Abstract
• Extended Life Cycle Assessment is a more holistic assessment approach. • Relatable if economic tenability is of primary concern in decision making. • Climate impact is monetized with the use of Social Cost of Carbon. • Inclusion of a flat GHG tax does not affect the relative ranking of the studied buildings. • Renovation of the existing building stock should be seen as a viable option to be considered. The buildings and construction sector account for a significant part of the total energy use and related greenhouse gas emissions. However, climate change mitigation often becomes secondary or completely disregarded in building design assessment as the primary concern of building owners are economic tenability. Therefore, this study introduces an Extended Life Cycle Cost Assessment that include monetary evaluation of climate risk and opportunities in terms of Social Cost of Carbon (SCC). SCC could function as a tax to promote climate change mitigation within e.g. the construction industry. The purpose is to provide a more holistic assessment approach that is easy to relate to if economic tenability is of primary concern in decision making, which can be used to assess building design. Return on invested greenhouse gas emissions is used as an additional or standalone indicator for climate change mitigation. The introduced approach is exemplified by a case study where renovation and new construction are compared with keeping buildings in its original design. The case study show that with or without a flat greenhouse gas tax, renovation is the most climate and cost efficient alternative.
Highlights
Global warming of 1.5 ◦C above preindustrial temperatures will result in a severe loss of natural capital, i.e. a resilient ecosystem and access to clean air and water (Hoegh-Guldberg et al, 2018; Matthew et al, 2014; Stiglitz et al, 2017)
This study suggests the use of an Extended Life Cycle Cost Assessment (ELCCA) to provide a more holistic assessment approach that is easy to relate to if economic tenability is of primary concern in decision making by including monetary evaluation of climate risk and opportunities
The introduced ELCCA approach provide a more holistic approach to life cycle assessment that is easy to understand if economic tenability is of primary concern, as climate impact is monetized with the use of Social Cost of Carbon (SCC)
Summary
Global warming of 1.5 ◦C above preindustrial temperatures will result in a severe loss of natural capital, i.e. a resilient ecosystem and access to clean air and water (Hoegh-Guldberg et al, 2018; Matthew et al, 2014; Stiglitz et al, 2017). The buildings and construction sector account for 40% of EU final energy use and for 39% of energy and process-related green house gas emissions, out of which 11% results from manufacturing building materials and products (Abergel et al, 2019; EU, 2020). Efficient resource use is critical to accommodate sustainable develop ment that promote climate change mitigation. The economic assessment method of Life Cycle Cost Assessment (LCCA) has been deployed to make a more economically compelling case for reducing resource use by adopting energy efficient strategies (Hajare & Elwakil, 2020; Marszal & Heiselberg, 2011). Upstream and down stream greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are rarely included in building LCCA (De Boeck et al, 2015). Building climate impact are not included in the economic building design assessment
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
