Environmental Health Department, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA.
J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol. 2018 Jun;28(4):307-318. doi: 10.1038/s41370-017-0014-9. Epub 2018 Jan 30.
Buildings consume nearly 40% of primary energy production globally. Certified green buildings substantially reduce energy consumption on a per square foot basis and they also focus on indoor environmental quality. However, the co-benefits to health through reductions in energy and concomitant reductions in air pollution have not been examined.We calculated year by year LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certification rates in six countries (the United States, China, India, Brazil, Germany, and Turkey) and then used data from the Green Building Information Gateway (GBIG) to estimate energy savings in each country each year. Of the green building rating schemes, LEED accounts for 32% of green-certified floor space and publically reports energy efficiency data. We employed Harvard's Co-BE Calculator to determine pollutant emissions reductions by country accounting for transient energy mixes and baseline energy use intensities. Co-BE applies the social cost of carbon and the social cost of atmospheric release to translate these reductions into health benefits. Based on modeled energy use, LEED-certified buildings saved $7.5B in energy costs and averted 33MT of CO, 51 kt of SO, 38 kt of NO, and 10 kt of PM from entering the atmosphere, which amounts to $5.8B (lower limit = $2.3B, upper limit = $9.1B) in climate and health co-benefits from 2000 to 2016 in the six countries investigated. The U.S. health benefits derive from avoiding an estimated 172-405 premature deaths, 171 hospital admissions, 11,000 asthma exacerbations, 54,000 respiratory symptoms, 21,000 lost days of work, and 16,000 lost days of school. Because the climate and health benefits are nearly equivalent to the energy savings for green buildings in the United States, and up to 10 times higher in developing countries, they provide an important and previously unquantified societal value. Future analyses should consider these co-benefits when weighing policy decisions around energy-efficient buildings.
建筑物消耗了全球近 40%的初级能源产量。经过认证的绿色建筑可大幅降低每平方英尺的能源消耗，同时还注重室内环境质量。然而，通过减少能源消耗和相应减少空气污染来改善健康的协同效益尚未得到检验。我们逐年计算了六个国家（美国、中国、印度、巴西、德国和土耳其）的 LEED（能源与环境设计先锋）认证率，然后使用绿色建筑信息门户（GBIG）的数据来估算每个国家每年的节能情况。在绿色建筑评级体系中，LEED 占绿色认证建筑面积的 32%，并公开报告能源效率数据。我们利用哈佛的 Co-BE 计算器来确定每个国家的污染物减排量，同时考虑到瞬时能源组合和基准能源使用强度。Co-BE 应用碳的社会成本和大气释放的社会成本，将这些减排转化为健康效益。根据模拟的能源使用情况，LEED 认证的建筑节省了 75 亿美元的能源成本，并避免了 3300 万吨二氧化碳、51 千吨二氧化硫、38 千吨氮氧化物和 10 千吨颗粒物进入大气，这相当于 2000 年至 2016 年六个研究国家的气候和健康协同效益为 58 亿美元（下限为 23 亿美元，上限为 91 亿美元）。美国的健康效益源自避免了估计有 172-405 人过早死亡、171 人住院、11000 次哮喘恶化、54000 次呼吸道症状、21000 天工作日缺勤和 16000 天学校缺勤。由于气候和健康效益几乎相当于美国绿色建筑的节能效益，在发展中国家甚至高达 10 倍，因此它们提供了一个重要的、以前未量化的社会效益。未来的分析应该在权衡围绕节能建筑的政策决策时考虑到这些协同效益。
