Search

Buildings are key in supporting human activities and well-being by providing shelter and other important services to their users. Buildings are, however, also responsible for major energy use and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions during their life cycle. Improving the quality of services provided by buildings while reaching low energy demand (LED) levels is crucial for climate and sustainability targets. Building sector models have become essential tools for decision support on strategies to reduce energy demand and GHG emissions. Yet current models have significant limitations in their ability to assess the transformations required for LED. We review building sector models ranging from the subnational to the global scale to identify best practices and critical gaps in representing transformations toward LED futures. We focus on three key dimensions of intervention (socio-behavioral, infrastructural, and technological), three megatrends (digitalization, sharing economy, and circular economy), and decent living standards. This review recommends the model developments needed to better assess LED transformations in buildings and support decision-making toward sustainability targets. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The COVID-19 pandemic and Russia's war on Ukraine have impacted the global economy, including the energy sector. The pandemic caused drastic fluctuations in energy demand, oil price shocks, disruptions in energy supply chains, and hampered energy investments, while the war left the world with energy price hikes and energy security challenges. The long-term impacts of these crises on low-carbon energy transitions and mitigation of climate change are still uncertain but are slowly emerging. This paper analyzes the impacts throughout the energy system, including upstream fuel supply, renewable energy investments, demand for energy services, and implications for energy equity, by reviewing recent studies and consulting experts in the field. We find that both crises initially appeared as opportunities for low-carbon energy transitions: the pandemic by showing the extent of lifestyle and behavioral change in a short period and the role of science-based policy advice, and the war by highlighting the need for greater energy diversification and reliance on local, renewable energy sources. However, the early evidence suggests that policymaking worldwide is focused on short-term, seemingly quicker solutions, such as supporting the incumbent energy industry in the post-pandemic era to save the economy and looking for new fossil fuel supply routes for enhancing energy security following the war. As such, the fossil fuel industry may emerge even stronger after these energy crises creating new lock-ins. This implies that the public sentiment against dependency on fossil fuels may end as a lost opportunity to translate into actions toward climate-friendly energy transitions, without ambitious plans for phasing out such fuels altogether. We propose policy recommendations to overcome these challenges toward achieving resilient and sustainable energy systems, mostly driven by energy services. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Paris Agreement goals require net‐zero CO2 emissions by mid‐century. The European Commission in its recent proposal for climate and energy strategy for 2050 indicated the need for more intensified actions to substantially improve the energy performances of buildings. With the rate of new construction in Europe, the challenge is to increase both the pace and depth of building energy renovations. Several barriers inhibit the wide uptake of comprehensive energy renovations, including the inability or inertia to finance upfront costs of energy renovations. Despite various policies implemented to address some of these barriers, current investments in buildings remain at suboptimal levels. The paper reviews current financing practices for energy renovations and investigates some innovative instruments with a special focus on their applicability to residential buildings. In addition to "traditional" financial schemes such as subsidies, tax incentives, and loans, the paper assesses innovative financing schemes: On property tax and on‐bill financing, energy efficiency mortgages, and energy efficiency feed‐in tariffs. The paper also investigates the concept of one‐stop shops for building renovations and crowdfunding. The paper offers an assessment of the characteristics, benefits, and challenges of each analyzed financing instrument and provides policy recommendations for their successful implementation. In general, as financing instruments involve different stakeholders and due to complex nature of the sector, there is no single solution to accelerate energy renovation investment in buildings. The emerging financial models offer the potential to address the long‐standing barriers to investment in energy efficiency. This article is categorized under:Energy Efficiency > Economics and PolicyEnergy Efficiency > Climate and EnvironmentEnergy and Climate > Economics and Policy [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has calculated and shown that, currently, the buildings sector has the largest potential for low-cost carbon dioxide (CO2) mitigation in the short to medium term from application of technological options among the sectors examined, based on bottom–up studies. The potential estimates, however, were derived with no regard to indirect costs of CO2 mitigation, associated benefits, and non-technological options; these factors might change the magnitude of the potential and the costs associated with its implementation. The question emerges how accurate the indicators of the economic potential are according to the current IPCC method and how much they might change if all factors mentioned were taken into account. While research results are presently not sufficient to fully answer this question and quantitative analyses of non-technological options, transaction costs associated with barriers, and non-energy benefits are scarce and fragmented, this paper makes a first attempt to assess the presently available literature in the field. The paper concludes that the ballpark is right for the figures reporting the cost-effective potentials in the buildings sector; however, these assessments indeed need to be corrected by incurred transaction costs and co-benefits relevant for the particular assessment, as well as the potential of non-technological options. The paper also outlines a research agenda in the area so that a possible next Assessment Report of the IPCC can derive a more accurate estimate of the bottom–up potential of CO2 mitigation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]