Decarbonization is necessary to preserve life as we know it on the planet. But many would have you believe that we can achieve a rapid and equitable transition to clean energy while also preserving the economy as we know it. The case of building decarbonization shows that a much deeper change is needed.
Buildings currently generate about 31 percent of total US greenhouse gas emissions, including roughly 20 percent from residential buildings. In dense cities, the share is even higher: buildings account for just over 40 percent of emissions in San Francisco and Seattle, and nearly 70 percent in places like Chicago and New York City.
The good news is that the necessary upgrades for energy efficiency also come with many benefits to residents. They mean lower utility bills from reduced energy use, improved health from better indoor air quality, and greater comfort from things like modern heating and cooling systems or new appliances. In the case of decarbonization upgrades, these improvements also generate broader societal benefits by reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
But so far, these benefits have not been equally shared. Instead of a green economic populism for the many, we see clean energy benefits for the few.
For residential buildings, decarbonization upgrades have primarily gone to homeowners. A recent study found that renters are unlikely to benefit from most energy efficiency programs, and many local programs aren’t even available to renters. Many programs that are theoretically open to renters, such as rebate programs for clean energy appliances, never actually benefit them in practice.
In part, this is because homeowners are more likely to have the upfront cash needed to make improvements. But the issue goes deeper than that. Renters don’t just lack the money to afford home retrofits; they rarely have the authority to decide what happens to their home at all.
For homeowners, energy efficiency improvements are an easy sell. An initial investment will…
Auteur: Zach Lou
