ABSTRACT
ABSTRACT Several countries have developed tools with criteria and evaluations to grant, through the environmental certification, a more sustainable undertaking, with quality and productivity for its users. The tools were developed for different needs and objectives, which makes it difficult to make a direct comparison, in addition to having specific demands for each region. This study aims to make a comparative analysis between some tools of greater international knowledge and to propose new parameters for the water use and management category, taking into account the design and operational phase, the water distribution, and the demands for 2025. Consequently, this study proposed the creation of an exclusive environmental tool for the management and water use, providing a seal that may be applied to any project and adopted by water work systems as an incentive to reduce the consumption of drinking water, to use alternative sources, and to decrease liquid effluents.
RESUMO Vários países desenvolveram ferramentas com critérios e avaliações para garantir um empreendimento mais sustentável, com qualidade e produtividade para seus usuários, por meio de certificação ambiental. As ferramentas foram desenvolvidas para diferentes necessidades e objetivos, o que dificulta a comparação direta, além de haver demandas específicas para cada região. Este estudo teve como objetivo fazer uma análise comparativa entre algumas ferramentas de maior conhecimento internacional e propor novos parâmetros para a categoria de uso e gestão da água, levando em conta a fase de projeto e operação, a distribuição de água e as demandas para 2025. Consequentemente, este estudo propôs a criação de uma ferramenta ambiental exclusiva para a gestão e o uso da água, proporcionando um selo que pode ser aplicado a qualquer projeto e adotado pelas concessionárias de água como incentivo para reduzir o consumo de água potável, usar fontes alternativas e diminuir os efluentes líquidos.
ABSTRACT
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 CO2, 51 kt of SO2, 38 kt of NOx, and 10 kt of PM2.5 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.