Although vehicular emissions are often blamed as the primary culprit for climate change, the bigger contributor towards climate change are buildings, as they make up approximately 40% of the United States’ annual energy expenditure, and release nearly 50% of the country’s total carbon dioxide emissions.

The burning of fossil fuels, production of cement, and expansion of real estate development in once undeveloped areas, all of which are associated with buildings, have significantly contributed to increases in carbon dioxide emissions, which trap solar energy in the atmosphere and lead to the overall increase in heat on Earth.

Architects are responsible for the engineering and design of buildings, and are, by association, considerably responsible for contributing to global warming.

According to the 2019 Global Status Report for Buildings and Construction produced by the United Nations, humanity has less than ten years to curb global warming.

Architects and developers face the decision to either rebuild and/or repurpose buildings so that they produce little or considerably less carbon dioxide, or to continue business as usual and deal with the consequences of their choices.

In an attempt to address the substantial negative impact buildings have on climate change, the nonprofit group Architecture 2030 issued the 2030 Challenge in 2006, an initiative which seeks to make all buildings, renovations, and developments carbon neutral by the year 2030.

According to the American Institute of Architects (“AIA”) website, over 400 architecture firms have joined the 2030 Commitment Program created by the AIA to contribute towards making buildings across the nation carbon neutral by 2030.

However, there are several hurdles that must be overcome to achieve the lofty goals of the 2030 Challenge.

Participation in the program is merely optional, and individual firms must advocate for progress and take the time and effort to report to the AIA on their own.

“There has been a lot more emphasis [in] designing buildings that are much more environmentally friendly in the past few decades, but I believe that there needs to be more of a united front by the architecture community and developers if there is going to be any meaningful change,” explains Tony Jeong, an architecture student at Cornell University.

“I believe that many architecture students aspire to design aesthetically pleasing and avant garde buildings, but for the sake of our future, I think that the priority should be designing buildings that will help save our planet,” Jeong states.

However, the more concerning issues with buildings and climate change are not with new constructions, but with existing ones.

Nearly 82% of the commercial buildings in the United States were constructed prior to when building energy codes were revamped to address climate change problems.

This fact raises the primary obstacle proponents face in making buildings more eco-friendly: cost.

“Architecture and construction tend to be slow and expensive,” Jeong says.

“This means that building owners will likely be very averse to risk and either may not wish to spend any money to modify their buildings or want to implement measures that haven’t been tested.”

Architecture firms have tried to advertise the long-term cost savings benefits from constructing eco-friendly buildings. However, for significant improvements to occur, owners of pre-existing buildings must also buy in to the change as well.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Geonwoo (Connor) Kim
11th grade
Crean Lutheran High school