Those who claim their developed country should not be investing in climate action while China’s emissions continue to rise may be surprised to learn just how much is going on in the Red Dragon

David

Jasper

As a country, China is the world&rsquo;s largest emitter of greenhouse gases, releasing a record <a href="https://climateactiontracker.org/countries/china/">14.3 billion tonnes</a> of carbon dioxide equivalent in 2021. A common refrain from those invested in maintaining status quo emissions-intensive activities goes: &ldquo;We&rsquo;re only responsible for [insert your country&rsquo;s percentage] of global emissions. Why should we invest in emissions reduction while China&rsquo;s emissions continue to rise?&rdquo; 
We call this claim &ldquo;but China!&rdquo;
Notwithstanding the immorality of such an argument, which is akin to people who choose to litter, claiming that their trash won&rsquo;t make any difference in the scheme of things, it&rsquo;s also self-defeatist. For example, the 28 European Union countries in aggregate produce 6-7% of global emissions. Add in another 15 or so developed and developing countries with emissions of about 1-2% each and you&rsquo;re up to <a href="https://ourworldindata.org/greenhouse-gas-emissionshttps:/ourworldindata.org/greenhouse-gas-emissions">a material 25%</a>. If those countries all took the same backsliding approach, we would have no hope of plateauing or reducing emissions.
<h2>Big but not the biggest</h2>
Until being overtaken by India early in 2023, China had the world&rsquo;s largest population (about 17.5% of the global) and currently produces about a quarter of annual global emissions. However, it ranks in the middle of the pack of major economies on a per capita basis, at <a href="https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/per-capita-ghg-emissions?tab=table">10 tonnes per person</a>, around half that of Australia, the USA or Canada.
That only tells part of the story, because China is also the world&rsquo;s factory. Developed nations have offshored much of their emissions to lower-cost economies, with China now responsible for over <a href="https://stats.wto.org/dashboard/merchandise_en.html">14% of global exports</a>, a whopping three quarters more than the next biggest exporter (USA). That US$3.6 trillion of mostly manufactured exports adds a massive emissions payload for China to absorb on top of its domestic consumption.
It&rsquo;s also worth pointing out that <a href="https://ourworldindata.org/contributed-most-global-co2">China&rsquo;s aggregate emissions are only half that of the USA</a> (12.7% vs 25% since the start of the industrial revolution). Cumulative emissions matter, since carbon dioxide and most other greenhouse gases persist in the atmosphere for hundreds to thousands of years, continuing all the while to do their radiative forcing thing. The vast majority of emissions since the start of the industrial revolution are still up there, which is why until the world genuinely gets to net zero, it&rsquo;s just going to keep getting hotter.
And it may surprise many people &ndash; particularly users of &ldquo;but China&rdquo; &ndash; to learn that China is doing quite staggering things both to rein in its own emissions and to supply goods to help the rest of the world decarbonise.
<h2>China is deploying renewables at colossal scale</h2>
Given its manufacturing prowess, the country has long been the world&rsquo;s largest manufacturer of <a href="https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/solar-pv-manufacturing-capacity-by-country-and-region-2021">solar panels</a> and more recently <a href="https://blog.bizvibe.com/blog/energy-and-fuels/top-10-wind-turbine-manufacturers-world">wind turbines</a>.
Less well understood is that it is also rolling out renewable technologies domestically at an incredible scale, dwarfing every other country as highlighted in the graph below.&nbsp;
<img style="display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" src="https://illuminem.b-cdn.net/articlebody/c01dfcf2763195241a52e5e7dd48950e57a26996.png?" alt="Capacity of renewable energy by country" />
Source: <a href="https://energytracker.asia/what-the-2021-china-wind-power-boom-means-for-the-world/">https://energytracker.asia/what-the-2021-china-wind-power-boom-means-for-the-world/</a>&nbsp;
China&rsquo;s <a href="https://ourworldindata.org/energy/country/china">renewables share of primary energy supply jumped to 15% in 2021</a>, doubling from 7.5% a decade earlier. Primary energy covers all energy sources including transport and heat fuels, as shown in the graph below.
<img style="display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" src="https://illuminem.b-cdn.net/articlebody/c00b770e9f4bcdfa153e9a844e7ccf6d501d6719.png?" alt="China energy mix 2021 vs. 2011" />
In the same period, total energy consumption rose by nearly 40% to a level nearly <a href="https://ourworldindata.org/energy/country/united-states">70% more than the USA</a> (the world&rsquo;s second-highest energy user). So, in reality, China&rsquo;s renewables production tripled in that decade. For comparison, the USA had a renewables mix of less than 11% of primary energy in 2021, up from about 7% in 2011, but its total consumption was flat during the decade. Its renewables production only increased by about 73% during the decade as shown in the figure below.
<img style="display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" src="https://illuminem.b-cdn.net/articlebody/17b6ee710619901050509796604339438142d519.png?" alt="Energy consumption by source" />
Some point out that China continues to build new coal-fired power stations. However, it&rsquo;s worth noting that over the decade to 2021, <a href="https://ourworldindata.org/energy/country/china">electricity produced from coal grew by only 8%</a>. While recent hot and dry conditions have reduced output from hydroelectric and prompted an increase in coal, the country committed in late 2020 to <a href="https://newsroom.unsw.edu.au/news/science-tech/chinas-energy-crisis-sees-worlds-top-emitter-investing-more-coal">peak coal generation by 2025</a>. Meanwhile, renewables grabbed a far higher share of the massive increase in consumption as shown in the graphs below.
<img style="display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" src="https://illuminem.b-cdn.net/articlebody/ed71ece9490c0da6801a3297667c056b2a9bef8f.png?" alt="China energy mix 2021 vs. 2011" />
<img style="display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" src="https://illuminem.b-cdn.net/articlebody/2a4df60db95769703a84047a0743abb9054af271.png?" alt="China energy growth by source 2021 vs. 2011" />
By 2021, China had deployed <a href="https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/solar-power-by-country">over three times as much solar as the USA</a> (the next largest) and was adding capacity 2.5 times as fast. By 2025, all new-build public buildings and factories will be required to <a href="https://www.climatechangenews.com/2022/07/14/chinas-ambitious-rooftop-solar-pilot-helps-drive-blistering-capacity-growth">cover at least half their rooftops with solar</a>, a plan that has already seen a tripling of distributed solar in one year.
China is the <a href="https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/wind-power-by-country">biggest wind producer in the world</a>, generating 37% more from its wind farms than the second-placed USA and adding <a href="https://www.irena.org/News/pressreleases/2021/Apr/World-Adds-Record-New-Renewable-Energy-Capacity-in-2020">5 times as much capacity</a> in 2020. In just one year (2021) it installed <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidrvetter/2022/01/26/china-built-more-offshore-wind-in-2021-than-every-other-country-built-in-5-years/?sh=7af389246347">more offshore wind capacity than the rest of the world combined had built in the preceding five years</a>!
It&rsquo;s also the <a href="https://www.reuters.com/world/china/chinas-surging-hydropower-boon-its-climate-goals-energy-bills-2022-07-12/">world&rsquo;s largest installer of new hydroelectricity</a> and <a href="https://interestingengineering.com/innovation/hydro-energy-storage-china-green">plans to add 120 GW of pumped hydro storage by 2030</a>.&nbsp;
<h2>An electrifying leader</h2>
China is the largest market for electric vehicles, with 3.3 million new registrations in 2021 representing <a href="https://www.virta.global/en/global-electric-vehicle-market">half of all EVs sold globally</a>. EVs accounted for <a href="https://www.statista.com/statistics/278436/new-vehicle-registration-in-china/">about 14% of total Chinese registrations</a> that year, <a href="https://www.iea.org/reports/electric-vehicles">vs 5% in the USA</a>. It has a target of <a href="https://www.wired.com/story/china-ev-infrastructure-charging/">40% of new car sales to be electric by 2030</a> and looks well on the way to smashing that, given forecasts that <a href="https://thedriven.io/2023/04/05/evs-to-grab-35-share-of-worlds-biggest-car-market-as-crisis-looms-for-legacy-brands/">35% of new vehicle sales will be in 2023</a>! Sales have been turbocharged by the success of local EV brands such as BYD, which is <a href="https://insideevs.com/news/651978/world-top-ev-oem-sales-2022q4/">nipping at Tesla&rsquo;s heels</a> and may well notch up the largest sales of pure battery electric vehicles this year.&nbsp;
Simultaneously, China has been building an impressive electrified public transport fleet. In addition to an extensive fast rail network, by the end of 2020, <a href="https://transition-china.org/mobilityposts/e-bus-development-in-china-from-fleet-electrification-to-refined-management/">fully electric buses comprised 54%</a> of the total fleet of around 700,000.
Overall, <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/what-if-china-saved-the-world-and-nobody-noticed-20220818-p5bavz.html">China made a massive 37% of the world&rsquo;s investments in energy transition spending in 2021</a>, also leading the world in nuclear, batteries, heat pumps, grid transmission and distribution, and green hydrogen. Take that, world!
<h2>Rebuilding biodiversity</h2>
But that&rsquo;s not all. China is also a <a href="https://www.rapidtransition.org/stories/how-china-brought-its-forests-back-to-life-in-a-decade/">world leader in reforestation</a>, creating newly forested areas larger than the whole of France and in the process increasing total forests from 16.7% in 1990 to 22.2% by 2018.
Its <a href="https://chinadialogue.net/en/digest/five-year-plan-for-forests-and-grassland-protection-released/">Forestry and Grassland Protection and Development Plan</a> for 2021-2025 will increase forest coverage to 24%; &ldquo;protect 55% of its wetland, a rise from 52% in 2020, and combat desertification in an area of&hellip; about 67,000km&sup2;. The plan sets the goal of protecting more than 18% of the country&rsquo;s land area by the end of 2025.&rdquo; In comparison, <a href="https://www.globalforestwatch.org/dashboards/global/?category=summary&amp;dashboardPrompts=eyJzaG93UHJvbXB0cyI6dHJ1ZSwicHJvbXB0c1ZpZXdlZCI6WyJzaGFyZVdpZGdldCJdLCJzZXR0aW5ncyI6eyJzaG93UHJvbXB0cyI6dHJ1ZSwicHJvbXB0c1ZpZXdlZCI6W10sInNldHRpbmdzIjp7Im9wZW4iOmZhbHNlLCJzdGVwSW5kZXgiOjAsInN0ZXBzS2V5IjoiIn0sIm9wZW4iOnRydWUsInN0ZXBJbmRleCI6MCwic3RlcHNLZXkiOiJzaGFyZVdpZGdldCJ9LCJvcGVuIjp0cnVlLCJzdGVwc0tleSI6ImRvd25sb2FkRGFzaGJvYXJkU3RhdHMifQ%3D%3D&amp;location=WyJnbG9iYWwiXQ%3D%3D&amp;map=eyJjZW50ZXIiOnsibGF0IjozMS4yOTY5MzY3MTA5Mzk3NTQsImxuZyI6NTIuNzgxODU3NDUxNDA0MDN9LCJkYXRhc2V0cyI6W3siZGF0YXNldCI6InBvbGl0aWNhbC1ib3VuZGFyaWVzIiwibGF5ZXJzIjpbImRpc3B1dGVkLXBvbGl0aWNhbC1ib3VuZGFyaWVzIiwicG9saXRpY2FsLWJvdW5kYXJpZXMiXSwiYm91bmRhcnkiOnRydWUsIm9wYWNpdHkiOjEsInZpc2liaWxpdHkiOnRydWV9LHsiZGF0YXNldCI6Ik5ldC1DaGFuZ2UtU1RBR0lORyIsImxheWVycyI6WyJmb3Jlc3QtbmV0LWNoYW5nZSJdLCJvcGFjaXR5IjoxLCJ2aXNpYmlsaXR5Ijp0cnVlLCJwYXJhbXMiOnsidmlzaWJpbGl0eSI6dHJ1ZSwiYWRtX2xldmVsIjoiYWRtMCJ9fV19&amp;showMap=true&amp;treeLossPct=eyJoaWdobGlnaHRlZCI6ZmFsc2V9">the world has lost 11% of its tree cover since 2000</a>, with the USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand among the countries recording declines.
<h2>A quiet achiever?</h2>
With all this progress, there are cautious but encouraging signs that China <a href="https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-will-chinas-new-renewable-energy-plan-lead-to-an-early-emissions-peak/">could beat its climate pledge of 25% of total energy consumption to come from non-fossil sources by 2030</a>. It will need to, given the more muted progress being made in many other developed nations, whose own pledges, plans and achievements are continually undermined by those who cry, &ldquo;but China!&rdquo;
<div class="css-16rcf8n">
<div>
<div class="css-16rcf8n">
<div>
illuminem Voices is a democratic space presenting the thoughts and opinions of leading Sustainability &amp; Energy writers, their opinions do not necessarily represent those of illuminem.
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>

Enough with ‘but China!’ - it’s the rest of us who need to catch up

The easiest way for climate-vulnerable Australia to meet its climate targets and give itself a shot at a safe future is to end approvals for new fossil fuel extraction projects. Why won't it?

The Prisoner's Dilemma – Why is Australia (Still) Backsliding on Climate Action?

In criminology, means, opportunity and motive are central to establishing guilt in relation to a crime. So let's break down the case of the alleged global climate change hoax conspiracy.

Many myths are perpetrated by those who choose not to accept the demonstrable fact that the global warming we are experiencing is predominantly due to humanity&#x27;s use of fossil fuels (plus land clearing and various industrial processes).
Amongst one of the most ridiculous is the notion that climate change is a hoax involving some sort of global conspiracy dreamt up (alternately) by China to reduce Western competitiveness; or lefties in the United Nations who want to impose a socialist agenda on the world (can you make up your minds, please?)
In criminology, means, opportunity and motive are central to establishing guilt in relation to a crime. So let&#x27;s break down the case of the alleged global climate change hoax conspiracy.
I&#x27;m not a scientist, but I come from a family of them: parents, sibling, a grandfather, aunt, and so on. The rest of my family are academically oriented - university lecturers, sociologists and the like. In fact I&#x27;m practically the only member of my family without a PhD - I chose a business degree. I grew up with my parents often hosting dinner parties with other scientists. So I figure I know a bit about the type.
And I can tell you, that in my experience the average scientist is absolutely incapable of the sort of Machiavellian subterfuge that would be required to perpetrate the alleged climate hoax on a global scale. It’s not to say they’re not smart; far from it. But they’re the sort of people who are keen to a) share their knowledge; and b) have other people challenge their ideas in a constructive way. The last thing they would want to do is deliberately spread falsehoods or conceal the truth.
Another thing I know about the scientists is that they’re not motivated by money. They’re passionate about knowledge and discovery.
The scientific method, the set of techniques scientists use to figure things out, involves proposing a hypothesis (what they think should happen in a given situation) and then creating models, conducting experiments and taking observations to prove or disprove it. There are strict protocols around how such activities are carried out, to improve repeatability, and reduce the risk of errors or incorrect interpretations of the results.
To gain any credibility, the scientist must then have their findings published (including a description of the experimental or observational methodology used) in a reputable scientific journal. It’s not just a case of emailing an article to the editor, either. Each paper goes through a rigorous process of peer review, whereby it is sent to several other scientists (who generally work for completely different organisations) with the express purpose of them trying to find problems with the methodology, results, or the logic that forms the conclusion, before it is deemed worthy of publication.*
Despite this, the vast majority, now over 99% of scientists who are actively looking at atmospheric processes agree that humanity’s use of fossil fuels (and our other activities that increase the concentration of greenhouse gases) are primarily responsible for observed global warming.[1]
They’re also unanimous that the effects of that warming will on balance not be beneficial to humans, nor the ecosystems upon which our survival depends. Multiple strands of evidence point to the same conclusion.
There are many thousands of scientists globally that are conducting research studying the causes, effects and implications of global warming and the climatic change it is creating. They work for universities, government and private research institutes in dozens of countries.
I say strike one for “means”: the scientific community are not the right type of people to sustain a planet-wide hoax over the last several decades.
Also, strike two for “opportunity”: the very method by which they go about their business is extremely effective at detecting and calling out anything that doesn’t fit the facts.
So what about motive? Denialists claim scientists parrot the same “climate consensus” line so they can get research funding, allegedly because the leftie UN who give out the grants are pushing a socialist agenda. But sometimes it’s the Chinese who want to reduce US competitiveness through a self inflicted economic depressant in the form of carbon pricing. They can’t even maintain a consistent story.
Back to those thousands of scientists at hundreds of institutions: if they were all relying on research grants from China or the UN then perhaps they could be on to something, but in reality the money comes from hundreds of governments, supranational organisations, student fees, philanthropic donations and the like. Not to mention that scientists employed by fossil fuel giants such as Exxon Mobil came to the same conclusions themselves several decades ago, even if their voices were quickly silenced within their organisations.
While scientists&#x27; love of discovery and knowledge perhaps puts them further left on the political spectrum, the scientific method ensures that for most of them their experimental and observational conclusions are not tainted by any political agenda.
In any case, the downstream costs of inaction on climate change (such as trillions of dollars of property losses due to sea level rise) are far more expensive than the costs of addressing it by transitioning to renewables, reversing deforestation and land degradation, and coming up with low emissions alternatives for cement and other chemicals.[2] The latter involves a series of investments in zero emissions technologies, many of which are already achieving or exceeding cost parity with the emissions intensive methods they are replacing.
But get this: most investments in zero emissions technology (apart from those related to satisfying new demand) are being made in conjunction with the end of life of existing power stations, vehicles and factories. They’re investments that would have been made anyway in the normal course of business. There’s relatively little asset stranding outside of the moribund fossil fuel industry.
Addressing climate change also delivers a host of co-benefits including cleaner air and water, and vast savings in healthcare as a result.
Strike three for “motive”.
On the other hand, finding a motive for denialists to spread myths such as these is far easier. The denialists’ money trail leads inevitably to the fossil fuel industry as has been well documented by others including Naomi Oreskes. Just as the tobacco industry obscured the proven link between smoking and lung cancer for many years through a well funded campaign of misinformation and obfuscation, so is the same thing happening with climate change (even involving some of the very same perpetrators). The industry certainly has the means (money) and opportunity through the network of pseudo-scientific think tanks and publications they fund.
Tragically, not only have climate denialists delayed the widespread adoption of clean energy generation and more sustainable use of our natural resources, by so doing it has also condemned future generations to massive costs of adaptation to a changing climate; greater hardships (think extreme weather, coastal retreat due to the ravages of rising seas, crop failures and food shortages due to drought and dozens of other impacts); and a trashed environment (coral reefs, anyone?) that will take hundreds or thousands of years to recover.
And for what? To ensure the fossil fuel industry remained profitable for as long as possible in the face of overwhelming evidence that it should have been rapidly sun-setted. It’s certainly not about preserving jobs: the clean energy sector already employs more people in the US than the fossil fuel sector and is expanding, but unfortunately too slowly to avert the crisis we now face as a global society.
Since the start of the industrial revolution, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased by over 42%. Since continuous, reliable measurement began in the mid 1950s it has increased from about 320ppm to over 400 - more than 25% in about 60 years. Sure it’s only “parts per million” but as with many other chemicals – arsenic for example – a little goes a long way.
So we know that the concentration of carbon dioxide is increasing year on year, we know that more carbon dioxide will trap more heat from the sun, and we can look at the global temperature record (several different sets of measurements including thermometer readings and satellite data, independently compiled by different meteorological organisations) and see that average temperatures are trending upwards.
How do we know it’s human activity that is producing the extra greenhouse gases?
The industrial revolution was powered at first by coal and later oil and gas. These are carbon-based substances (remember organic chemistry from high school?) that used to be plant or animal matter. Fire doesn’t burn without oxygen and it’s pretty easy to understand how the combustion process releases carbon dioxide. Burn a kilogram of coal and you release nearly a kilo of carbon into the atmosphere in the form of carbon dioxide. By looking at the amount of these fuels we’ve used (and we have pretty good records going back many decades) you can spot a strong correlation with the increasing rate of atmospheric carbon dioxide.
But correlation is not necessarily causation. Maybe it’s other factors such as carbon dioxide expelled during volcanic eruptions? Well, if you recall your high school chemistry classes, atoms have something called isotopes, and then it gets into stuff about half lives and radioactive decay. Anyway, you can look at the carbon atoms in the molecules and figure out how long it’s been sloshing around in the atmosphere or whether it’s come from so-called fossil fuels or other sources. Sure enough, it has the unmistakable isotopic fingerprints of recently burnt fossil fuels.
The huge body of work conducted by the thousands of reputable climate scientists over the last several decades has confirmed that the planet is warming, confirmed the source of that warming, and systematically investigated and eliminated other potential natural causes (volcanos, sun spots, orbital eccentricities and the like).
<h4>References and Notes</h4>
<h6>[1] <a href="https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2966">https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2966</a>​ </h6>
<h6>[2] For example, global insurer AXA in this report cites global GDP losses of up to 30% by 2100 if climate change is unabated. Personally, I think this is optimistic.<a href="https://www.axa-im.com/document/4217/view">https://www.axa-im.com/document/4217/view</a>​ </h6>
<h6>------------</h6>
<h6>*By this method, we first learnt in the 1850s courtesy of American female scientist Eunice Foote that carbon dioxide and various other atmospheric gases display what’s known as the greenhouse effect: they trap heat. It’s an experiment that anyone with a half decent lab can replicate. <a href="https://www.audubon.org/news/the-female-scientist-who-discovered-basics-climate-science-and-was-forgotten#:~:text=Instead%20of%20Foote&#x27;s%20story%2C%20the,yet%20he&#x27;s%20received%20the%20credit">https://www.audubon.org/news/the-female-scientist-who-discovered-basics-climate-science-and-was-forgotten#:~:text=Instead%20of%20Foote&#x27;s%20story%2C%20the,yet%20he&#x27;s%20received%20the%20credit</a>.</h6>
​ illuminem Voices is a democratic space presenting the thoughts and opinions of leading Sustainability &amp; Energy writers, their opinions do not necessarily represent those of illuminem.

Why the Climate Denialists’ Conspiracy Theory Doesn’t Stack Up

Detractors of renewables like to wring their hands about the waste involved in solar panels, EV batteries and even wind turbine blades. But they never talk about the enormous waste streams associated with fossil fuels. Or just how little renewable infrastructure would be needed to power all our energy needs in comparison.

Energy to Waste – Fossil Fuels’ Dirty Secret

Why pursue a net-zero path also for buildings? Apart from trying to maintain a more certain future climate, the answer is to avoid asset obsolescence. Increasingly, new buildings are being built to be net-zero by default. More occupiers are demanding buildings that can display better sustainability credentials and enjoy lower energy bills. Based on the empirical evidence when Greenstar was introduced, net-zero buildings are likely to be quicker to lease.

<h1>A Quick Recap</h1>
“Greenhouse gases” (GHGs) include carbon dioxide, methane (the principal component in natural gas), nitrous oxides and a number of other compounds. They are mainly produced through the use of fossil fuels, and the production of steel and cement alone is responsible for over 10% of total emissions. In the atmosphere, GHGs act like a heat trapping blanket.
<h1>Building Emissions</h1>
When a building is constructed there are “embodied emissions” associated with the extraction and manufacture of the materials, their transport, and the actual construction process (e.g. use of diesel and other energy on-site; construction waste; etc.).
“Operational emissions” include:
<ul><li>The electricity and other energy sources used for HVAC, lighting, vertical transportation, and occupant loads. Currently, nearly three quarters of grid power is generated from fossil fuel sources, though that’s rapidly changing as cheap renewables displace coal and gas generation. Nevertheless, one MWh of electricity still releases around 800kg of greenhouse emissions in NSW.</li></ul>
<ul><li>Servicing and maintaining the building, such as those associated with producing cleaning products, spare parts, and generated by maintenance providers.</li></ul>
There are also end of life emissions associated with demolition and disposal.
So, what’s “net-zero emissions”? Basically, it means that a given activity produces no GHGs, or if it does, then those emissions are “offset” by activities that remove or avoid emissions elsewhere.
<h1>Existing Buildings: Race to Zero</h1>
Why pursue a net-zero path? Apart from trying to maintain a more certain future climate, the answer is to avoid asset obsolescence. Increasingly, new buildings are being built to be net-zero by default. More occupiers are demanding buildings that can display better sustainability credentials and enjoy lower energy bills. Based on the empirical evidence when Greenstar was introduced, net-zero buildings are likely to be quicker to lease.
For existing buildings, embodied emissions are largely irrelevant – the building’s there, and, as is said, the most sustainable building is the one you don’t have to build. So how can we get operational emissions down to zero, as cost effectively as possible, and ideally way before 2050?
Like any goal, net-zero involves defining the problem with the current state, the desired future state and performing a ‘gap analysis’ to identify how to bridge the two. The gap analysis output then needs to be translated into projects that can deliver the desired future state.
Our net-zero pyramid captures the steps, in approximately descending order of emissions reduction and/or future proofing benefit. It’s critical to assess this as an overall strategic package of works, because the various steps are highly inter-dependent. There are also additional benefits of tackling net-zero at a portfolio level.
<img src="https://illuminem.b-cdn.net/articlebody/8ec1f96bee1127e3f944241236582815abd9e16d.png" alt="Figure 1: Net-zero Opportunity Roadmap">
<h1>Powering Ahead</h1>
Let’s break it down. Electricity forms the largest chunk of operational emissions for a commercial building, so sourcing renewably generated electricity is a logical first step. This might involve a combination of options, potentially involving on-site solar and battery storage.
A decade ago, the only way to source renewables was by paying a premium for accredited Green Power. With renewable generators now able to undercut coal and gas plants, arranging to purchase directly from a specific wind or solar farms may make sound commercial sense (aggregating usage over the course of 12 months, regardless of whether the renewables happen to be generating at all times your building needs the power – the actual electrons still come from the normal grid).
Generating on-site – behind the meter – delivers electricity with zero marginal cost and no network charges. Adding a battery facilitates not only time shifting (use excess generation in the middle of the day at other times), but also peak demand shaving opportunities – more on that in a moment.
<h1>Roadmap is the Key</h1>
Before rushing into a multi-year renewable power purchase agreement, it’s critical to model the electricity utilisation curve (intra-day, weekly, and seasonal) as you implement additional steps in the pyramid.
Gas is a significant source of emissions, and a building can’t achieve net-zero without electrifying existing gas plant: typically heating, hot water and cooking. That will change your electricity usage.
Electrification also generates a substantial energy efficiency dividend: heat pump technology is far more efficient than burning gas to make heat. And there are usually a range of other efficiency opportunities: not just with building services plant, but improving glazing and insulation, for example.
Of course, some of these initiatives involve significant Capex spend, so it’s important to align them with planned plant replacement cycles to optimise budgeted spend wherever possible. All of this goes into the energy modelling, including changes in maximum demand charges.
A less well-known source of building emissions are refrigerant gases. The Kigali Amendment to the Montreal Protocol has resulted in a phase out of common refrigerants that are potent greenhouse gases. When planning electrification and other plant replacement, low GWP refrigerants (including natural refrigerants) should be used.
Where buildings have on-site car parking, the pyramid also identifies the need to consider electric vehicle charging. “Always Be Charging” is the ABC of EV ownership. Daytime charging can optimise utilisation of cheap on-site solar power, while providing a new revenue stream. Unless provided by a third-party operator with a separate utility connection, however, the provision of charging facilities will change overall power utilisation and peak demand, which needs to be considered in the model.
Clearly, developing a strategic net-zero roadmap is critical to avoid abortive spend, particularly when relevant plant fails ahead of planned replacement. Figure two highlights the components of a good roadmap.
<img src="https://illuminem.b-cdn.net/articlebody/c6a2d1f3d1c7be9f7c267a6f464d66e5b1a2ebdd.png" alt="Figure 2 – Net-Zero Roadmap Deliverables">
<h1>Plan Procurement to Reduce Emissions</h1>
As maintenance and other contracts come up for renewal, procurement processes offer a great opportunity to encourage suppliers to be doing their share of emissions reduction. One way is to ask potential vendors to demonstrate compliance with the Science Based Targets Initiative, with an emissions trajectory aligned with the 1.5oC goal of the Paris Climate Agreement. There are several net-zero certification schemes out there and some are of less worth than others, so it pays to ensure that suppliers’ claims have substance.
The same applies when procuring capital upgrade works, which provides an opportunity to significantly reduce associated embodied emissions if design, procurement and contractual documentation is suitably aligned.
On the other hand, in the absence of regulated net-zero emissions standards it’s important to set a boundary for emissions measurement in common with peer buildings, to avoid imposing additional costs on occupiers that won’t necessarily create competitive advantage.
The final step in the pyramid is to offset remaining emissions. As electrification and other initiatives are implemented, residual emissions will decrease. On the other hand, supplies such as water, waste and sewage all carry an operational emissions payload. Even when you complete the journey, all energy should be from renewable electricity, but there will still be some emissions associated with servicing. It’s beyond the scope of this article to cover the carbon offset market, other than to say it’s a minefield of often dubious claims.
 Energy Voices is a democratic space presenting the thoughts and opinions of leading Energy &amp; Sustainability writers, their opinions do not necessarily represent those of illuminem.

We’re Heading for Net-zero – What Does it Mean for Buildings?

Major institutional property investors have already changed projects mid-construction to design-out gas and are reviewing their portfolios to determine the most cost effective pathways to replace gas plant in existing buildings. Fossil free buildings are likely to attract higher calibre tenants and be quicker to let as more corporates adopt net zero emissions (NZE) targets. But what's the problem with gas, and what's involved in getting buildings off it?


The latest version of the Green Building Council of Australia&rsquo;s GreenStar rating tool <a href="https://new.gbca.org.au/news/gbca-media-releases/green-star-eliminating-natural-gas-and-electrifying-buildings/">denies its highest ratings</a> to commercial office buildings that cannot demonstrate that they are &ldquo;fossil fuel free.&rdquo; That is, that they do not consume natural gas or other fossil fuels on premises, except for backup power generation.
Major institutional property investors have already changed projects mid-construction to design-out gas and are reviewing their portfolios to determine the most cost effective pathways to replace gas plant in existing buildings. Fossil free buildings are likely to attract higher calibre tenants and be quicker to let as more corporates adopt net zero emissions (NZE) targets.
But what's the problem with gas, and what's involved in getting buildings off it?
<h1>Little Good About Gas</h1>
So-called natural gas is largely methane, a fossil fuel. Exposure to it is bad for our health. Gas stoves and other un-flued gas appliances in homes are a leading cause of <a href="https://www.nationalasthma.org.au/living-with-asthma/resources/patients-carers/factsheets/gas-stoves-and-asthma-in-children">childhood asthma</a>, amongst other respiratory conditions.
When methane is vented at wellheads, or leaks from pipes or appliances into the atmosphere (which modern measurement techniques are showing happens<a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-06-29/why-methane-is-climate-s-low-hanging-invisible-fruit-quicktake"> far more extensively</a> than had been assumed) it acts as a potent greenhouse gas, heating the planet planet at <a href="https://archive.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter08_FINAL.pdf">86 times </a>the rate of carbon dioxide. Atmospheric concentrations of methane have <a href="https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-atmospheric-concentrations-greenhouse-gases">more than doubled</a> in the last century.
Extracting methane is <a href="https://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/cheap-gas-is-impossible-warns-origin-energy-director-mick-mccormack/news-story/cebf34dbf69c96932b589a5d9297335f">increasingly expensive</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/expanding-gas-mining-threatens-our-climate-water-and-health-113047">environmentally harmful</a>. As traditional Bass Strait supplies have dwindled, gas exploration companies have turned to horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing (&ldquo;fracking&rdquo;) to exploit new coal seam gas reserves. These processes are relatively expensive; involve drilling a patchwork of hundreds of wells interconnected with access roads (which destroy bushland, <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/261288001_The_Potential_Impacts_of_Coal_Seam_Gas_on_Biodiversity_in_Australia_Identification_of_knowledge_gaps_and_research_priorities">animal habitat</a> and encroach on farmland); produce salt and other toxic waste streams; can irrevocably compromise artesian water supplies; and may contaminate streams and rivers.
Domestic gas prices have also <a href="https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=33412">spiked</a> since governments granted rights to extract, liquefy and export fossil methane as LNG, at which point the price Australian consumers pay was linked to global markets. Electricity generated using gas is now significantly <a href="https://reneweconomy.com.au/tsunami-of-renewables-to-sweep-gas-and-coal-out-of-market-and-drive-prices-lower/">more expensive</a> than power from renewable sources, even allowing for the costs of batteries or other forms of storage (that provide continuity for variable solar and wind generation sources).
And now the International Energy Agency has advised that in order to limit warming to no more than 1.5oC and meet the objective of the Paris Climate Accord, <a href="https://www.iea.org/reports/net-zero-by-2050">no new coal, oil or gas developments can be made</a>. No mines or wells if we are to maintain a safe climate. No new power plants or industrial uses. No new building connections.
So what does that mean for commercial buildings, where heating, hot water and cooking have traditionally been the main uses of gas?
<h1>Cooking Without Gas</h1>
Electrifying cooking is pretty straightforward once chefs are convinced of the benefits of induction cooking, with its instant heat, fine control, easy to clean surfaces, and efficiency. There are even commercial grade induction units suitable for wok cooking, with large concave elements to provide even heat. The spatial footprint for induction appliances is identical; it&rsquo;s just a case of getting the power there (more on that in a moment).
<h1>Heating and Hot Water</h1>
Replacing boilers and other heating and hot water plant may be more challenging. Their electric equivalents, heat pumps, use the same principles as a reverse cycle air conditioning unit, and typically require outdoor and indoor units, potentially creating spatial and even structural challenges in terms of where they can be situated. Council authority approvals are often required if adding external plant due to visual and acoustic impacts to neighbours, unless it can be sited within an existing recessed external plant area. Some buildings use instantaneous gas units for water heating, which have a very small form factor; heat pump systems may require additional bulky and heavy tanks. Pipework may require re-routing. On the other hand, with ever improving coefficient of performance (COP) figures and increasing use of natural refrigerants, they are energy efficient and climate friendly.
<h1>Power Impacts</h1>
Then there&rsquo;s electricity. As facilities managers will be aware, a commercial building&rsquo;s power bill has three main parts to it:
<ul>
<li>Consumption, charged on a per-kWh basis, often with time of day and/or aggregate consumption charges;</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>Maximum demand, charged based on the highest electricity demand in kW during the year; and</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>Fixed network and statutory charges.</li>
</ul>
When building plant is electrified, both consumption and maximum demand patterns will change. While the gas bill will fall, it&rsquo;s critical to model the impact on electricity over the course of the year. If maximum demand increases, this will both increase those costs, but could also result in the building requiring greater substation capacity and potentially a larger feed from the electricity distributor (if one is readily available given local network constraints). Utilities often pass on substantial costs for submains &ndash; this needs to be determined upfront, as it could be prohibitive. Meanwhile, daily and seasonal usage patterns will change and aggregate electricity consumption will increase.
It&rsquo;s not just the supply to the building that might need to be upgraded. The capacity of the main switchboard, sub-mains cabling running to each floor, distribution boards serving the relevant plant rooms and kitchen areas all need to be reviewed and may require modification.
Fortunately, building electrification may be possible without materially changing maximum demand, and can be cost effective in conjunction with normal plant replacement cycles, particularly when considered holistically as part of a broader services works program. However, it requires careful modelling and effective design to ensure costs don&rsquo;t go through the roof. Clearly,its requires careful modelling and effective design to ensure costs don&rsquo;t go through the roof.
<h1>One Size Doesn&rsquo;t Fit All</h1>
Whereas most vehicle designs are mass-manufactured and it is often possible to design an electrification retrofit kit that can be rolled out at scale, every commercial building is unique given the original architects&rsquo; and engineers&rsquo; proclivities, plus differing block sizes and planning constraints. The arrangements and sizing of plant rooms, pipe and cable risers, and of course the various building systems (electrical, mechanical and plumbing) varies considerably from building to building.
Unfortunately, there&rsquo;s no &ldquo;one size fits all&rdquo; solution for removing methane gas uses, and it&rsquo;s critical to use experienced engineers to ensure electrification upgrades are efficient, cost effective and reliable. And when you&rsquo;re playing with critical building systems, capable project management is also a must.
Energy Voices is a democratic space presenting the thoughts and opinions of leading Energy &amp; Sustainability writers, their opinions do not necessarily represent those of illuminem.

You can’t miss it!

David McEwen

David McEwen

Enough with ‘but China!’ - it’s the rest of us who need to catch up

Recent publications

Readers also like

Want to know more about illuminem Voices?