While the Trump administration rolls back environmental, efficiency, and other climate policies, many forces continue to push the architecture, engineering, and construction industry toward sustainable building practices. These forces range from practical to financial to ethical and are not so easily dismissed. Fundamentally, health, efficiency, resilience, and responsible choices are good for people and long-term business. Progress continues despite temporary headwinds. With federal abdication on climate issues, the extent of that progress depends on building owners, financiers, designers, contractors, manufacturers, and others in the field to do their part.
Perhaps the most powerful of these forces is occupant health, which, in addition to being a moral imperative, impacts the financial bottom line of both businesses and households. People prefer to live in homes and work in offices that are healthy, feel comfortable, and are connected to nature through daylight, views, and operable windows. They are dismayed when they learn that buildings cause them harm, leading to health conditions and medical bills. Building occupants are becoming increasingly aware that building materials, enclosure details, and mechanical systems can lead to asthma, cancer, infertility, and a number of other conditions. LEED buildings are healthier for employees to work in, but healthier choices are often disregarded in favor of marginally less expensive, more convenient, but harmful options. All involved in the design, construction, and maintenance of buildings should prioritize health. For example, architects can sign on to the AIA Materials Pledge, raise their awareness of options, avoid the most harmful materials, and propose healthier baselines. Manufacturers can disclose health impacts through transparency documents such as Health Product Declarations and optimize materials to do no harm.
Financially, sustainable buildings are worth more and can cost less to run than standard buildings. Multiple studies have shown that LEED-certified office buildings outperform their counterparts. While there are upfront consulting, certification, and construction costs associated with LEED and other sustainability frameworks, costs are generally outweighed by added value. One study determined the average additional construction cost of LEED buildings to be 2 percent, while the returns were exponential: asset value by 18 percent, rental income by 12 percent, occupancy by up to 16 percent and productivity by 5 percent. A recent study of Passive House buildings in New York and Massachusetts found that while additional construction costs averaged 3.5 percent, energy costs were reduced by up to 50 percent. Improved durability and extended replacement timeframes represent additional long-term cost benefits. Architects can communicate these financial benefits to building owners, developers can prioritize long-term value, and contractors can focus on key construction performance factors like airtightness and continuous insulation.
Many companies will continue pursuing ESG policies despite federal pressure and recent abandonment of a proposed SEC climate risk disclosure rule. Employers face pressure from employees, investors, and stakeholders to maintain healthy workplaces and uphold sustainability commitments. From one direction, these activities are necessary for recruitment and retention of talent. From the other, major investors in U.S. commercial real estate, such as Norges Bank, require companies they invest in to comply with ESG requirements. These expectations include climate risk disclosures, greenhouse gas reporting, and concrete plans to reach net-zero emissions by 2050. Empowered employees and enlightened investment firms can continue to hold companies accountable for climate action.
Natural disasters are driving resilient and adaptive design to protect investments and mitigate dramatic insurance rate increases. As the climate crisis increases risk from flooding, wildfires, hurricanes, extreme heat, and similar catastrophes, people and businesses must assess their situation and plan ahead. Some “climate migrants” are already leaving disaster-prone areas. Those who stay can turn to a variety of analyses, nature-based solutions, resilience guidelines, and protective building practices. Design professionals should educate clients about related risks and solutions, which are not yet required in many jurisdictions.
Building codes are set at the state and local levels, beyond federal control. Leading codes such as California’s CALGreen, and local legislation such as NYC’s Local Law 97 will continue to set new standards and raise the bar nationally. Stakeholders and volunteers can advocate for progress through a variety of committees and organizations. For architects with an interest in local policy, the AIA Committee on the Environment (COTE) Network Guide to Local + State Groups is a great resource. For example, I participate in the AIANY COTE as a co-chair of the Policy subcommittee and look forward to engaging in an upcoming update to the NYC Energy Code.
Finally, with renewable energy cheaper and easier to build than ever, there is bipartisan support for clean energy incentives. Many Republican lawmakers want to preserve IRA funding that benefits their states. And, in an ironic twist, an unintended consequence of a recent executive order relaxing permit requirements for energy projects may enable many renewable energy projects and help speed up the clean energy transition. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries recently said of the surge in federal action, “We’re not going to swing at every pitch.” Energy policy is certainly a pitch worth swinging at—call your senator!
Daniel Piselli is director of sustainability for FXCollaborative.
