THE LEAP TO ZERO CARBON AND ZERO EMISSIONS:

Understanding How to Go Beyond Existing

Sustainable Design Protocols
Terri Meyer Boake, BES, B.Arch, M.Arch, LEED AP1

INTRODUCTION
The greening of North American building seems to be taking hold. The intended market transformation of the
LEED™ Certification system appears to be working. Statistics show that the numbers of certified green buildings
in both the United States and Canada are increasing at an exponential rate. The proposed changes to the USGBC
version of LEED™—2009/V.3—are intended to support changes in the system that recognize differences in credit
values as well as regionalized differences in the required approach to green building. The introduction of LEED™
for Homes and Neighborhoods has extended the potential influence of the program beyond the original commercial
building marketing target. ASHRAE’s proposed Standard 189.1 is also taking aim at increasing the standards for
high-performance Buildings of a non low-rise residential variety.
However, with continuing environmental degradation, and more recent escalating concerns about global warm-
ing and CO2 levels in the environment, it is becoming clear that even the highest standards of construction that are
being implemented in North America today are simply not enough. While the design and construction industries in
the United States and Canada scramble to adopt and evolve green building guidelines such as LEED™ to increase
their rigor and range of applicability, the United Kingdom is advancing in the implementation of regulations that are
specifically intended to control carbon emissions, and not just for commercial buildings.
Great Britain has already adopted policies that require all new housing stock to be carbon neutral by the year
2016. They are working towards the implementation of carbon taxes to motivate companies to look closely at the way
that they consume energy and goods, and reward citizens that show initiative in responding to this crisis. The act of
carbon counting is beginning to permeate a multitude of sectors in the UK.
The issue of carbon is not a simple one. There is carbon involved in the extraction of the resources that we use to
create products; in the transportation of these products to the site; in the physical construction of the buildings; in
the operation of buildings; and in the lives of people as they carry on business. In order to be able to reach a state of
“carbon neutrality,” lifestyle changes will be necessary. The status quo cannot be simply modified to reduce its carbon
cost. Consumption patterns must change. Buildings and their programs may require downsizing or creative reinven-
tion. Understanding the definitions of the terms that are associated with this elevated movement is important.
This article will examine the means by which to understand the potential of ratcheting up the performance re-
quirements of existing North American green protocols to achieve carbon neutral standards, as well as how to inter-
pret and extend existing assessment criteria to highlight and include carbon neutral interests.

EXISTING PROTOCOLS of minimum requirements for Fire and Life Safety in

A range of existing green building rating systems, buildings. At present they also largely include mini-
protocols, guidelines, and standards has been devel- mum requirements for insulation and window per-
oped over the last 10 years. Except as adopted by local formance, and some also speak to air infiltration and
governments that are keenly engaged in environmental air leakage. This varies by region and jurisdiction.
issues, none of these forms is a legal requirement as part A building that is constructed to meet the Building
of a building permit process. The current legal mandate Code is generally not considered to have engaged in
of North American Building Codes is to provide a set the creation of a green building. The exception to

1
Associate Professor, Associate Director, School of Architecture, University of Waterloo, [email protected].

Volume 3, Number 4 1

JGB_V3N4_a00_boake.indd 1 12/30/08 1:20:05 PM

 this would be the State of California, which has just Green Globes is operated differently in Canada
announced the first “green” building code. Title 241 and the United States. The Green Building Initia-
sets targets for single family homes, health care facili- tive is in the process of transforming Green Globes
ties, and commercial buildings to become mandatory into an ANSI Standard: GBI Proposed American
in 2010.2 The new California Green Building Stan- National Standard 01-2008P: Green Building Assess-
dards Code calls for a 15% reduction in building en- ment Protocol for Commercial Buildings. Although
ergy use over the current standards, a 50% landscape this Standard will include some carbon protocol, it
water use reduction, and significant improvement in again excludes the residential building type. This
efficiencies for commercial and residential plumbing new protocol places a much greater emphasis on
fixtures. The code also encourages the use of recycled carbon. Of its 1,000 points, 250 are specifically
materials and identifies various site improvements in- targeted at carbon. One hundred and fi fty points
cluding parking for hybrid vehicles and more strin- are awarded for a 50% reduction of carbon dioxide
gent management of storm water. equivalent emissions. An additional point is awarded
An assessment of existing protocols in sustain- for every further 1% increase in reductions.6
able building design would indicate that there are
clear “levels” of performance when verifying the ac- LAYERS OF GREEN: ADDING CARBON
tual “greenness” of a building or development. The TO THE EQUATION
ability to numerically validate criteria is essential to The issue of global warming, although arising
the establishment of a classification of “high per- from the arena of sustainable concern about the
formance.” The term “high performance” has been state of the built environment, is more specifi-
adopted in the field of green building in lieu of the cally concerned with greenhouse gas emissions. It
term “sustainable,” which, although holistic and for- is the level of CO2 that is the direct byproduct of
ward thinking, remains unscientific. the building industry that requires modification to
The proposed ASHRAE Standard 189.1 “Stan- existing Green Building Protocols to add its con-
dard for the Design of High-Performance, Green sideration. The United Kingdom’s White Paper
Buildings Except Low-Rise Residential Buildings” is on Carbon Emissions, “Climate Change: The UK
intended to work not to compete with, but as a com- Program 2006,” has set out very aggressive targets
plement to LEED™, yet claims similar ground or to meet and exceed their Kyoto promises.7 Interest-
topic areas. Its criteria mirror existing rating systems ingly in the UK model, it is the residential build-
such as LEED™3 and Green Globes4. Its intention is ing sector that is receiving the maximum attention,
to establish increased mandatory criteria in all topic not commercial buildings. This is in absolute con-
areas as one problem its proponents see with existing trast to the status quo in North America, which
rating systems is that they contain few mandatory is only now beginning to develop green building
provisions, and consequently a designer can achieve assessment protocols for the residential sector. Ad-
“points” and claim that they have a “green build- ditionally, the UK government has sanctioned the
ing,” but still make no improvements in some areas. construction of a number of “Eco Towns” across
Hence, not only is the adoption of the rating system Great Britain. Part of the low carbon strategy that
optional, but so are many critical credits. Standard is being incorporated into the design of these de-
189.1 intends to provide simple compliance options velopments requires increased dependency on
in reaction to a critique of existing rating systems that renewable energy, much of which makes better
require extensive calculations to satisfy compliance.5 economic sense as when attempting to implement
Standard 189.1 targets larger commercial buildings district heating and cooling. This integrated com-
of four stories or greater and purposefully excludes munity planning ensures a higher level of success
single-family housing, multi-family structures of in reducing CO2 emissions from the residential
three stories or fewer above grade, manufactured sector. The proposed District heating will rely on
houses (mobile homes), and manufactured houses geoexchange, CHP (Combined Heat and Power)
(modular). These are deemed to be outside of the plants, waste heat from industry, and purpose-built
mandate of the High Performance Building type. heating plants.

2 Journal of Green Building

JGB_V3N4_a00_boake.indd 2 12/30/08 1:20:05 PM

 FIGURE 1. Beddington Zero Energy Development (2002). This project takes a holistic approach to energy reductions.
It uses a combined heat and power plant to provide energy to the complex. Energy requirements are reduced through
passive solar heating strategies. The project uses super insulation to assist with heat retention. Air conditioning is not
provided. Wind cowls assist with natural ventilation for cooling. Designed by ZEDfactory.

In addition to targeting renewable energy on a trast to North America, where fossil fuel prices have
community scale, the UK Low Carbon Residential been forcibly kept low, high fuel prices in the UK
model is also looking for the incorporation of ag- have made consumers and residential neighborhoods
gressive passive heating as well as the smaller scale more accepting of wind and solar opportunities that
use of solar and wind energy in individual residential can provide a lower cost alternative.
projects. Technical progress has been made in the ef- The 2030 Challenge9 is a North American based
ficiency of micro turbines to supply wind energy to move to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions for all
small scale projects. So although lowering CO2 and new buildings to zero by the year 2030. The idea
other greenhouse gas emissions is the primary focus of was put forth by architect Edward Mazria, one of
the UK initiative, the methods do also have a positive the early passive and solar pioneers. The fossil fuel
sustainable impact on regional issues such as trans- reduction targets are aggressive: 60% in 2010; 70%
portation, of both people and products, by reducing in 2015; 80% in 2020; and 90% in 2025. Carbon-
distances and reinforcing the sense of community. neutral in 2030 means using no GHG emitting fos-
Consciousness about global warming is not the only sil fuels to operate buildings. At this point in time,
driving force behind the UK impetus. There have the emphasis for the 2030 Challenge carbon reduc-
been significant political issues surrounding a state tion is focused only on operating energy. It presently
of “Fuel Poverty” in the UK for many years.8 Much is not considering the carbon implications of con-
of the housing stock is very old and poorly insulated. struction, the materials used in the building, the use
The cost of fossil fuel in the UK and Europe has long of the building, or associated transportation costs.
been many times higher than the rates charged in It is felt that the impact of operational energy is of
North America. Fuel poverty is defined as the point greater significance as its negative costs to the envi-
at which a home owner (typically at a lower income ronment will persist for the life of the building. Al-
level) must choose between heating their home and though many organizations have adopted the 2030
eating. A household is said to be in fuel poverty if it Challenge, there has yet to be developed a clear
needs to spend more than 10% of its income on fuel method of implementation to achieve its fossil fuel
to maintain a satisfactory heating regime (usually reduction targets.
21 degrees Celsius for the main living area, and 18 It can be seen that the UK and North American
degrees Celsius for other occupied rooms). In con- focuses could benefit by being conjoined. The UK

Volume 3, Number 4 3

JGB_V3N4_a00_boake.indd 3 12/30/08 1:20:05 PM

 FIGURE 2. Jubliee Wharf, Penryn, UK (2006). This zero energy development uses 4 micro turbines to provide power.
Evacuated tubes provide solar hot water. The roof has been designed for PV, but no PV is presently installed. Directional
wind cowls assist with natural ventilation to the point that no A/C is provided. A 75kW wood pellet boiler provides
under floor radiant heating. The building is super insulated with 300mm of insulation netting a U value of 0.1W/m2/°k.
Designed by ZEDFactory.

has clear sights set on reducing carbon numbers These could be incrementally outlined as:
through energy efficiency and the use of renewables,
1. Basic Code Compliance—meeting local building
paying less heed to materials, indoor environmental
codes, national building codes, ASHRAE, and
quality, whereas the North American rating systems
other legally required standards.
are non-specific about carbon, and focus more on is-
2. Applying LEED™, Green Globes, GBI,
sues of site selection, water, indoor air quality, sourc-
ASHRAE 189.1 Standards in Design—targeting
ing of materials, as well as energy.
the highest level of compliance for the chosen
When designing the building for the type of
protocol, recognizing that compliance with any
high level of holistic environmental performance that
of these does not necessarily infer that the high-
could lead to a carbon neutral state, there might be
est performance standard has been achieved for
considered to be an additive system that consists of
all parts of the building and site, and that carbon
“layers of concern” that shape and specify aspects of
is not presently accountable under any of these
the design. An examination of the summation of the
measures.
UK and North American initiatives could result in a
3. Focus on Zero Carbon or Carbon Neutral—
complementary set of concerns. This does not infer
design of the building and its functions to
abandonment of the growing success in the market-
minimize its direct and indirect contribution to
place of initiatives such as LEED™. It does infer
carbon emissions. This would include analysis
that it will be necessary to target LEED™ Platinum
of both the components that comprise the vari-
and higher to be able to eventually reduce carbon
ous systems in the building as well as the overall
emissions. But even if designing to meet LEED™
energy performance of the building. Aggressively,
Platinum, it does infer that the criteria that have
this also includes the functional use of the build-
been developed will require specific interpretation,
ing and the transportation requirements of the
extension, and calculations to make them effective
occupants.
means to approach reducing our carbon emissions.
Extending the sustainable design criteria to incor- It is also helpful to invoke Life Cycle Assessment
porate a new focus on low carbon practically infers in the design process. Life Cycle Assessment is a tool
that designers apply increasing levels of rigor in the that feeds into the decision making process for vari-
adoption and incorporation of codes and protocols. ous aspects of each of these strategies. There are car-

4 Journal of Green Building

JGB_V3N4_a00_boake.indd 4 12/30/08 1:20:06 PM

 bon issues associated with material choices as well as of a year. Net ZEBs are very energy-efficient build-
the longevity of components. The current version of ings, with the remaining low energy needs typically
the Eco-Calculator that is published by The Athena met through the use of on-site renewable energy.”11
Institute focuses on carbon values on the basis of The Department of Energy provides supplementary
prescriptive choices in building systems. This tool defi nitions based upon the cases of Net Zero: Site
is available as a free download and is presently de- Energy, Source Energy, Energy Costs, Energy Emis-
veloped for low-rise versus high-rise buildings based sions, and Energy. Preferred renewable resources
on climate data for a limited number of cities.10 The would be solar and wind, but renewable resources
Athena Eco Calculator is incorporated into the new can include biomass, wood chips, and other waste
GBI Standard that is under development. materials, as long as they are from renewable sources.
It must also be stated that beyond basic code Obviously, the burning of any type of fuel, fossil or
compliance, LEED™ and Zero Carbon principles renewable, results in carbon emissions—creating
are neither mutually inclusive nor mutually exclu- one of the significant differences of the goals of Zero
sive. They can be applied to the design of the build- Net Energy and Carbon Neutral Design.
ing in any sequence or selectively. They are listed ZED buildings take advantage of the sun and
in this order as by the degree of magnitude of dif- wind, employing a high degree of passive solar heat-
ficulty, and they tend to have a somewhat logical ing, natural ventilation, and daylighting to reduce
progression, or difficulty to achieve, in this particu- their energy requirements. They are typically super-
lar order. There are aspects of the general LEED™, insulated, and also use higher quality glazing sys-
Green Globes, GBI, or ASHRAE 189.1 categories tems. Their interior finishes include thermal mass to
that can easily feed into the low carbon design and store the free heat they capture from the sun. They
assessment. will generate their own electricity through wind tur-
bines, photovoltaics, and micro generation facilities.
TARGETING CARBON: REDUCE, Their goal is to be able to generate more electricity
RENEW, OFFSET than they require for operation. These design inten-
Holistic carbon neutral design is looking to reduce tions are shared with Carbon Neutral buildings.
the carbon emissions associated with all aspects of To build carbon neutral also suggests a paradigm
the project. This would include the construction and shift from the classic 3 Rs, reduce, reuse, and recycle,
materials, operating energy, as well as the carbon as- to:
sociated with the commercial, institutional, or resi-
1. Reduce—build less, protect natural ecosystems,
dential use of the building by the occupants. This
build smarter, build efficiently.
incorporates the nature of the work or activity that
2. Renew—use renewable energy, restore native eco-
is carried on within a building. Locating the build-
systems, replenish natural building materials, use
ing to reduce transportation costs will factor into
recycled and recyclable materials.
this equation, and thereby includes neighborhood
3. Offset—compensate for the carbon you can’t
and local or regional planning issues.
eliminate, focus on local offset projects. Carbon
Zero Energy Design differs from Carbon Neu-
offsetting is gaining popularity, but it needs to
tral Design in that it is more concerned with the re-
be remembered that purchased offsets cannot be
duction of the operating energy requirements for a
generated in adequate quantity to perpetuate and
building, focusing on the eventual use of zero fossil
sustain our current practices.
energy. The official ASHRAE defi nition for a Net
Zero Energy building is “buildings which, on an
annual basis, use no more energy than is provided Reduce
by on-site renewable energy sources.” The Office of The notion of reduction is critical as a starting point
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy provides for low carbon strategies. The idea of increased en-
an array of defi nitions for Net Zero Energy Build- ergy efficiency in building design has been integral
ings, based on the base premise that, “A net ZEB to green design strategies since the Oil Embargo of
produces as much energy as it uses over the course the 1970s. The byproduct of energy efficiency has

Volume 3, Number 4 5

JGB_V3N4_a00_boake.indd 5 12/30/08 1:20:06 PM

 been a reduction in the requirement for energy to leaving more residual space for both landscaping as
heat and cool buildings. In northern climates, this well as the harvesting of renewable energy. This will
has been the direct result of increasing insulation work to protect the natural ecosystems on the site as
levels and airtightness in construction. The natural there should be impact reduction through a smaller
extension of this idea leads to the reduction in the building. Natural ecosystems can be calculated to
requirements for fossil fuels to heat and cool build- generate oxygen—thereby naturally offsetting car-
ings. Fossil fuel reduction leads to a reduction in bon production on the site.
carbon.
The idea of widespread reduction in the size and Renew
scope of projects in their entirety is new to the car- The notion of “renew” builds on principles of sus-
bon argument. There have been criticisms levied tainable design already in practice. The use of re-
at “green homes” that have been in excess of 4,000 newable energy is already addressed and promoted
square feet in size. Can a building be properly la- in LEED™, Green Globes, GBI, and in ASHRAE
beled as sustainable, if its use of materials and space 189.1. Only the new ASHRAE standard promises
exceeds any sense of modesty in proportion to the to mandate a certain percentage of renewable en-
base program requirements? Some movement in ergy in a project. As of the state of the document in
limiting residential areas for sustainable buildings is May 2008, on-site renewable energy power systems
underway in revisions to current assessment systems with a peak electrical generating capacity of not less
and in the new ASHRAE standard that is under de- than 1.0% of the electrical service load were to be
velopment.12 However, in the ASHRAE standard, required. There has been some criticism that this
the maximum size of residential units that form part amount is insufficient to have a true impact on the
of a High Performance Green Building is only part overall energy requirements for the building, so this
of the Optional system of compliances. No option might be revisited.13 LEED™ Credits 2 and 2.1 in
is provided for the reduction of commercial or in- Energy and Atmosphere reward one point each for
stitutional spaces. In part, including such an option the supply of at least 5% or 10% of the building’s
in a standard would be problematic. Where there total energy use (as expressed as a fraction of annual
are fairly clear minimum space requirements asso- energy cost) through the use of on-site renewable
ciated with a residential program, the program re- energy systems. Green Globes also uses the refer-
quirements for non-residential buildings are far less ences of 5% and 10% for the integration of renew-
fi xed, even if measured on a square-foot-per-person able energy sources such as solar, wind, biomass, or
basis. A greater level of creativity is necessitated in photovoltaics with reference to the total load of the
approaching commercial and institutional design project. The revised GBI Standard allots 50/1000
with a mind to the reduction of area and volume. points for the use of off-site and on-site renewable
Most in the design profession would consider such power. When looking to design to zero carbon, it
an infringement on their design freedoms. is desired that ONLY renewable energy be used to
Reduction in the scope and size of a commercial provide a level of heating and cooling comfort that
building could also be considered to be a red herring is unable to be produced by the passive functions of
where architectural fees are levied as a percentage the building alone. This differs substantially from
of the construction cost. There is a disincentive to any of the current protocols in terms of “extent” of
build less as there could be seen to be a reduction reliance on renewable energy as most assume that
in fees. Nonetheless, the base principle of “building even the best projects will be maxed out at a signifi-
less” guarantees a decreased use of material resources cantly lower level.
(and the associated carbon that accompanies their The use of renewable materials is addressed in all
production and transportation to the site). Building protocols. ASHRAE Standard 189.1 includes the use
less also facilitates reductions in operating energy of renewable materials, those with lower impact, and
as it would be assumed that the volume to heat and those with recycled content in its optional prescrip-
cool would be proportionately smaller. Building less tive requirements. It mandates construction waste
might have a positive impact on the use of the site, management as well as the use of certified wood

6 Journal of Green Building

JGB_V3N4_a00_boake.indd 6 12/30/08 1:20:07 PM

 products. LEED™ awards a significant number of bon neutral design to set this aspect of the building
total credits based upon the reuse of the building aside and concentrate on operating energy. The lat-
(3), construction waste management (2), use of ma- ter is far easier to define and therefore calculate.
terials with recycled content (2), resource reuse (2),
local/regional materials (2), rapidly renewable mate- Offset
rials (1), and certified wood (1). None of these is a Offsetting (i.e. purchasing credits from others who
mandatory credit. Green Globes allocates 100/1000 are able to prove that they are able to absorb your
available points to encourage the use of low impact, excess carbon by some means) should be considered
renewable, and reused materials. Again, these are all the last line of recourse to bring a project to a carbon
optional. neutral state. Site conditions for many projects can
The analysis of the impact of materials through place constraints on the viability of using your own
Life Cycle Assessment is a Performance Option in renewables. Limited site area, incorrect exposure for
Standard 189.1. Durability of materials is a Credit solar and PV, overshadowing, etcetera, will restrict
in the Canadian LEED™ system. Green Globes the output of site located systems. Offsetting and
devotes 15/1000 points for durability, adaptability, carbon trading are becoming an increasingly popular
and disassembly. These more complex credits are way to look at compensating for the carbon expense
of interest to a carbon neutral project. The use of a of a project. It should be remembered that the ability
Life Cycle Assessment analysis can facilitate an ex- of the world to generate offset capability is limited.
amination of the carbon costs of the building ma- The notion of carbon offsetting is not addressed in
terials. Durability offers something similar in that any of the existing green design protocols.
the longevity of the building and its components Offsetting is also likely to be developed in re-
can reduce the long-term carbon cost of a building. lationship to the size and scope of a project. As
Replacement of materials and systems with a short few truly carbon neutral buildings have been con-
life span increases the carbon cost of a building over structed; to date, a pattern has not yet emerged. But
its lifetime. The intention is that a carbon neutral it is not too difficult to predict that the need for off-
building be durable as not to incur a carbon debt setting will be higher where the proportion of build-
over time. Design for disassembly increases the com- ing size to site exceeds the capability of the project
plexity of the design of a project but does offer the to generate its own renewable power. Smaller build-
potential of short circuiting the cradle-to-grave cycle ings with less electrical load will be more capable of
of a building, thereby saving future carbon. achieving carbon neutrality without offsetting.
The relationship between any of the material
credits and carbon neutral design is more difficult to CARBON AND ENERGY USE
defi ne. Holistic sustainable motivation would offer Energy use is the current focus of most initiatives
that renewable materials are simply better because toward a state of carbon neutrality in building.
earth’s resources are in finite supply. The carbon Long-term operating energy is considered to con-
argument examines the value of different materials tribute more significantly to the greenhouse gas
based upon their carbon costs, both in fabrication, issue than other aspects of construction. All of the
transportation, and site assembly. Any carbon costs existing green building protocols award significant
associated with the materials themselves must be credits to the energy consumption of a building.
offset by the ability of the site to absorb the same None, however, mandate net zero energy or carbon
carbon. The restoration of native ecosystems on site calculations.
is looked at as a means of providing for increased ASHR AE Standard 189.1, in addition to its
capacity of the site to sequester or process CO2 into mandatory renewable energy element, also man-
oxygen. The use of local materials is of obvious ben- dates metering, meter data collection, and data stor-
efit as it has the potential of drastically reducing the age and retrieval. It offers prescriptive and perfor-
carbon associated with transportation. mance options that include considerations of
It is the complexity of the building materials building envelope design, insulation levels, and
issue that has led the current initiatives toward car- electrical and mechanical equipment. LEED™

Volume 3, Number 4 7

JGB_V3N4_a00_boake.indd 7 12/30/08 1:20:07 PM

 V2.1 requires that the building be designed to com- the design problem. The four basic steps that are re-
ply with ASHR AE/IESNA Standard 90.1-1999 quired to begin to design a building to meet a zero
(without amendments) or the local energy code, carbon target are:
whichever is more stringent. Improvements on this
1. Reduce loads/demand first (passive solar design,
level of energy efficiency can earn up to 10 credit
daylighting, shading, orientation, use of natural
points. The maximum suggested reduction over
ventilation, site design, and materiality, etc.)
Standard 90.1-1999 is 60% for new buildings and
2. Meet loads efficiently and effectively (energy ef-
50% for existing buildings. LEED™ Guidelines
ficient/effective lighting, high-efficiency/effective
outline a three-step approach to optimizing the en-
MEP equipment, controls, etc.)
ergy efficiency of buildings: demand reduction, har-
3. Use on-site generation/renewables to meet
vesting free energy, and increased efficiency.14 The
energy needs (doing the above steps before will
LEED™ requirement for LEED 2009 has recently
result in the need for much smaller renewable
been announced to be upgraded to increase the
energy systems, making carbon neutrality
Minimum Energy Performance prerequisite require-
achievable.)
ments; update to ASHRAE 90.1-2007 for energy re-
4. Use purchased Offsets as a last resort when all
quirements; and include other energy efficiency en-
other means have been looked at on site.
hancements, including increased incentive for
On-Site Renewable Energy.15 Green Globes devotes Unlike many of the green rating systems or stan-
380/1000 points toward energy efficiency. It bench- dards, the above criteria can be applied to any build-
marks against the Model National Energy Code for ing or project, including commercial, institutional,
Buildings in Canada, with the highest level of per- and any density or height of residential building.
formance suggested to be less than 10 kWh/sf-yr, or
less than 388 MJ/m2-yr, or 50% or more reduction Reduce loads/demand first
of MNECB. Green Globes credit C.2 is of interest This must be the starting point for any carbon
to carbon design as it explicitly awards 114/1000 po- neutral design. If the building is not carefully de-
tential points for a reduction in demand. These in- signed to lessen its impact (material and energy re-
clude: space optimization, response to microclimate quirements) from the outset, it will not be possible
and geography, building envelope, integration of to provide adequate renewable energy to allow the
daylight, and integration of sub-metering. The pro- building to operate. This includes rethinking the
posed GBI Standard is more proactively addressing scope of the building (size and height). The smaller
the combined issue of energy and carbon. It allots the building the smaller its carbon footprint and
300/1000 points towards Energy, and requires that lower the amount of energy to operate. This might
in order for a building to be certified at any level, not simply infer a reduction in square footage, but a
that a minimum of 150 be achieved if following a reinvention of the program. Questions will need to
Performance Path, and 100 be achieved if following be asked that rank the relative importance of spaces
a Prescriptive Path through the standard. and offer the possibility of doubling up on program
Where the energy efficiency of sustainable build- needs to make better daily or seasonal use of pro-
ings is only a portion of the focus of any of the pro- gram functions.
tocols or standards, it is the focus of designing for Carbon neutral design requires a back-to-basics
carbon neutrality within the terms of the 2030 Chal- thinking in passive design terms with deference
lenge. Where the existing protocols offer a smorgas- to the use of natural systems to heat and cool the
bord of potential credits, or unordered “checklists,” building. Relating the site to issues of orientation
the totality of the carbon neutral target necessitates and massing will begin to impact the way that pro-
an ordering of required steps as the only means to grammatic requirements may be accommodated in
achieve this aggressive goal. Carbon neutral design the building. Certain uses may be able to take bet-
works against the “checklist” principle and asks for ter advantage of passive heating and cooling if they
a highly holistic beginning to the examination of are located according to site and exterior landscap-

8 Journal of Green Building

JGB_V3N4_a00_boake.indd 8 12/30/08 1:20:07 PM

 ing characteristics. Daylighting will greatly assist trimmed down. Sensor systems can assist in elimi-
in reducing energy costs as well as provide a higher nating loads for many types of equipment when
sense of well-being to the occupants. The consider- their use is no longer needed. This would include
ation of local site conditions may help to determine switching systems for lighting that recognizes both
the placement of daylit versus non-daylit or service the amount of helpful daylight as well as the pres-
spaces. The cross sectional characteristics and build- ence of occupants.
ing height may also need to be modified to feed into Recently many high profi le green buildings have
lower energy, natural solutions. Synergies may be come under fi re as they have not been able to per-
possible when looking at spaces that have larger me- form as well as they had been predicted. In many in-
chanical or cooling requirements, where waste heat stances it was not the actual building that failed, but
may be able to be used to provide heat transfer to the use of the building that contributed to its poor
atria or circulations spaces that can make do with a energy ratings. Often the plug loads (computers,
lower level of constant comfort. Issues such as these electric white boards, and other electronic equip-
are not to be found on any “checklist,” but greatly ment) have been blamed for the bad performance
impact the overall environmental performance and levels. This has been a highly political issue in the
energy requirements of the building. construction of many new high performance schools
The proposed GBI Standard offers a significant in the UK. The buildings themselves are operating
section on energy reduction through the inclusion efficiently, but the switch from classic blackboards
of thermal mass as well as breaking the thermal re- to electronic whiteboards has added significantly to
sistance requirements out into eight separate climate mounting power issues. Old-fashioned schools had
zones in order to provide a prescriptive set of stan- few power requirements beyond heating and electric
dards for insulation values and the energy efficiency lighting. When designing carbon neutral, and rely-
of windows. These are stated in terms of Passive ing principally on site generated renewables, a full
Demand Response and Power Demand Reduction16 disclosure by the client of anticipated plug loads will
and offer a clearer feed into the reduction terms out- be essential to the success of the project. Occupant
lined in zero carbon protocols. load and duration of work or occupation hours must
Site design is also critical as it will affect the abil- also be accurate. If a building is essentially discon-
ity to incorporate renewable energy into the project, nected from the grid, the flexibility will not be there
as well as impact the potential for natural systems to accommodate erratic increases in either occu-
to sequester carbon. Low carbon thinking must in- pancy or plug loads.
form the site selection as well as the placement of Progress has been made in the design of sen-
the building on the site. LEED™ and Green Globes sors that are capable of shutting off entire rooms or
both devote many credits/points toward site issues areas when they become unoccupied. This answers
that might appear to be similar in scope and inten- the issue of “ghost” or “phantom” loads. Phantom
tion. Both address issues of coverage and density, but loads happen when electric devices such as comput-
neither goes so far as to require that the natural sys- ers are turned off, but in fact draw a small amount
tems and orientation be used in carbon related ways. of power to keep them in a standby mode. These
loads become significant when attempting to bal-
Meet loads efficiently and effectively ance the energy in a building and so the use of “all
Once the building and its program have been de- off ” systems can assist in eliminating these loads
signed to reduce their need for heating, cooling, from the equation. Sensors and monitoring systems
and lighting, it is necessary to ensure that whatever do not replace the education of the occupants. Oc-
mechanical, electrical, and plumbing fi xtures or sys- cupant education and involvement will be critical in
tems are chosen are of the highest efficiency to re- ensuring that many of the passive systems function
quire the least amount of power/electricity. Again in optimally, but misuse or unintentional overuse of
order to be able to supply all of the required energy electrical equipment could easily throw off the en-
via renewables, the amount required needs to be tire energy balance.

Volume 3, Number 4 9

JGB_V3N4_a00_boake.indd 9 12/30/08 1:20:07 PM

 Use on-site generation/renewables systems into the project to allow for lulls in genera-
to meet energy needs tion. This would be particularly advised when using
Generally speaking, most of the energy requirements solar and wind systems. If connected to the grid,
anticipated for carbon neutral buildings should as- net metering is likely preferable to battery storage
sume electricity for their operation if the intention for overproduction as there are environmental issues
is to meet most of the energy needs through on-site, with the chemicals and materials that comprise the
non CO2 producing renewables. Once the building batteries themselves as well as their limited longevity
and equipment have been designed for maximum and subsequent disposal.
effectiveness and efficiency, it may be possible to
generate 100% of the required electrical energy on Use purchased Offsets
site—although site characteristics, location, orienta- Again, if it is simply not possible to balance the en-
tion, and sheer size may make this more difficult. ergy required to operate the building with renewable
Dense urban sites are likely to pose the most diffi- energy generated on site, purchased offsets can be
culty in this regard. used as a last resort when all other means have been
The common methods assumed for power gen- looked at on site.
eration are: BIPV or non-integrated photovolta-
ics, wind (large or micro turbines), combined heat CARBON, CONSTRUCTION PRACTICES,
and power (CHP), and geothermal. The design of AND THE SITE
Building Integrated Photovoltaics needs to be incor- To this point we have looked at the general concerns
porated into early design discussions involving the with respect to the carbon associated with the mate-
massing and orientation of the building. Surfaces riality of the building as well as its operating energy.
need to be maximized for the architectural incor- Construction practices will also need to be refi ned
poration of PV units. Geoexchange and CHP sys- to consider carbon. As carbon can be sequestered or
tems will work on both urban and less dense sites. stored in the ground as a means of removing it from
Wind generation is likely to be the most conten- the atmosphere, it needs to be appreciated that it is
tious to incorporate as it is the least architecturally also released during excavation and any such pro-
integrated of the systems and, due to its appearance cesses where land is disturbed. The potential and
and acoustic issues, most likely to generate neighbor preservation of the landscape and existing ecosys-
issues. As the electrical output of renewables tends tems on the site needs to be included in design and
to be variable, it is advised to incorporate multiple construction planning.

FIGURE 3. The Aldo Leopold Legacy

Center, Bariboo, Wisconsin. This LEED™
Platinum building is also the first carbon
neutral building in the United States.
The conception of the design began
with a budget and resultant area that
would be dedicated to the installation
of roof mounted photovoltaics. The
building’s energy use and size was
designed with this limitation. Designed
by Kubala Washatko Architects.

10 Journal of Green Building

JGB_V3N4_a00_boake.indd 10 12/30/08 1:20:07 PM

 Site and Location Matter more carbon over time. Biodiversity can assist in cre-
Whether you are building on a Brownfield or con- ating a healthy landscape that is capable of process-
served ecosystem, and whether the site is urban, ing CO2. Avoidance of annuals and the selection of
suburban, or rural will greatly affect the ability to perennials and low care ground covers can virtually
restore or regenerate the ecosystems on the site. The eliminate the need for tilling and maintenance that
ecosystems of the site will determine the potential for disturbs the soil. The addition of larger tree species
carbon sequestration on site. Where LEED™ gives can increase the capacity of the project to seques-
preference to Brownfield sites, unless these undergo ter more carbon as sequestration increases with the
intensive replanting and natural restoration, they growth of trees. It is necessary to verify the landscape
may prove to be more difficult when it comes to the design type with your eco-region. The recognition of
ability to sequester carbon on site through its natu- the eco-region is to be included in LEED™ 2009,
ral systems. This is not to say that Greenfield devel- but more related to energy and climate related issues,
opment is better, only that more consideration to the and not to the treatment of the landscape. The use of
regeneration of Brownfields from the perspective of indigenous plant material requires less maintenance/
new planting and new ecosystems will be required water. Additionally, healthy plants absorb more CO2.
to assist in the containment of carbon. It is therefore possible to use the natural ecosystems
on your site to assist in lowering the carbon footprint
Disturbance is Impact of your project.
Carbon is released into the atmosphere when earth
is disturbed. Where LEED™ credits require that
contractors limit their use of the site for staging to FIGURE 4. IslandWood, Bainbridge Island, Washington.
protect the natural ecosystems, the protection of The buildings for this LEED™ Gold Eco Retreat were all
the existing soil and vegetation in this instance is sited to maximize their solar potential. Construction
intended to limit the release of carbon through dis- was kept to 3% of the site to minimize disturbance
turbance. Designing the foundations to minimize and preserve the natural ecosystems on site. The roof
impact might mean the use of micro-piles or drilled of this education building is covered in PV to power
foundations in lieu of an open excavation so that less the electrical needs of the classrooms. The building
soil is overturned. Minimizing the moving of soil design uses passive principles and materials to retain
around the site for earth works will also limit un- heat and promote cooling. The roof is constructed in a
butterfly shape to collect rainwater, which is directed for
necessary carbon release. Disturbance changes exist-
storage in a large cistern at the front left of the building.
ing ecosystems, natural habitats, and changes water
Although not specifically designed with carbon neutral
flow and absorption, which may have other negative as the focus, the project employs all of the base concepts
effects on the site condition as well. Disturbance that reduce demand and impact making zero carbon the
can kill trees, lowering the site potential for carbon next logical step. Designed by Mithun Architects.
reduction.

Natural Ecosystems Sequester Carbon

Carbon is naturally stored below ground and is re-
leased when soil is disturbed. There are significant
scientific efforts underway to look at using the ability
for the earth to sequester carbon in massive quantities
through injection. Proper treatment of the landscape
can keep this carbon in place (sequestration). This is
in part related to reducing disturbance of the earth
itself, and also related to the type of plantings that
are chosen for the landscaping on the project. Proper
treatment of the landscape and selection of plant ma-
terials can be designed to store/accumulate/sequester

Volume 3, Number 4 11

JGB_V3N4_a00_boake.indd 11 12/30/08 1:20:08 PM

 Sequestering Carbon with the Building tion and become part of the building itself. These
Buildings and material choices can help to seques- systems have long been incorporated into the
ter carbon. The materials that you choose can help LEED™ Credit system, but carbon neutral design
to reduce your carbon footprint, and the construc- is looking for their benefit in a more particular way.
tion methods associated with materials and systems
can also impact carbon production. In a holistic CALCULATING CARBON
consideration of the carbon issues surrounding the To this point in the discussion, the issue of design-
built environment, the energy used to construct the ing a low-to-zero carbon building has been treated
building should also be considered. What types of holistically and from the perspective of basic prin-
tools and equipment are used in construction? Elec- ciples. Where these are the essential starting points
trically powered tools can make use of available for the carbon neutral design process, “zero carbon”
green power if the renewable sources are not yet in mandates a numerical assessment and validation of
place on the site. The use of heavy equipment adds the realized design. Zero Carbon requires designers
carbon use to the project as these typically run on to numerically validate the effectiveness of their ap-
diesel fuel. proaches. There are various means by which this can
Wood from certified renewable sources, wood be done, as well as relative scales of the problem that
harvested from your property, or wood salvaged might be examined that range from personal carbon
from demolition and saved from the landfill can footprinting to site impact to the actual carbon costs
often be considered net carbon sinks. Certified wood of the building’s operational systems.
is addressed in existing green building protocols as is Carbon Footprint calculators are available online
construction waste management. Harvesting wood to look at your personal carbon emissions. Carbon
in a sustainable fashion from the site property or by footprinting is to be differentiated from Eco-foot-
arrangement from a local forest is new to the carbon print calculators that measure one’s consumption in
problem. This has been successfully accomplished terms of the number of planets required to satisfy
on the Aldo Leopold Center, the only carbon neu- the consumption of transportation, housing, and
tral project in the United States as of 2008.17 goods. While not directly related to the specific de-
Incorporating green roofs and living walls into velopment of an architectural project, these types of
the building design can assist in carbon sequestra- calculators can assist in getting a feel for the numeric

FIGURE 5. The Aldo Leopold Center started with the sustainable harvest of the Leopold forest. The wood was assessed
and sized to maximize the number of structural columns and beams. The remaining wood whose diameter was
insufficient was cut into smaller members as well as exterior and interior cladding. The structural system of the building
was designed based on the materials list. This runs contrary to normal practices where the building is first designed and
the materials ordered (even if limited to a close radius to reduce emissions impacts).

12 Journal of Green Building

JGB_V3N4_a00_boake.indd 12 12/30/08 1:20:08 PM

 FIGURE 6. Balancing carbon—
calculators are needed to provide
accurate feedback as to the ability of the
renewables, landscape, and offsets to
balance the carbon loads of operating
energy, embodied carbon, and
transportation.

relationship between lifestyle, consumption patterns purchasable Impact Estimator that includes global
and carbon. They can also be useful for projects that warming potential for a project, in addition to now
wish to extend their carbon analysis to include the offering Carbon Footprint Consulting services.19
transportation components of the occupants, as the Carbon can be calculated by other methods that
transportation value can be isolated within most of are more detailed and more project specific. The in-
these online calculators. creased awareness of the carbon related issues sur-
Carbon Estimators are available online to begin rounding the built environment are likely to result in
to assess the impact of buildings. The impact analy- an increase in the range of products available to as-
sis carried out through www.buildcarbonneutral.org sist practitioners with these potentially complex cal-
provides a more general figure as relates to project culations. Whether looking at the operating energy
inputs specifying the building size (total square feet, use alone, or including the materials, construction,
stories above and below ground), the primary struc- site disturbance, and functional use of the building,
tural system above ground (wood, steel, concrete, all calculations need to examine the holistic aspects
or mixed), and site conditions (eco region, existing of the project in order to achieve a balance between
landscape, proposed landscape, amount of landscape carbon costs and the ability of the project to seques-
disturbed, and amount of landscape installed). This ter carbon.
is a free calculator, simple to use and therefore of
great benefit at the outset of a project. CONCLUSIONS
Carbon Calculators are available for purchase As has been illustrated the progression of green
that will work with BIM systems and provide a fairly building design to include issues of carbon is highly
accurate feedback mechanism. The Green Building complicated, but does build on some important
Studio suite, recently purchased by Autodesk, inte- groundwork that has already been achieved through
grates detailed energy calculations into CAD inputs the development of existing sustainable building
for a project.18 It is able to provide very detailed protocols. By grounding a project in the basic con-
feedback and allows for benchmarking against base cepts of demand reduction through the application
cases while improvements are worked through the of passive design principles, it will facilitate a higher
digital model. The Athena Institute offers a free potential for success in answering carbon neutrality
Eco-Calculator, which includes carbon numbers through the on-site generation of adequate renew-
for limited building sizes and regional locations, a ables to power the project.

Volume 3, Number 4 13

JGB_V3N4_a00_boake.indd 13 12/30/08 1:20:09 PM

 As can be seen through a comparison of the man- 3. LEED Credit Summary. http://www.usgbc.org.
datory requirements and options that are set out by 4. Green Globes Summary. http://www.greenglobes.com/
design/Green_Globes_Design_Summary.pdf.
LEED™, Green Globes, and the upcoming GBI 5. AIA Convention Presentation. May 2008. TH12: Standard
Standard and ASHRAE Standard 189.1, with the 189: High-Performance Green Buildings. John Hogan AIA.
more rigorous requirements of holistic carbon neu- 6. GBI Proposed American National Standard 01-2008P: Green
trality, there is an order of magnitude in the diffi- Building Assessment Protocol for Commercial Buildings, Public
culty of achieving this aggressive goal. However, by Review Draft October 24, 2008.
7. Climate Change: The UK Programme 2006. http://www.
looking abroad to the proactive requirements that defra.gov.uk/environment/climatechange/uk/ukccp/pdf/
are being mandated by the government of the United ukccp06-all.pdf.
Kingdom in their targets for zero carbon housing by 8. Information on Fuel Poverty: http://www.berr.gov.uk/
the year 2016, it should be possible to re-examine whatwedo/energy/fuel-poverty/.
and extend our current North American green design 9. http://www.architecture2030.org.
10. The Athena Institute Eco Calculator. http://www.athe-
protocols to adopt similar practices and methods. nasmi.org/tools/ecoCalculator/.
The Society of Building Science Educators 11. http://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/highperformance/
(SBSE) 20 is working in conjunction with funding zero_energy_buildings.html.
from the American Institute of Architects (AIA) 21 12. It should be noted that one of the Optional Provisions in the
and a private donor to develop an independent set of ASHRAE 189.1 Standard in the area of Energy Efficiency
is to limit the size of residential units to Maximum dwell-
carbon design protocols that will be able to be applied ing unit sizes: 90 m2 (900 ft2) for 1-bedroom units,125 m2
to a range of scales of building types, including low (1,250 ft2) for 2 BR, 170 m2 (1,700 ft2) for 3 BR,210 m2
density residential buildings. This information will (2,100 ft2) for 4+ BR
be available online by mid 2009 through the AIA 13. Audience feedback during the presentation of Standard
and SBSE web sites. The Carbon Neutral Design 189.1 at the AIA Convention in Boston in May 2008 felt
that the amount required should be at least 5% to have
Project will build on the basic methods of approach appreciable impact.
as outlined in this document and provide more rig- 14. LEED Guidelines: LEED-NCv2.1EA page 138.
orous methodologies as will be ascertained from the 15. Information as per October 14, 2008, e-mail update on the
examination of a range of existing and proposed low status of LEED 2009 from S. Rick Fedrizzi CEO, President
carbon case studies as provided by a team of practi- and Founding Chair, USGBC.
16. GBI Proposed American National Standard 01-2008P:
tioners, design studio professors, and students. Green Building Assessment Protocol for Commercial Buildings,
This is a global problem, and as such, will require Public Review Draft October 24, 2008. P. 29.
a more inclusive global solution. 17. Aldo Leopold Legacy Center website: http://www.aldo-
leopold.org/legacycenter/.
18. Autodesk Green Building Studio website: http://usa.autodesk.
REFERENCES com/adsk/servlet/index?id=11179508&siteID=123112.
1. http://www.energy.ca.gov/title24/. 19. The Athena Institute: http://www.athenasmi.org/about/
2. http://www.aia.org/aiarchitect/thisweek08/0725/0725n_ services/carbon_footprinting.html.
code.cfm, and http://www.bsc.ca.gov/prpsd_stds/default. 20. SBSE Website: http://www.sbse.org.
htm. 21. AIA Website: http://www.aia.org/.

14 Journal of Green Building

JGB_V3N4_a00_boake.indd 14 12/30/08 1:20:09 PM