LEED From Behind: Why We Should Focus on Greening Existing Buildings

Phil Ashley
Phil Ashley

In an era of LEED-certified construction and growing concern for sustainability, it comes as a surprise that constructing new, energy-efficient buildings can be less eco-friendly than renovating old ones. A study by the Preservation Green Lab of the National Trust for Historic Preservation shows building reuse almost always has fewer environmental impacts than new construction—which means we’d be smart to spend at least as much time renovating existing buildings as we do lionizing fancy new green construction.

MORE: Thoughts on Fukushima and Hiroshima

Why? In general, the operating requirements of existing buildings in the U.S. make up about 39 percent of total energy consumed nationwide, making it a major target for efficiency. At the same time, the National Trust study found it can take from 10 to 80 years for a new energy-efficient building to overcome the negative climate change impacts made during its construction, so even a LEED Platinum building incurs a carbon debt during construction that it can take years to pay off.

Researchers looked at buildings across Portland, Phoenix, Chicago and Atlanta over a 75-year period. Using life cycle analysis, they analyzed the buildings within four environmental impact categories: climate change, human health, ecosystem quality and resource depletion. Renovated building savings are between 4 to 46 percent over newly constructed buildings of equal energy performance levels. (The exception is a reconstruction from a warehouse to multi-family unit.) In this case, there is more environmental impact due to types of materials used. Overall, materials used make a difference for the environment. According to the study, “the benefits of reuse can be reduced or negated based on the type and quantity of materials selected.” In other words, green construction is only as green as the materials used.

Elizabeth Hider, Senior Vice President of Green Markets for Skanska, an international construction firm and partner in the study, cited additional economic benefits in a press conference:

Revaluing building reuse is not just an environmental issue, it’s an economic opportunity. One that will reduce our dependence on foreign oil and one that creates American jobs. Because renovation projects use less material, it is good for the environment, but it requires more labor, which has to be local. That’s good for America.”

Carl Elefante, the director of sustainable design at Quinn Evans Architects, once wrote, “the greenest building is one that is already built.” With nearly 1 billion square feet of buildings torn down and replaced each year in the U.S., this has never been more relevant.

MORE: Is Our Energy System Locked into Climate Change?

Related Topics: energy, green building, LEED, renovation, Green Building
  • Latest on Ecocentric

    Don Farrall

    Falldown: Radioactive Fallout From Fukushima Posed Little Threat to the U.S.

    Nearly a year after the Japanese tsunami and subsequent meltdown at the Fukushima nuclear plant, the good news is that the risk from radiation doesn’t seem to be as high as many initially feared. Take the Pacific Ocean, for example, where most of the radioactive fallout from the plant eventually ended up. Nicholas Fisher, a marine science professor at New York’s Stony Brook University, took samples of the seawater three months after the accident. He found levels of radiation that were elevated, but still just a fraction of the amount of radioactivity sea life is exposed to from naturally occurring potassium in seawater.

    Nick M Do

    Gasbag: Why No President Can Bring Us $2 Gasoline

    It’s Presidents’ Day as I write this, so if you were lucky enough to have the day off, give some thanks to Washington, Lincoln and all the other chief executives — even stinkers like James Buchanan and Andrew Johnson. Of course in modern American politics, every day is really Presidents’ Day — so central is the occupant of the White House to the perceived state of the nation. Good news or bad news, foreign or domestic, the President gets the credit — and he gets the blame, whether he actually deserves either.

    Bloomberg via Getty Images

    Pipeline Politics: Are the Oil Sands “Game Over” for the Climate? One Study Says No

    There are no shortage of reasons why the Keystone XL pipeline has become such a hot button issue for environmentalists. Many worry about the risks the project could pose to the Ogallala aquifer in Nebraska, where the pipeline was originally designed to pass. Indeed, when President Obama rejected Keystone XL in January, his stated concern was the potential threat to local water supplies.

blog comments powered by Disqus