4.7 Article

Aligning carbon targets for construction with (inter)national climate change mitigation commitments

Journal

ENERGY AND BUILDINGS
Volume 165, Issue -, Pages 106-117

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE SA
DOI: 10.1016/j.enbuild.2018.01.023

Keywords

Whole life carbon; Embodied carbon; Construction; Buildings; Climate change mitigation; Science Based Targets; Paris Agreement

Funding

  1. RCUK Energy Programme, research of the Centre for Industrial Energy, Materials and Products (CIE-MAP) [EP/N022645/1]
  2. EPSRC [EP/N022645/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  3. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council [EP/N022645/1] Funding Source: researchfish

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In the face of a changing climate, a growing number of construction firms are adopting carbon reduction targets on individual projects and across their portfolios. In the wake of the Paris Agreement, some firms are seeking a means of aligning their targets with sectoral, national and international mitigation commitments. There are numerous ways by which such an alignment can be achieved, each requiring different assumptions. Using data from the UK construction industry, this paper reviews current company commitments and progress in carbon mitigation; analyses the unique challenges in aligning construction targets, and presents a series of possible sectoral decarbonisation trajectories. The results highlight the disparity between current company targets and the range of possible trajectories. It is clear that a cross-industry dialogue is urgently required to establish an appropriate response that delivers both a widely-accepted target trajectory and a plan for its delivery. This paper is intended to stimulate and support this necessary debate by illustrating the impact of different methodological assumptions and highlighting the critical features of an appropriate response. (C) 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available