A great review of environmental labels available for building products has been published by Environmental Building News and can be viewed on-line at their web site.
We are looking to hire two post-docs at LBNL to do research on high performance homes, retrofits, and metrics of IAQ and health impact. One position is with the residential group where we are looking for IAQ and building retrofit experience:
The other is with the Indoor Environment group and is more IAQ focused:
Note that there is extensive overlap between the two and suitable candidates may want to apply for both positions.
HHS agencies support research to determine health effects of the increasingly popular use of e-cigarettes, also known as “vaping.”
It’s not uncommon these days to see people using electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) in restaurants, bars and parks, all while huge plumes of aerosol swirl around them. Also known as “vaping,” the use of these hand-held devices has become common, and some teenagers, according to the CDC and FDA, are their biggest fans: More than 2 million, which come in assorted flavors and forms, from devices that resemble regular cigarettes to those that resemble pens or flash drives.
According to preliminary data from the National Youth Tobacco Survey, the number of high-school age children reporting use of e-cigarettes rose by more than 75 percent from 2017 to 2018; and use among middle-school children increased nearly 50 percent. In a recent, HHS Secretary Alex Azar and FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb called this an epidemic.
E-cigarettes are the most commonly used tobacco product among youth in the United States. Given their popularity, health officials see the fast-growing use of e-cigarettes as cause for concern among youth. E-cigarettes come with a small battery that heats a liquid that may contain nicotine, transforming it into an inhalable aerosol. Most liquids also feature flavors, including some kid-friendly flavors like bubblegum, gummy bear, and cotton candy, which can broaden their appeal to youth.
Yet, while e-cigarettes are less harmful than regular combustible tobacco products—and a possible pathway to tobacco-smoking cessation for adults—the evidence on the effectiveness of these products for helping adult smokers quit completely is still uncertain. Additionally, questions remain about the long-term health impact of e-cigarettes, including respiratory outcomes. Smoking tobacco, for example, can cause chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, or COPD, the fourth leading cause of death in the United States. However, it’s uncertain what impact e-cigarette aerosol exposure may have on respiratory health.
Clickto read more.
The NIH, in partnership with USAID, the CDC, the EPA and the Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves (GACC), launched a Clean Cooking Implementation Science Network (ISN) to advance the science of uptake and scale-up of clean cooking technology in the developing world. Sustained, near-exclusive use of clean cooking technology is understood to be key to improving multiple important health outcomes by reducing exposure to household air pollution.
About the Clean Cooking ISN
Hosted by the Center for Global Health Studies (CGHS) at Fogarty, and supported by the NIH Common Fund, the primary goal of the Clean Cooking ISN is to advance the scientific understanding of how to implement evidence-based clean cooking interventions to maximize their benefits to the health and longevity of populations in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs).
Significant implementation challenges exist in the clean cooking arena concerning the adoption and use of technologies that reduce pollutant exposures sufficiently to achieve health benefits. These challenges can multiply when the goal is scaling up these technologies. Successful scale-up will depend on understanding the complex interplay among multiple environmental, economic, behavioral and other setting-specific factors.
To meet its objectives, the Clean Cooking ISN aims to foster collaboration among researchers and implementers. Each year since 2016, the Network has supported projects designed to advance the science of clean cooking implementation at scale.
For more information, click here
This article appeared in the newsletter from the Committee on the Environment, American Institute of Architects,.
By Hal Levin
We propose a method for developing budgets based on calculation of fossil carbon emissions, an indicator of carbon equivalents greenhouse gas emissions, contributors to climate change. We use scientists’ calculations of the capacity of the earth’s atmosphere to balance the heat entering and leaving the atmosphere as a result of all forces including but not limited to human activities. The overwhelmingly dominant human contribution to climate change appears to be the human impact on the global carbon dioxide concentration. For 400,000 years before industrialization, the global average concentration never exceeded 300 ppm. Since industrialization, it has risen from 285 parts per million (ppm) CO2 to approximately 380 ppm, with a steep climb in the past few decades. Climate scientists predict that our present rate of growth in carbon emissions will result in a global average of 700 ppm CO2. Most climate scientists agree that we should stabilize the concentration between 450 and 550 ppm by the year 2100 in order to limit global average temperature to a 2 degrees Celsius increase above current climate. A substantial amount of science is available regarding the potential impacts of this amount of warming, and the consequences appear rather significant but are hoped to be tolerable. In fact, a recent European Commission report says that even limiting global CO2 to 450 or 550 ppm will result in a 25 to 75 percent risk that global average temperatures will increase by more than 2 degrees Celsius.
Some experts argue that we can’t wait until 2100 and that we should shoot for 2050 or sooner to stabilize atmospheric CO2. From a practical perspective, that does not appear to be achievable at present. Neither the United States nor the developing countries are signatories to the Kyoto Protocol. The extremely rapid diffusion of technology in many developing nations and their substantially higher rate of population growth compared with the developed countries suggest that they will have to radically alter their current path. But until developed nations set an example and develop the necessary technology and the policy instruments necessary to effect the change, it is difficult for leaders of developed countries to request that developing countries curtail their growth in the distribution of higher standards of living through appliances, automobiles, and other consumption that is energy intensive. The prudent approach is to reduce anthropogenic carbon emissions as much as possible as quickly as possibly—probably considerably faster than contemplated under the Kyoto Protocol and the most advanced current planning in Europe.
The approach proposed here involves a number of assumptions that are either subject to revision as we obtain new and better data in the next decade or two. It also involves some choices that warrant further discussion and revision to improve their fairness to all affected parties as well as their feasibility. The basic approach was first described in 1992 report by the Dutch government agency Advisory Council for Research on Nature and Environment (RMNO). The report, Ecocapacity as a Challenge to Technological Development, was borrowed and applied in reports produced by the Friends of the Earth Netherlands that also estimated the carrying capacity of the Netherlands that became a model for several European countries and finally for a report on Sustainable Europe. These reports translated “budgets” for resource consumption and pollution emissions into national targets against which national reporting could be compared. These activities contributed significantly to the current model for carbon emissions trading that has become widely accepted in Europe and that functions in the marketplace the way emissions trading of various air pollutants operates in the United States.
There are five simple steps in the process as follows.
Define the capacity of the resource or sink in question. In the case of fossil carbon emissions, this is based on the best available models of the impact of carbon emissions on global climate and uses the assumption of a 450 to 550 ppm global average CO2 concentration.
Translate the total emissions that are believed “sustainable” into a per capita budget. In the case of carbon emissions, to achieve 450 to 550 ppm global average CO2 concentrations would allow emissions of 1 to 2 kilograms of carbon per person per day (kg C/p-d) by the year 2100 with an expected population of about 8.5 billion people—the latest UN population projection. Compare this to the current global average of 3 kg C/p-day and the U.S. average of around 17 kg C/p-d. Of course various sources of energy have different implications, with electricity from coal emitting roughly twice that derived from natural gas. Hydropower is closer to carbon neutral, although there are some emissions related to the development and maintenance of hydropower electricity sources. Solar photovoltaic can also be close to zero on a life cycle basis.
Calculate the portion of total emissions attributable to buildings. Using the latest Department of Energy data on the distribution of energy consumption by sector and our own data on components of building-related energy attributed to industry, transportation, and agriculture, we estimated that building related energy consumption (including “plug loads”) is about 40 percent of total energy consumption. Thus, each individual’s emissions must be 0.4 to 0.8 kg C/d-p as a “sustainable” budget. Currently 5 to 7 kg/p-d are associated with building energy use. This estimate could be refined but is not likely to change more than about 5 to 10 percent. It includes construction, use, operation, maintenance, renovation, and demolition or recycling of buildings.
Determine the portion of total building use attributable to each building type. Again, based on DOE data on the shares of total energy used by each building type, we used the present share of each building type and allocated it to each. This allocation could be refined by analysis of the degree of conservation and efficiency already applied and the amount of further reductions deemed reasonably feasible and achievable in each type. Energy per square foot consumption represents a wide range with health care and food retail at the high end and public safety, public assembly, and storage on the low end.
Finally, to derive a target for a specific building, the budgets of its users are applied. For example, for a school, divide the number of students, teachers, and staff who study or work at the school by the total number at all schools at the same grade levels in the country. For offices, the value could be based on workers or work stations, for a library it could be based on daily average users, for a retail establishment on the number of customers or customer hours etc.
The proposal presented here is to compare modeling data for building designs or data from monitoring of built structures with the carbon emission budget targets to determine their “sustainability” with respect to carbon emissions. Similar budgets can be prepared, as was done by the Dutch in the reports mentioned above, for consumption of various renewable and non-renewable resources as well as for various pollution emissions and for land encroachment. Targets are set for biodiversity loss, ozone depletion, copper consumption, cadmium releases, etc.
An elaborated version of the derivation and a number of relevant references are part of a paper I presented in Tokyo last September at the Sustainable Buildings 2005 conference and two papers presented at Healthy Buildings 2006 in Lisbon, Portugal, in June 2006. These papers can be downloaded from www.buildingecology.com.
Other resources include:
EnergiePortal: Climate change:
ASHRAE web site pages for sustainability:
study data now available on the web
Do you want to know how your building is doing? EPA collected extensive indoor air quality data from 100 randomly selected public and commercial office buildings in 37 cities and 25 states. You can compare measurements made in your own building to those in this massive, scientifically-based study to identify how your building compares.
Air inside public and commercial office buildings contains a wide variety of pollutants that can build up and possibly affect the health of people working there. Indoor air problems have the potential to affect the health of many people and significantly reduce productivity.
Early research of the indoor air quality, or IAQ, of office buildings in the United States focused on evaluating problem buildings where occupants had significant complaints about the IAQ. However, such problem buildings could not be compared because there was very little baseline IAQ information about typical buildings.
To fill this data gap, EPA conducted the Building Assessment Survey and Evaluation (BASE) study. The BASE study used a standardized protocol to collect extensive indoor air quality data from 100 randomly selected public and commercial office buildings in 37 cities and 25 states.
This website, outlined below, describes in detail the BASE study, data, highlighted analyses, original data for independent examination, and more.
: This section provides a basic description of the study, its goals and objectives, and the information collected.
: The BASE study was conducted using a standardized protocol. A description of the seven basic activities performed for each of the study buildings is provided here.
: Summaries of select information collected from the 100 BASE buildings studied are available here.
: The data collected provide normative information on several parameters which can be used for further assessment and analysis of IAQ-related issues. Highlighted here are summaries and results of assessments and analyses performed on the BASE data.
: We have provided answers to what we consider some of the probable frequently asked questions regarding this study.
: We have provided a means which will allow independent examination and analysis of the data and to allow for hypothesis development the raw data collected as part of the BASE study.
: The protocol, quality assurance plan, and other supporting study documentation as well as publications describing the study and summarizing select study results are available here.
: We have provided definitions for some BASE-specific terminology used throughout the study.
The oil crises of 1973 and 1979 resulted in far more emphasis on energy conservation and designs to minimize use of energy. Most of California’s licensed architects at that time had been educated in the era of mythical unlimited energy. In the late 1960s and even in 173, nuclear power was expected to be so economical that they wouldn’t even need to meter it. Forty-one nuclear power plants were authorized that year. The U.S. was not a net oil importer, and the limits to oil reserves were not commonly considered. Single-pane glazing was standard in California until the California Energy Commission adopted regulations in its Title 24 that required double-glazing beginning around the time of Dean’s guide.
Dean, then a professor in the Department of Architecture at the University of California, Berkeley, both wrote and illustrated this 85 page guide that lays out the basic knowledge about energy and architecture. While it was written 30 years ago, the principles have not changed, and the guide is a very handy reference for students and professional architects alike.
You can download the guide (~11MB) from BuildingEcology.com, or you can request a hard copy from the California Energy Commission, 916-654-4287. The publication is now out of print, but the staff has recently made copies upon request.
The article is available on line at.
This is a major step forward, the first tool that provides time- and weather-resolved GHG emissions calculations. It is based on a dispatch model,* that is a model of how the grid inventory would be over time through the year 2020. Since electricity demand and consumption as well as grid performance are highly dependent on weather and time of day or week, an annual average value for GHG emissions at a location or a portion of the regional or sub-regional electric grid is not accurate.
Other commonly used and well-known GHG calculation tools use annual average emissions for a grid region or sub-region. In some countries, a national average is used. In fact, we know of no other tool that addresses the time of use and weather impacts on building energy use and associated GHG emissions. The other available tools can greatly distort the impact of a building on GHG emissions and result in very poor design and operational decisions.
The distortions can lead to mistaken result from analysis of a building's energy use either from use data or simulation models. Designers and building operators need more accurate, time and weather resolved data to make informed decisions intended to affect GHG emissions.
Design always involves trade-offs. Designers are now focused on reducing energy use. But grid-generated electricity has different carbon implications, depending on the time when it is used and the simultaneous inventory of electricity generators in the grid region or sub-region. For example,
- To understand whether load shifting by using thermal storage or increasing building envelope insulation is more effective in reducing GHG emissions, one needs to model building performance with a time- and weather-resolved model and GHG emissions data.
- Is it more effective to produce electricity on-site with solar PV or to invest the same amount in high performance glazing?
Questions like these can only be answered with a tool that considers the time of use and concurrent grid performance. Use of an annual average can distort the result of a comparison of alternative designs by as much as 60% in some grid regions in the U.S. while in other grid regions, the annual average is relatively accurate. Buildings are the largest electricity user in the U.S. (70%) and in most of the world. The potential to reduce GHG emissions in buildings is huge, largely because buildings are currently quite inefficient. Reducing electricity consumption will have a major impact on GHG emissions, and site energy use intensity, the usual metric for building energy use, is roughly only 1/3 of source energy use and the associated GHG emissions.
Addressing climate change in buildings also has huge potential to reduce the environmental impacts of buildings but also to be highly profitable to building owners. An estimate in the IPCC 2007 Nobel Prize-winning report on climate change places buildings as having the greatest potential to reduce GHG emissions and to do so largely at a negative cost to building owners. More than 80% of the estimated potential reduction in buildings' GHG emissions can be accomplished while saving money, according to .
A study by Synapse Energy Economics of Cambridge, Massachusetts quantifies the differences by hour of the day and day of the year in a study for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Using grid performance data from 2005, Synapse looked at the impacts of various strategies on GHG emissions for each grid subregion. The differences among regions are dramatic as can be seen in Synapse's color plots of GHG emissions hour-by-hour for the entire year. The Synapse report,.
The Synapse report clearly illustrates that the contrast within, between and among regions is dramatic at various times of day and year. The lead on the tool's development, Amber Mahone of Energy and Environmental Economics (E3) of San Francisco, was the consultant to the Project Committee for the ASHRAE GHG emissions tool development project. The concept for the project came out of E3's work helping define a concept for ASHRAE's GHG tool development. I encouraged Mahone to write a proposal to develop a tool for California and I requested (through Martha Brook) that the California Energy Commission fund it. The funding came, and the result is available now for downloading along with a User's Manual at the E3 web site. Please check out the tool, give some feedback, and spread the word. I would also appreciate hearing your comments on the tool after you have had a chance to look it over.
Recently published research on the results suggest that it may reduce SBS symptom rates if you reduce ozone remove ozone from outdoor air. Researchers at Lawrence Berkeley National Lab (LBL) have published two papers linking outdoor ozone concentrations with SBS symptom rates in the EPA's BASE study of 100 office representative of U.S. office buildings in various climates and parts of the country. They also found that the effect of outdoor ozone levels was dramatically increased when synthetic fiber filters were used as particle filters in the buildings studied.
You can learn more about it from aor by reading the two papers themselves.
Scientific American is running a piece on the BASE Study ozone/BRS papers in their online site (see below for link). This article is based on two new LBNL papers and material Mike Apte sent as well as a lengthy interview. Apte says he wishes the writer would have listened to his cautions about the need for replication and the pitfalls of over interpreting statistical analyses. But it’s hard to get the media to take such cautions seriously. Hopefully this media attention will spur more interest in ozone-related environmental health issues.
But the case for a link of outdoor ozone to health effects has been made very strongly for increased mortality, and there are many good reasons to believe that increases in outdoor ozone can contribute to other effects such as building-related symptoms (SBS).
For more on indoor ozone and health, read Charles J. Weschler's excellent analysis in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives. You can read it on line,.
Click here to read
There are also links to the LBNL versions of the papers published in the Indoor Air journal. The papers are also available on the.
The LBNL versions of the papers are currently available online.
The references are Apte M.G., I.S.H. Buchanan, and M.J. Mendell. 2007. “Outdoor Ozone and Building Related Symptoms in the BASE Study,” in press, Indoor Air. LBNL-62419.
Buchanan I.S.H, M.J. Mendell, A. Mirer, and M.G. Apte. 2007. “Air Filter Materials, Outdoor Ozone and Building-related Symptoms in the BASE study,” in press, Indoor Air. LBNL-62508.
For more on indoor ozone and health, read Charles J. Weschler's excellent analysis in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives. You can read it on line,.