Content uploaded by Piers Macnaughton
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Piers Macnaughton on Jan 31, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
Journal of Exposure Science & Environmental Epidemiology
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41370-017-0014-9
REVIEW ARTICLE
Energy savings, emission reductions, and health co-benefits of the
green building movement
MacNaughton P.1●Cao X.1●Buonocore J.1●Cedeno-Laurent J.1●Spengler J. ●Bernstein A.1●Allen J.1
Received: 12 October 2017 / Accepted: 17 October 2017
© Nature America, Inc., part of Springer Nature 2018
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 CO2,51ktof
SO2,38ktofNO
x, 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.
Keywords Green buildings ●Ambient air pollution ●Premature mortality ●Health co-benefits
Introduction
Burning fossil fuels releases climate forcing gas emissions
as well as air pollutants that are responsible for an estimated
3.3 million premature deaths annually [1]. The joint
urgency of ameliorating the near term mortality associated
with fossil fuel use and longer-term harms of climate
change have focused attention on energy consumption of
buildings, which consume 40% of primary energy and are
responsible for 30% of energy-related greenhouse gas
emissions globally [2]. Buildings constructed today will be
in use for decades to come and as such, decisions about
their design and energy efficiency measures will sub-
stantially influence progress on mitigating climate change
and reducing air pollution morbidity and mortality [3].
Green building standards provide a mechanism to
advance energy efficiency in buildings. Green certification
of buildings requires that they meet standards intended to
reduce their environmental footprint through reductions in
energy, waste, and water consumption. The most widely
used green building standard globally is the U.S. Green
Building Council’s Leadership in Energy and Environ-
mental Design (LEED). USGBC released the first version of
LEED in 2000. As of 2016, over 90,500 commercial
buildings in 165 countries (though mainly in the United
States) have achieved LEED certification (Fig. 1)[4].
*Allen J.
jgallen@hsph.harvard.edu
1Environmental Health Department, Harvard T.H. Chan School of
Public Health, Boston, MA, USA
Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article
(https://doi.org/10.1038/s41370-017-0014-9) contains supplementary
material, which is available to authorized users.
1234567890
In addition to LEED, several regional green building
standards have been developed and used around the world.
In Europe, the BREEAM standard (Building Research
Establishment Environmental Assessment Method), which
predates LEED, is the most widespread and has over
500,000 registered projects. In Asia, the Chinese govern-
ment developed and released the Green Building Evaluation
Label (GBEL), also known as China Three Star [5]. In
China, 5500 LEED and GBEL projects have been certified
in total. In Australia, Green Star was founded in 2002 and
600 buildings have been certified since. In total, more than
40 green building rating tools are recognized by the World
Green Building Council (World GBC), a group that coor-
dinates rating systems worldwide [6].
While energy efficiency has dominated much of the
focus of the green building movement, all green building
standards include credits for indoor environmental quality,
and, in particular, indoor air quality, acoustics, and lighting.
A review of 18 studies that studied the effects of green
buildings on health found consistent benefits to occupants in
green buildings, including fewer sick building symptoms,
fewer asthma hospitalizations, and, in a hospital setting,
lower mortality rates [7–9]. Green buildings have also been
associated with increased productivity; occupants in green
buildings were observed to perform better on cognitive tests
due to improvements in ventilation, chemical concentra-
tions, and lighting [7,10,11].
Research on green buildings has focused on either
reductions in energy use or human health of occupants
inside the building. However, along with these direct effects
on the human health of occupants, buildings also influence
health indirectly through their contribution to environmental
pollutants generated from energy production. Energy effi-
ciency realized through green building practice reduces
greenhouse gas emissions and other harmful air pollutants,
such as particulate matter, sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxi-
des, all of which are associated with the combustion of
fossil fuels for electricity and heat production [12]. As such,
there is a public health co-benefit that has not yet been
quantified.
In this paper, we aimed to quantify the health co-benefits
of green buildings from the beginning of the green building
movement to present day. We obtained data from the Green
Building Information Gateway (GBIG) on annual LEED
adoption rates in six countries since inception of the stan-
dard. For each time period, we estimated accrued electrical
and fuel use savings from green buildings. These energy
savings were used to compute concomitant reductions in air
pollution, accounting for spatial and temporal differences in
fuel stocks supplying the electrical grid. We then applied
GHG and air pollutant damage estimates from prior
research to calculate the health benefits from emission
reductions.
Methods
This analysis employs Harvard’s Co-BE (Co-Benefits of the
Built Environment) Calculator to determine energy cost
savings, emission reductions, and health co-benefits for each
country. First, baseline energy use intensity (EUIbaseline)of
conventional commercial/institutional buildings was deter-
mined. Second, energy use intensity of LEED-certified
buildings was calculated from GBIG and compared to the
EUIbaseline to determine annual energy savings for each fuel
source. Third, energy reductions were translated into emis-
sion reductions for GHGs (CO2,CH
4,andN
2O) and criteria
air pollutants (particulate matter, SO2,NO
x). Lastly, annual
health co-benefits were calculated using the Clean Power
Plan (CPP) and Social Cost of Atmospheric Release (SCAR)
methodologies for each pollutant from each fuel source for
all LEED-certified buildings in each country. The analysis
was restricted to LEED-certified buildings in six countries, a
total of 335 million m2of floor space, as energy use intensity
Fig. 1 Square footage of newly
certified LEED buildings each
year by country
M. P. et al.
information was not publically available for other green
certification schemes. These six countries represent major
regions around the world and account for 82% of LEED-
certified floor space.
Baseline energy consumption
The United States
Energy consumption of standard office buildings was
derived from the Commercial Buildings Energy Consump-
tion Survey (CBECS) [13]. CBECS is a nationwide build-
ing survey administered by the U.S. Energy Information
Administration that collects energy-related information on
the stock of U.S. commercial and public buildings. The
survey includes buildings from all the four census regions
and nine census divisions: Northeast (New England, Middle
Atlantic), Midwest (East North Central, West North Cen-
tral), South (South Atlantic, East South Central and West
South Central), and West (Mountain, Pacific). CBECS
reports average energy use of commercial building stock
based on a representative sample of over 5000 buildings. In
this study, we retrieved the baseline energy use intensity
(EUIbaseline), regional energy mix and energy prices (elec-
tricity, natural gas, fuel oil, and heat) from the 1999, 2003,
and 2012 CBECS. The EUIs and energy prices for the years
between these surveys were linearly interpolated. The
EUIbaseline and energy mix/prices were conservatively
assumed to be constant since the most recent CBECS sur-
vey was completed.
International
Five countries—Brazil, China, Germany, India, and Turkey
—were selected to represent major LEED markets in dif-
ferent geographical locations [14]. EUIbaseline of commer-
cial/institutional buildings in these countries from 2000 to
2012 were obtained from the International Energy Agency
(IEA)’s building energy performance metrics [15]. EUIbase-
line of Turkey was estimated as the average of the Europe
Union. The energy mix (electricity, natural gas, fuel oil,
coal, biomass, and heat) during 2000–2014 was calculated
according to the energy statistics in the commercial/insti-
tutional sector from the IEA’s World Energy Statistics and
Balances database, respectively [16]. The household energy
prices in Germany and Turkey during 2000–2015 were
available from the IEA energy price database [17]. How-
ever, accurate year-specific energy prices were not available
for Brazil, China, and India. To give a raw energy cost
estimate in these countries, we collected recent national
average prices for electricity [18], natural gas [19,20], fuel
oil [21], and coal [21,22]. We then extrapolated the price
data following the development trend of the average year-
specific energy prices of all OECD countries. The EUIbaseline
and energy mix/prices were conservatively assumed to be
constant since the latest available data.
Energy savings from LEED-certified projects
We retrieved both the floor space and designed energy
efficiency of the LEED-certified projects in different
countries/regions during 2000–2016 from GBIG [23].
Energy efficiency was defined as the average designed
percent savings from baseline energy code for LEED
Building Design and Construction projects. The annual
energy reduced by existing LEED-certified projects in
calendar year ncan be calculated as:
Annual Energy Savingsn
¼X
n
i¼2000
EUIbaseline;iFloor Space Energy Efficiencyi
ð1Þ
The annual energy savings in calendar year nare con-
tributed by both the new projects certified in this year and
all existing projects certified to date as they continue to save
energy year after year. The cumulative energy saving in the
calendar year nrefers to the sum of annual reductions
through calendar year n. The energy efficiency for LEED-
certified buildings was found to be mostly between 20 and
40% across different regions/countries (Fig. 2). GBIG only
indexes the energy efficiency of LEED-certified projects
after 2006. Before 2006, the median EUI of 218 kWh/m2
(69 kBTU/ft2) was adopted from a sample of 121 LEED
New Construction buildings, representing over 20% of
projects as of 2006 [24]. The total energy savings were
broken down by the regional energy mix of the buildings in
the CBECS survey. Electricity accounted for 61% of all the
energy consumed in 2012, with natural gas and fuel oil
accounting for 32 and 2%, respectively [25]. Energy cost
Fig. 2 Percent reduction in modeled energy use intensity compared to
the relevant local building code for all LEED projects in the analysis
by certification level since 2006 when tracking of modeled energy
efficiency for LEED projects began
Green building movement
savings were calculated based on the prices for each energy
type. All the obtained cost saving dollar values were con-
verted into 2016 USD, adjusted by the annual Consumer
Price Index of U.S. city average [26].
Emission reductions
The United States
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Emissions &
Generation Resource Integrated Database (eGRID) provides
data on electricity generation, energy mix, and emissions
from electricity throughout the United States [27]. We
disaggregated electricity use reductions into the eGRID sub-
regions (Fig. 3), and calculated emissions reductions for
GHGs and criteria air pollutants based on regional reduc-
tions in electricity use in the region and the corresponding
emissions rate for that region. The baseline EUICBECS was
assumed to be the same in sub-regions within CBECS
census divisions. For this reason, several sub-regions (e.g.,
RFC, NWPP) were subdivided to break up the eGRID
regions that straddled a CBECS census divisions during the
calculation, resulting in 19 distinct sub-regions.
We estimated emission reductions of NOx,SO
2, and
PM2.5 from on-site fuel use by applying emissions factors
from EPA WebFIRE [28], which provide mass of pollutant
released per amount of fuel burned, for a variety of fuel
types. To estimate GHG emissions reductions, we used the
GHG emissions factors developed for the U.S. EPA GHG
emissions inventory [29], which provide estimates of mass
of GHG emitted per amount of fuel burned by fuel type.
CBECS provided data on the use of natural gas and fuel oil
relative to electricity from the grid. We calculated emissions
reductions from natural gas using emissions factors for
natural gas. To calculate the emissions reductions for fuel
oil, we used emissions factors for #2 distillate fuel oil (the
dominant fuel type used in commercial buildings in the
United States) [30].
International
The CO2emission factors for each country for electricity
generation from 2000 to 2014 were directly retrieved from
IEA’sCO
2Emissions from Fuel Combustion Statistics
database [31]. The CO2emission factors for on-site fuel
combustion during 2000–2014 were calculated based on the
CO2emissions [31] and corresponding fuel consumption
data in the commercial/institutional sector from the IEA
statistics [16]. The CO2emission factors were con-
servatively assumed to be constant from 2014 to 2016.
For other critical GHG and air pollutants (CH4,N
2O,
SO2,NO
xand PM2.5), the total emissions during 2000–2010
were retrieved for each country in the Emissions Database
for Global Atmospheric Research (EDGAR) v4.2 FT2012
[32] and v4.3.1 [33]. The emission sectors available in
EDGAR were sector 1A1a (public electricity and heat
production sector) and sector 1A4 (residential and other
sectors), specified by the IPCC 1996 classification [34]. To
match with the CO2emission factors and the sectors
investigated in our study, the 1A1a values were scaled to
1A1a1 (public energy generation sector) and the 1A4 values
were scaled to 1A4a (commercial/institutional sector) using
Fig. 3 Sub-regions for electrical grid in the United States
M. P. et al.
the ratio in CO2emission data for the two sectors from the
IEA statistics [31].
SO2ðCH4;etc:Þemissionssector 1A1a1
¼CO2emissionssector 1A1a1
CO2emissionssector 1A1a
SO2ðCH4;etc:Þemissionssector 1A1a
ð2Þ
SO2ðCH4;etc:Þemissionssector 1A4a
¼CO2emissionssector 1A4a
CO2emissionssector 1A4
SO2ðCH4;etc:Þemissionssector 1A4
ð3Þ
This assumes that the emissions of CH4,N
2O, SO2,NO
x,
and PM2.5 are proportional to CO2emissions, which is a
function of the energy sources that power each sector. A
sector that is more dependent on natural gas than electricity
will have lower emissions of NOxand SO2relative to CO2.
Next, the emission factors for electricity use and fuel use
were calculated for each pollutant by dividing these emis-
sions by the corresponding energy consumption data in
sectors 1A1a1 and 1A4a [16]. All of the estimated emission
factors were relatively stable from 2000 to 2010. Therefore,
the air pollutant emission factors were assumed to be con-
stant since 2010. The emission reductions for GHGs and
criteria air pollutants were calculated by multiplying the
electricity and fuel use reduction from the LEED-certified
projects in each country by the corresponding emission
factors.
Health and climate co-benefits
The United States
We used incidence of health outcome per ton and the
resulting economic impact-per-ton (adjusted from 2011
USD to 2016 USD) for NOx,SO
2, and PM2.5 emissions
from electrical generation and on-site fuel use, which
were established by the EPA for regulatory impact
analyses. NOx,SO
2, and PM2.5 emissions contributed to
particulate matter health endpoints and ozone-season
(May–September) NOxemissions contributed to ozone
health endpoints. We assumed that emission reductions
during the ozone-season were proportional to the emission
reductions as a whole. The incidence per ton and impact-
per-ton differ for three regions of the United States—eastern
U.S., western U.S., and for California—and account for
differences in population, population distribution relative to
sources, chemistry, and meteorology [35–37]. These values
capture the monetary value of health co-benefits, which are
largely due to reduction in mortality [38] from cardiovas-
cular and respiratory disease [39–41]. EPA provides a range
of impact-per-ton estimates based on different
epidemiological studies for avoided premature mortality
from PM2.5 and ozone [37]. For each air pollutant, we used
the mean value of the lower and upper impact-per-ton
estimates as our central estimations for health co-benefits.
The lower and upper values were used to provide the range
of uncertainty. A value of statistical life from the EPA
regulatory impact analyses is $9.47 million 2016 USD,
reflective of 1990 income levels in the United States. The
health impact-per-ton values (adjusted from 2007 USD to
2016 USD) of CH4emissions was estimated using the
SCAR metrics [42].
To estimate the climate benefits of GHG emissions
reductions, we use the EPA’s social cost of carbon (SCC)
circa 2016 [43]. With a 2015 discount rate year and an
average discount rate of 3%, the social cost values (in 2016
USD) are $42/ton CO2, $1170/ton CH4, and $15200/ton
N2O. A discount rate of 5 and 2.5% was used for the lower
and upper limits, respectively. These values mainly capture
the monetary value of a variety of impacts of climate
change, including changes in agriculture, forestry and
fisheries; many human health impacts; property damage
from increased flood risk; and increased expenditure on
energy and other economic, environmental, and health
impacts. Our estimations were based on the most recent
emission years (2020) in different metrics to reflect the
current benefits by green building movement. The climate/
health co-benefits will further increase over time because
future emissions are expected to produce larger incremental
damages as physical and economic systems become more
stressed in response to greater climatic change.
International
The global mean composition-health impact-per-ton values
(adjusted from 2007 USD to 2016 USD) for CH4,NO
x,SO
2,
and PM2.5 emissions were estimated using the SCAR metrics
with an average discount rate of 3% [42]. The uncertainty for
the composition-health impacts is estimated at ±80% in the
SCAR methodology, attributed to the uncertainty in the
epidemiological concentration-response functions and dif-
ferences in the modeled concentrations with emission chan-
ges [42]. The same SCC values as the U.S. analysis were
used to estimate climate impacts of GHG emissions.
Results
Energy savings
Tables 1and 2list the cumulative energy and expenditure
savings from LEED-certified projects by country since
2000. In the United States, the LEED-certified projects have
already saved 51.81 billion kWh of electricity, 29.63 billion
Green building movement
kWh (98.04 billion SCF) of natural gas, 2.03 billion kWh
(50.00 million gallons) of fuel oil, and 5.03 billion kWh of
district heat, altogether amounting to $6.7B in energy costs
(Table 2). The energy use reductions vary significantly
across different sub-regions, largely related to the floor
space of LEED-certified projects and baseline energy
intensity. The five sub-regions contributing most to the
energy benefits are RFC (Lower great lakes and Mid-
Atlantic), CAMX (California), SRMW (Illinois and Mis-
souri), NWPP (Pacific Northwest), and NY ISO (NY state),
together comprising 62% of the total savings. The geo-
graphical distributions of the energy use reductions are
Table 2 Cumulative energy
savings (million 2016 USD)
from LEED-certified projects by
country from 2000 to 2016
Country Electricity Natural gas Fuel oilaOther on-site comubustionbTotal (country)
USA 5380 790 164 380 6710
Brazil 250 0.78 —0.00 251
China 52.3 8.29 —8.62 69.3
Germany 181 33.6 24.0 0.05 239
India 57.2 1.55 2.27 11.2 72.3
Turkey 134 18.9 0.00 9.93 163.1
Total 6050 853 190 410 7510
aThe specific household fuel oil price was not available for Brazil and China
bThere is no specific commercial heat price in IEA database, due to multiple fuel types
Table 1 Cumulative energy
savings (billion kWh) from
LEED-certified projects by
country from 2000 to 2016
Sub-region Floorspace
(million m2)
Electricity Natural gas Fuel oil Other on-site
combustion
Total
energy
RFC 50.09 9.12 5.39 0.40 0.84 15.74
CAMX 49.32 8.82 4.71 0.08 0.82 14.43
SRMW 26.31 4.42 3.64 0.09 0.43 8.58
NWPP 22.38 4.90 3.02 0.07 0.40 8.39
NY ISO 20.00 3.88 2.74 0.39 0.43 7.44
ERCT 28.91 5.08 1.83 0.04 0.31 7.26
SRVC 18.99 3.76 1.17 0.07 0.29 5.30
NE ISO 14.15 2.22 1.46 0.76 0.56 5.01
MRO 12.00 2.32 1.65 0.05 0.24 4.27
RMPA 9.78 2.05 1.54 0.02 0.19 3.81
FRCC 10.43 2.05 0.64 0.04 0.21 2.93
AZNM 5.88 1.24 0.94 0.02 0.12 2.32
SRTV 4.72 0.81 0.37 0.01 0.08 1.27
SRSO 1.89 0.31 0.14 0.004 0.03 0.48
SRMV 1.49 0.30 0.11 0.002 0.02 0.43
SPNO 1.01 0.17 0.11 0.004 0.02 0.31
SPSO 0.64 0.15 0.06 0.001 0.01 0.22
HI 0.91 0.13 0.07 0.001 0.01 0.21
AK 0.33 0.07 0.04 0.001 0.003 0.10
Total (USA) 279.23 51.81 29.63 2.03 5.03 88.50
Brazil 6.57 1.49 0.03 0.11 0.03 1.66
China 33.18 0.66 0.23 0.46 0.74 2.09
Germany 4.07 0.51 0.38 0.29 0.14 1.32
India 7.45 0.72 0.05 0.11 1.31 2.19
Turkey 4.60 0.37 0.18 0.00 0.18 0.73
Total
(International)
55.86 3.74 0.88 0.96 2.40 7.99
Total 335.09 55.56 30.50 2.99 7.43 96.48
M. P. et al.
different for each fuel type. For example, 56% of the fuel oil
use savings is contributed by NE ISO and NY ISO, due to
antiquated heating systems in those regions.
54.6% of the energy savings occurred in the past 3 years.
The total energy savings in any given year are a combina-
tion of the savings from new green buildings built in that
year, plus continuing reductions from all green buildings
built in the years prior. Even though green certification rates
plateaued from 2010 to 2014, energy savings continued to
increase at a constant rate (Fig. 1).
The total energy savings in the United States are sig-
nificantly higher than the savings internationally, as the U.S.
accounts for 83% of the certified floor space (Table 1). The
five countries together contribute to a total energy use
reduction of 7.99 billion kWh, similar to the contribution by
NWPP in the United States (Table 1). Though holding the
second largest LEED market in the world and more square
meters of certified floor space than Brazil, Germany, India,
and Turkey combined, the total savings in China are not as
high as expected due to its low average energy use intensity
(only 40% of that in the United States) and energy prices, in
part due to the temperate climate where the majority of the
LEED-certified buildings are located. Brazil, which has
much higher electricity demands and prices, contributes five
times as much electricity cost savings despite having 1/5th
the floor space as China (Table 2).
Emission reductions
Emission reductions are a function of energy use reductions
and regional energy mix. Since 2000, LEED-certified
buildings have averted 33 megatons of CO2from being
released into the atmosphere, equivalent to the average
annual CO2emission from 10 coal-fired power plants in the
United States (Table 3)[44]. The regional energy mix
determines the ratio of criteria air pollutant emissions to
greenhouse gas emissions. Coal and fuel oil combustion
generate SO2,NO
x, and PM2.5 at higher rates than renew-
ables or natural gas. In the United States, the CAMX and
RFC eGRID regions have similar square footage of certified
floor space, yet buildings in RFC averted 6.3 megatons of
CO2and 14.8 kilotons of SO2compared to 3.2 megatons of
CO2and 0.5 kilotons of SO2in CAMX. In 2014, 49.2% of
energy production in RFC came from coal power plants
compared to only 0.04% in CAMX [27]. Similarly, China
and India have over 10 times the PM2.5 emissions as Ger-
many, Brazil, and Turkey even though their energy savings
are nearly comparable (Table 3).
Climate and health co-benefits
The health co-benefits are a combination of climate-related
benefits derived from GHG reductions and direct health
Table 3 Cumulative emissions reductions (kilotons) and climate/health co-benefits (million 2016 USD) from LEED-certified projects by country
from 2000 to 2016
Country Greenhouse gases Criteria air pollutants
CO2CH4N2OSO
2NOxPM2.5
Emission reductions (kilotons)
USA 30,600 1.62 0.32 36.6 28.2 0.39
Brazil 252 0.14 0.01 0.70 0.60 0.17
China 858 2.68 0.05 3.02 2.20 4.01
Germany 397 0.14 0.01 0.25 0.38 0.04
India 790 2.56 0.09 5.62 3.60 4.87
Turkey 281 0.27 0.01 1.65 0.52 0.24
Total 33,200 7.42 0.48 47.9 35.5 9.72
Climate/health co-benefits (million 2016 USD)a,b,c
USA 1280 (390, 1980) 3.16 (2.93, 3.29) 4.80 (1.48, 7.38) 2110 (1200, 3020) 462 (218, 705) 111 (63.8, 150)
Brazil 10.5 (3.20, 16.3) 0.26 (0.18, 0.35) 0.15 (0.05, 0.24) 26.9 (5.39, 48.5) 46.7 (9.34, 84.1) 12.1 (2.43, 21.9)
China 35.8 (10.9, 55.6) 5.19 (3.52, 6.85) 0.69 (0.21, 1.06) 116 (23.1, 208) 170 (34.2, 307) 288 (57.5, 518)
Germany 16.6 (5.06, 25.8) 0.28 (0.19, 0.37) 0.13 (0.04, 0.20) 9.38 (1.88, 16.9) 29.35 (5.87, 52.8) 3.15 (0.63, 5.67)
India 32.9 (10.1, 51.2) 4.95 (3.36, 6.54) 1.31 (0.40, 2.01) 215 (42.9, 386) 279 (55.8, 502) 350 (69.9, 629)
Turkey 11.7 (3.58, 18.2) 0.53 (0.36, 0.70) 0.19 (0.06, 0.29) 63.0 (12.6, 113) 40.4 (8.07, 72.7) 17.2 (3.44, 31.0)
Total 1380 (422, 2150) 14.4 (10.5, 18.1) 7.27 (2.24, 11.2) 2540 (1290, 3790) 1030 (331, 1720) 781 (198, 1360)
aThe co-benefits of CH4emission reductions included both SCC and SCAR values
bThe climate/health co-benefits by year 2020 were calculated with an average discount rate of 2.5%, 3%, and 5%
cThe estimated range of health co-benefits were calculated based on the uncertainties in EPA’s impact-per-ton estimates for CPP and SCAR
valuations of composition-health impacts
Green building movement
benefits from reductions in criteria air pollutants. In the
United States, LEED-certified buildings accumulated $1.28B
($0.39B–$1.99B) in climate-related benefits and $2.68B
($1.49B–$3.87B) in direct health benefits from air pollutant
emission reductions from 2000 to 2016. The international
countries in this analysis amassed $0.12B ($0.04B–$0.18B)
and $1.67B ($0.33B–$3.00B), respectively, in benefits in this
same interval (Table 3). In total, LEED-certified buildings
have provided $13.3B ($9.8B–$16.6B) in benefits, $7.51B
from energy savings, $1.40B (0.43B–2.17B from GHG
reductions, and $4.35B ($1.82B–$6.87B) from reductions in
criteria air pollutants. Reductions in harmful air pollutants are
predicted to avert between 172 and 405 premature deaths
(derived from low and high premature mortality incidence
per ton estimates from the literature), 171 hospital admis-
sions, 11,000 asthma exacerbations, 54,000 respiratory
symptoms, 21,000 lost days of work, and 16,000 lost days of
school in the United States alone [45–49](Table4).
The energy source mix influenced the magnitude of ben-
efits for each region and country. In the United States, CAMX
saved $135 M more than RFC from energy use reductions by
LEED-certified buildings, yet RFC saved $800 M more than
CAMX in health co-benefits due to the dependency on coal in
the Midwest. Internationally, India and China had much
higher total savings than Germany, Brazil, and Turkey despite
having much lower energy savings because of their fossil fuel
reliance (Fig. 4). CO2was the main driver of climate-related
damages despite the greater warming potential of CH4and
N2O since much more CO2was averted. Due to differences in
the CPP and SCAR methodologies, SO2emissions were
associated with greater health impacts in the United States
than in the international countries.
Discussion
Buildings impact people on two scales. They have direct
effects on human health through their impact on people
within their four walls, and they also have indirect effects
on human health through their utilization of resources and
contribution to environmental pollution. Based on mod-
eled energy use, we estimate that LEED-certified build-
ings have yielded $13.3B ($9.8B–$16.6B) in energy cost
savings and health co-benefits between 2000 and 2016.
$7.5B of this total comes from savings on energy in green
buildings compared to conventional buildings. Another
$1.40B ($0.43B–$2.17B) comes from averting 33MT of
CO2emissions and their associated climate damages.
Lastly, emissions of SO2,NO
x,andPM
2.5 were reduced
by 51, 38, and 10 kt, respectively, by green buildings
compared to conventional buildings, accounting for the
remaining $4.35B ($1.82B–$6.87B) in benefits, driven in
part by between 172 and 405 premature deaths and
11,000 asthma exacerbations averted in the United States.
These data suggest that for every dollar saved on energy,
another $0.77 in climate and health damages are also
preventedonaveragefrom2000to2016inthesix
countries analyzed.
Regions with a higher density of green buildings and
greater dependency on coal for electricity accrued greater
benefits. On average, the benefits per m2of certified floor
space in the United States attenuated by approximately 50%
since 2000 as amendments to the Clean Air Act and other
forces drove improvements to air emissions associated with
energy consumption. Internationally, India had much higher
benefits per m2of certified floor space because of their high
baseline EUI and dependence fossil fuels, leading to rela-
tively greater air pollutant emissions reductions. In 2016
India saved $33.70/m2/year compared to $7.39/m2/year in
the United States. China saved only $6.48/m2/year because
Table 4 Summary of avoided adverse health outcomes resulting from
reductions in particulate matter and ozone exposures related to SO2,
NOx, and PM2.5 and ozone-season NOxemissions, respectively
Particulate matter
Premature mortality
Krewski et al. (2009)—adult 165
Lepeule et al. (2012)—adult 370
Morbidity
Emergency department visits for asthma 85
Acute bronchitis 250
Lower respiratory symptoms 3200
Upper respiratory symptoms 4500
Minor restricted-activity days 120,000
Lost work days 21,000
Asthma exacerbation 11,000
Hospital admissions, respiratory 48
Hospital admissions, cardiovascular 57
Non-fatal heart attacks (age >18)
Peters et al. (2001) 181
Pooled estimate of 4 studies 20
Ozone
Premature mortality—adult
Bell et al. (2004) 7
Levy et al. (2005) 35
Morbidity
Hospital admissions, respiratory (age >65) 43
Hospital admissions, respiratory (age <2) 23
Emergency room visits, respiratory 25
Acute respiratory symptoms 46,000
School loss days 16,000
Source: The EPA’s Regulatory Impact Analysis for Clean Power Plan
Final Rule
M. P. et al.
of the low energy demand of Chinese buildings. In China
and India, the climate and health co-benefits exceed the
energy savings by a factor of 10.
In a report prepared for the U.S. General Services
Administration, the cost premium on constructing a LEED-
certified building or retrofitting an existing one was found to
range from $8.18/m2to $191.48/m2, depending on the level
of certification and size of the project [50]. At the higher
end of the cost spectrum, the costs are primarily driven by
energy-efficient measures: generating 5% of energy use
from on-site renewables costs approximately $32/m2and
going from 25.6% improvement over baseline energy code
to 41.7% improvement over code added an additional
$24.54/m2. Therefore, greater co-benefits might be expected
for projects that have a higher normalized cost.
Construction cost premiums and the energy, climate, and
health co-benefits cannot be directly compared. Construc-
tion costs are a one-time capital investment, while co-
benefits accrue over the lifespan of the building, and their
magnitude varies with changes in conventional building
performance and the regional energy mix. Such a compar-
ison also does not account for the higher leasing rates of
green buildings, which are the primary source of revenue
for building developers and owners. An analysis by the U.S.
Department of Energy found a $1.29/m2increase in rent in
green buildings compared to conventional counterparts,
controlling for size of the building [51]. When the value of
energy cost savings and higher leasing rates alone are
insufficient to justify the upfront capital investment, the
climate and health co-benefits may motivate green building
development and building codes that promote energy
efficiency.
Green building standards use a credit system where
buildings have to qualify for a certain number of optional
credits to achieve certification, allowing for multiple
approaches to achieving certification. Strategies that employ
energy-efficient systems can work to optimize human health
indoors while addressing energy consumption [52]. HVAC
improvements such as energy recovery ventilation (ERV)
and demand control ventilation can increase effective ven-
tilation rates for occupants while simultaneously reducing
energy consumption. For example, holding energy con-
sumption constant, a building with an ERV can supply
double the outdoor air per occupant compared to the same
building without an ERV, based on an analysis of the
Department of Energy Medium Office Prototype building in
seven U.S. climate zones [7,53]. Under these conditions,
productivity of office knowledge workers in the United
States may increase by $6500 per person per year when
ventilation rates are doubled [53]. Similarly, building
envelope upgrades may reduce penetration of outdoor air
pollutants while simultaneously improving thermal comfort
and reducing energy consumption by improving insulation.
These win–win strategies should be adopted when con-
sidering sustainable building practices.
Estimates of energy reductions for green and non-green
buildingsalikearebasedondesignandnot
performance measures. Newsham et al. re-investigated
energy use data of 100 LEED-certified commercial
buildings in the United States [54]. On average, these
LEED buildings used 18–39% less energy per floor area
than their conventional counterparts, which closely aligns
with the EUI reductions calculated from GBIG in this
analysis (Fig. 2). They also indicated that 28–35% of the
buildings used more energy than their conventional
counterparts, showing that green buildings do not inher-
ently perform better than conventional buildings.
A reanalysis of this data using EUI of the all buildings
together, rather than computing an EUI for each individual
building, found the energy savings to be closer to 17%
[55]. In these studies, there remain wide discrepancies
between the design and actual energy performance at the
individual building level; however, as a whole, green
buildings outperform conventional buildings. In our ana-
lysis, the average EUI was 26%. A sensitivity analysis
using an average EUI of 17, 26, and 39% returns total
Fig. 4 Annual energy cost savings and aggregate climate and health
co-benefits (million 2016 USD) in the United States (top) and inter-
national countries (bottom) from LEED-certified projects from 2000 to
2016 applying a 3% time-discounting rate
Green building movement
benefits of $8.7B ($6.4B–$10.9B), $13.3B ($9.8B–
$16.6B), and $20.0B ($14.7B–$24.9B), respectively.
Accounting for uncertainties in both energy use reduc-
tions, climate damage functions and health impact values,
we get a range of $6.4B–$24.9B in total benefits from
LEED buildings.
The findings in this paper are subject to several other
limitations. This analysis only considers LEED-certified
buildings in six countries, amounting to 0.335 billion m2of
floor space; World GBC [6] reports over 1.04 billion m2of
green building space around the world, suggesting that
the benefits shown here are only a fraction of the total
benefits of the green building movement as a whole [6]. The
benefits from other rating schemes will depend on energy
mix of the regional power supply where the rating scheme is
present. Transparency in energy reductions from other rat-
ing schemes would allow for a more comprehensive
assessment of the total co-benefits of the green building
movement.
The benefit estimates exclude several potentially sig-
nificant contributions including: (1) climate-related dama-
ges including inequities in the distribution of impacts and
high intensity, low probability events such as increased risk
of severe hurricanes leading to a conservative SCC of $42/
ton CO2[56], (2) air pollution damages including direct
NOxand SO2health effects, acid rain, and decreased visi-
bility, (3) damages associated with the energy lifecycle
beyond combustion such as fuel extraction, transport, or
waste disposal, (4) emissions associated with district heat-
ing, (5) benefits in terms of occupant health from improved
indoor environmental conditions in green buildings, and (6)
benefits from other sustainable building practices such as
water conservation and waste reduction. The methodology
for the international countries relied on data at a country
level, rather than regional level and used global mean
composition-health values that do not reflect for differences
in proximity to sources and valuations of health in different
countries. Lastly, this analysis is subject to the limitations
and assumptions of the underlying databases and meth-
odologies intrinsic to CBECS, GBIG, EPA E-Grid,
EDGAR, IEA, EPA WebFIRE, EPA CPP, EPA SCC, and
SCAR.
Conclusion
An aggressive reduction in greenhouse gases must be rea-
lized in this century to avoid catastrophic climate change
and meet the goals of the Paris Agreement [57]. This paper
captures a brief period in the history of buildings and shows
the contribution that green buildings have already made to
GHG mitigation and to improving the health of millions of
people around the world. LEED-certified buildings in the
United States, Germany, India, China, Turkey, and Brazil
have already averted 33MT of CO2from being released into
the atmosphere and prevented between 172 and 405 pre-
mature deaths in the United States, with over a fifth of these
benefits occurring in the 2016 alone. These co-benefits
come from only 3.5% of the total commercial building floor
space in the United States as of 2016, hinting at the
potential for energy-efficient buildings to benefit climate
and health [13]. The health co-benefits of energy-efficient
buildings should be considered during the drafting of pol-
icy, the design of new buildings, and the operation of
existing ones.
Acknowledgements This research was supported by a gift from Uni-
ted Technologies to the Center for Health and the Global Environment
at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. United Technol-
ogies was not involved in the data collection, analysis, or
interpretation.
Author contributions PM, XC, JB contributed to the methodological
approach, statistical analyses, and drafting the manuscript. JS, AB,
JCL participated in interpretation of data and helped to draft the
manuscript. JA conceived and designed the study, and contributed to
interpretation of data and drafting the manuscript. All authors read and
approved the final manuscript.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest Dr. Bernstein reports he serves pro bono on the
Board of Directors of the U.S. Green Building Council. The remaining
authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
References
1. Lelieveld J, Evans JS, Fnais M, Giannadaki D, Pozzer A. The
contribution of outdoor air pollution sources to premature mor-
tality on a global scale. Nature 2015;525:367–71.
2. Ürge-Vorsatz D, Cabeza LF, Serrano S, Barreneche C, Pet-
richenko K. Heating and cooling energy trends and drivers in
buildings. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2015;41:85–98.
3. Lockwood JG, Gregory S, Scorer RS. Climate change: the IPCC
scientific assessment. Report prepared by Working Group I. In:
Houghton JT, Jenkins GJ, Ephraums JJ, editors. Intergovernmental
panel on climate change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press;
1990. pp. 365 +xxxix.
4. USGBC. USGBC statistics. 2016; https://www.usgbc.org/articles/
usgbc-statistics.
5. China 3 Star. Standard by People’s Republic of China Evaluation
Standard for Green Buildings. C. Star; 2006. http://neec.no/uploa
ds/Evaluation%20standard%20for%20green%20buildings.pdf.
6. World GBC. Green building rating tools. 2016. https://www.
worldgbc.org/rating-tools. Accessed 5 Feb 2017.
7. Allen JG, MacNaughton P, Santanam S, Satish U, and Spengler J.
Associations of cognitive function scores with carbon dioxide,
ventilation, and volatile organic compound exposures in office
workers: a controlled exposure study of green and conventional
office environments. Environ Health Perspect. 2015;123:805–12.
8. Colton M, Laurent JG, MacNaughton P, Kane J, Bennett-Fripp M,
Spengler J, et al. Health benefits of green public housing:
M. P. et al.
associations with asthma morbidity and building-related symp-
toms. 2015; 105(12):2482–9.
9. Thiel CL, Needy KL, Ries R, Hupp D, Bilec MM. Building
design and performance: a comparative longitudinal assessment of
a children’s hospital. Build Environ 2014;78:130–6.
10. MacNaughton P, Satish U, Laurent JGC, Flanigan S, Vallarino J,
Coull B, et al. The impact of working in a green certified building
on cognitive function and health. Build Environ.
2016;114:178–86.
11. Wargocki P, Wyon D, Sundell J, Clausen G, Fanger PO. The
effects of outdoor air supply rate in an office on perceived air
quality, Sick Building Syndrome (SBS) symptoms and pro-
ductivity. Indoor Air 2000;10:222–36.
12. Buonocore JJ, Luckow P, Norris G, Spengler JD, Biewald B,
Fisher J, et al. Health and climate benefits of different energy-
efficiency and renewable energy choices. Nat Clim Change
2016;6:100–5.
13. EIA. Select results from the energy assessor experiment in the
2012 commercial buildings energy consumption survey. U.S.E.I.
Administration; 2017. https://www.eia.gov/.
14. McCadden, L. USGBC announces international ranking of top 10
countries for LEED. U.S.G.B. Council; 2016. https://www.usgbc.
org/articles/usgbc-announces-international-ranking-top-10-
countries-leed.
15. IEA. Building energy performance metrics: supporting energy
efficiency progress in major economies. I.E. Administration;
2015. https://www.iea.org/.
16. IEA. IEA world energy statistics and balances. I.E. Administra-
tion; 2017. https://www.iea.org/.
17. IEA. Energy prices in US dollars. I.E. Administration; 2017.
https://www.iea.org/.
18. Ovo Energy. Average electricity prices around the world: $/kWh.
O. Energy; 2017. https://www.ovoenergy.com/guides/energy-
guides/average-electricity-prices-kwh.html.
19. IGU. Wholesale gas price survey. I.G. Union; 2016. http://www.
igu.org/sites/default/files/node-news_item-field_file/IGU_Whole
SaleGasPrice_Survey0509_2016.pdf.
20. Zhang D, Paltsev S. The future of natural gas in China: effects of
pricing reform and climate policy. MIT Joint Program on the
Science and Policy of Global Change; 2016. https://globalchange.
mit.edu/publication/16334.
21. OECD. OECD.Stat; 2017. http://stats.oecd.org/.
22. Aden N, Fridley D, Zheng N. China’s coal: demand, constraints,
and externalities. Environmental Energy Technologies Division,
Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory;
2009. http://www.circleofblue.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/
coal_bohai_report.pdf.
23. GBIG. Green Building Information Gateway. United States Green
Building Council; 2017. http://www.gbig.org/.
24. Turner C, Frankel M. Energy performance of LEED® for new
construction buildings. New Building Institute; 2008. https://
www.usgbc.org/Docs/Archive/General/Docs3930.pdf.
25. EIA. How much energy is consumed in residential and commer-
cial buildings in the United States? U.S. Energy Information
Administration; 2015. https://www.eia.gov/.
26. BLS. CPI databases. Bureau of Labor Statistics; 2017. https://
www.bls.gov/.
27. EPA. Emissions & Generation Resource Integrated Database
(eGRID). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; 2017. https://
www.epa.gov/.
28. EPA. Welcome to WebFIRE. Environmental Protection Agency;
2017. https://www.epa.gov/.
29. EPA. Emission factors for greenhouse gas inventories. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency Center for Corporate Climate
Leadership; 2016. https://www.epa.gov/.
30. EIA. Petroleum & other liquids. U.S. Energy Information
Administration; 2017. https://www.eia.gov/.
31. IEA. IEA CO2emissions from fuel combustion statistics. Inter-
national Energy Administration: OECD iLibrary; 2017. https://
www.iea.org/.
32. EU. Global emissions. European Commission; 2014. http://edgar.
jrc.ec.europa.eu/.
33. EU. Global emissions. European Commission; 2016. http://edgar.
jrc.ec.europa.eu/.
34. IPCC. Emission factor database. IPCC Task Force on National
Greenhouse Gas Inventories; 1996. http://www.ipcc.ch/.
35. EPA. Regulatory impact analysis for the final mercury and air
toxics standards. Environmental Protection Agency; 2011. https://
www.epa.gov/.
36. EPA. Regulatory impact analysis for the proposed federal plan
requirements for greenhouse gas emissions from electric utility
generating units constructed on or before January 8, 2014; Model
Trading Rules; Amendments to Framework Regulations. Envir-
onmental Protection Agency; 2015. https://www.epa.gov/.
37. EPA. Regulatory impact analysis for the clean power plan final
rule. Environmental Protection Agency; 2015. https://www.epa.
gov/.
38. Dockins C, Maguire K, Simon N, Sullivan M. Value of statistical
life analysis and environmental policy: a white paper. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency; 2004. https://yosemite.epa.
gov/ee/epa/eerm.nsf/73afaaf2e41797ac852563c300809a99/
41dd6dbae46d241b85256e89005c2989!OpenDocument.
39. Pope CA 3rd, Burnett R, Thun MJ, Calle EE, Krewski D, Ito K,
et al. Lung cancer, cardiopulmonary mortality, and long-term
exposure to fine particulate air pollution. J Am Med Assoc
2002;287:1132–41.
40. Laden F, Schwartz J, Speizer FE, Dockery DW. Reduction in fine
particulate air pollution and mortality: extended follow-up of the
harvard six cities study. Am J Respir Crit Care Med
2006;173:667–72.
41. Brook RD, Rajagopalan S, Pope CA, Brook JR, Bhatnagar A,
Diez-Roux AV, et al. Particulate matter air pollution and cardio-
vascular disease: an update to the scientific statement from the
American Heart Association. Circulation 2010;121(21):
2331–78.
42. Shindell DT. The social cost of atmospheric release. Clim Change
2015;130:313–26.
43. EPA. The social cost of carbon: estimating the benefits of reducing
greenhouse gas emissions. Environmental Protection Agency;
2016. https://www.epa.gov/.
44. EPA. Greenhouse gas equivalencies calculator. U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency; 2017. https://www.epa.gov/.
45. Bell ML, McDermott A, Zeger SL, Samet JM, Dominici F. Ozone
and short-term mortality in 95 US urban communities,
1987–2000. JAMA 2004;292(19):2372–8.
46. Levy JI, Chemerynski SM, Sarnat JA. Ozone exposure and
mortality: “an empiric bayes metaregression analysis”. Epide-
miology 2005;16:458–68.
47. Krewski D, Jerrett M, Burnett RT, Ma R, Hughes E, Shi Y, et al.
Extended follow-up and spatial analysis of the American Cancer
Society study linking particulate air pollution and mortality. 2009
(1041-5505 (Print)). Res Rep Health Eff Inst. 2009 May;(140):5-
114; discussion 115-36.
48. Lepeule J, Laden F, Dockery D, Schwartz J. Chronic exposure to
fine particles and mortality: an extended follow-up of the harvard
six cities study from 1974 to 2009. Environ Health Perspect
2012;120:965–70.
49. Peters A, Dockery D, Muller JE, Mittleman MA. Increased par-
ticulate air pollution and the triggering of myocardial infarction.
Circulation 2001;103:2810–15
Green building movement
50. GSA. LEED cost study—final report, I. Steven Winter Associates,
U.S. General Services Administration; 2004. https://archive.epa.
gov/greenbuilding/web/pdf/gsaleed.pdf.
51. DoE. Utilizing commercial real estate owner and investor data to
analyze the financial performance of energy efficient, high per-
formance office buildings. U.S. Department of Energy;
2017. https://energy.gov/.
52. Cao X, Dai X, Liu J. Building energy-consumption status worldwide
and the state-of-the-art technologies for zero-energy buildings during
the past decade. Energy Build 2016;128:198–213.
53. MacNaughton P, Pegues J, Satish U, Santanam S, Spengler JD,
Allen J. Economic, environmental and health implications of
enhanced ventilation in office buildings. Int J Environ Res Publ
Health. 2015;12(11):14709–22.
54. Newsham GR, Mancini S, Birt BJ. Do LEED-certified buildings
save energy? Yes, but…. Energy Build 2009;41:897–905.
55. Scofield JH. Do LEED-certified buildings save energy? Not
really…. Energy Build 2009;41:1386–90.
56. Moore FC, Diaz DB. Temperature impacts on economic growth
warrant stringent mitigation policy. Nat Clim Change
2015;5:127–31.
57. Rockström J, Gaffney O, Rogelj J, Meinshausen M, Nakicenovic
N, Schellnhuber HJ. A roadmap for rapid decarbonization. Sci-
ence 2017;355:1269.
M. P. et al.
