control of the organization, energy consumption and equivalent greenhouse gas emissions generally fall within Scope 1 and Scope 2.
These emissions can be broadly divided into upstream construction emissions and downstream operation and retirement emissions.
However, when targeting absolute energy and carbon standards, efficient forms are a real advantage, reducing the amount of work (and cost) required for fabrics..
Understanding and reporting on these climate impacts will enable organizations to plan how best to reduce emissions and ultimately help ensure that demand for buildings and operations with low carbon emissions continues to increase.
Scope 3 emissions are often underestimated.
These can be monitored using published conversion factors and converted into carbon emissions.
Where do you consider your building or workspace? The buildings operated by the organization can make a great contribution to its climate footprint.
At the same time, the carbon intensity of grid electricity is now less than a quarter of the 2010 level.
This includes emissions of gas, oil, coal or other fuels burned in boilers; Emissions from the company’s own vehicles; Emissions from any incinerator owned and operated by the organization and any air conditioning refrigeration leaks.
As we all know, in order to demonstrate and strive to achieve net zero emissions, organizations need to be able to accurately calculate all their carbon emissions, not just the carbon emissions of buildings and use of buildings.
Scope 1 emissions (“direct emissions”) are emissions released directly from buildings or assets owned and controlled by the organization.
More extensive use of RICS full life cycle carbon assessment to measure the full life cycle carbon emissions of upstream construction impacts and downstream operational carbon emissions will enable organizations involved in the building environment sector to explain these impacts.
The “operation boundary” of an organization, that is, the declaration boundary of its carbon audit, can include or exclude the selected scope 3 emissions.
In addition, the inherent variability of costs between different types of projects, locations, designs, or customers and the challenge of establishing a clear evidence base for costs became clear.
Setting the operational boundary of carbon accounting According to the greenhouse gas agreement, the reporting of scope 1 and scope 2 emissions is mandatory, but the reporting of scope 3 emissions is voluntary.
For example, in the past decade, the cost of photovoltaic has dropped by more than 80%, while the lighting efficiency has doubled.
When reporting annual performance, the operational boundaries need to be clearly defined.
These benefits are not recognized in the Part L evaluation method, which evaluates performance against conceptual buildings of the same design.
Not only does the definition of zero carbon change frequently, but also the cost, performance and carbon impact of key technologies have changed dramatically.
Scope 2 (“indirect energy”) emissions relate to heat, steam and electricity purchased by the organization for use in buildings or assets owned and controlled by the organization.
