 business as usual this is nothing fancy this is what we know this is the way this is what we're doing now this is not all this is not the gains that we're expected to get in all the other things when we get all the architects on board and everything else this is where we are now we're actually added 30 billion square feet to our building stock and our energy consumption in the US is less the Green Ribbon Commission if you don't know was created by the Lake Great Mayor Menino and Amos Hostetter a few years ago and it's an advisory group of 34 leaders from business and industry that share strategies to help the city fight climate change and to support the climate action plan so this is an advisory group it's a very influential group in Edwards in town today to address the Green Ribbon Commission so thanks Bar Foundation and thanks Green Ribbon Commission. John Seminole researcher the sustainability resilience energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions of the built environment has redefined the role of architects planning design and building and reshaping our world he's the founder of architecture 2030 a think tank developing real-world solutions for 21st century problems Ed ready let's go. Well thank you very much and thanks for inviting me the Green Ribbon Commission that was that was actually an excellent meeting I think and I'm gonna actually show you what I showed them so kind of toward the middle it was a very short presentation they gave me 15 minutes John gave me 15 minutes and but it's it's in this presentation so you'll kind of toward the end so let's just get started let's talk about the road to zero I really want to talk about the architecture community hopefully what I'll illustrate is the power that we have to change the world that no matter what transpires in Paris that the UN FCCC negotiations no matter what commitments are made by governments if we don't take the reins and and make the changes everything fails we don't get there so it essentially puts us in the role of solving the greatest issue of modern times and I think you'll see that when I'm done with this presentation hopefully okay so this is Marrakesh very hot dry climate 31 degrees north latitude down by Florida south of Florida you can see you can't even see the streets they're so narrow there are lots of streets in there and you see that all the buildings are donuts why are they donuts well this is the pre-industrial part of the city and essentially you had a daylight every space there was no electric electricity at that time and so buildings were donuts streets were very very narrow you got daylight in from both sides they were courtyards very hot climate so they planted the courtyards and and people lived in the courtyards actual living space and this is what it looked like this is what it looks like today but this is what it looked like in pre-industrial times also the courtyards were all shaded had water elements the streets were very very narrow everything was masonry so at night you have a big diurnal swing so at night temperatures are much much cooler like there's 30 degree difference 30 40 degree difference between daytime and nighttime temperatures in dry climates the cold air settles cools off all that masonry you shade all because the buildings are so tight you only get maybe half hour of sun into that space as this as the sun goes over so you basically have cool surfaces all day so you can actually walk outdoors in in places like that now we go all the way up to Vienna Austria 48 degrees north latitude that's way north like in southern Canada and you see donuts again in the pre-industrial part of the town again donuts all buildings are kind of donut shape but now the streets are much much wider obviously there's snow you want to melt the snow you want to get sun when you're walking around very very a climate adaptive but in all cases buildings were masonry wall buildings spans were short you had to bring the loads down Florida floor to floor heights were high windows were vertical and high so you can get enough daylight throw in to maximize your daylight and get enough width in the buildings and that was pre-industrial and here's a courtyard of one of the one of the buildings in the northern part of the world so this is Toronto 1891 and you can see again masonry buildings high Florida high floor-to-floor heights vertical windows keep your eye on the flat iron building which is the one right above 1891 and let's fast forward that from 1891 to today and you could see the flat iron buildings of four story four and a half story half basement with an attic and the building right to the right of that that brick building is a nine-story building same height floor-to-floor has come down you can condition space you could see the huge blank wall so we can condition space and everything became horizontal everything came down this is Boston 1888 and that's what it looks like today and I guess the I am pace skyscraper this is Shanghai around 1990 this is looking over yeah now keep your eye on the the building with the tower clock tower there okay I'm gonna fast forward 25 years that's Shanghai today in 25 years but again you know same if you look at the sky the skyscrapers same skyscrapers same building types so how did we how did we get from that to this and if you if you try to walk around in the in the Pudong area which was that area I just showed you there's a separation of car and pedestrians pedestrians are on the upper level cars are running around on the bottom level and the pedestrians actually move from building to building on these walkways that are that are high up how did all that happen well in the turn of the century Cole was the dominant player it was the dominant energy source the Industrial Revolution was in full swing you had factories and plants and everything and housing all mixed together the lifespan in England at that time was like 35 years diet of emphysema and all sorts of things so it's pretty bad you didn't have you know you didn't you couldn't get light into buildings everything was kind of packed in the architects and planners of the time got together and they held their first Congress in 1928 called the International Congress of Modern Architecture and it's the Corbusier Gropius Alto and they laid out a set of guiding principles these were based on reform and social justice it was a utopian movement and it was really heroic and they set out to change the world and so they set out a bunch of planning principles function based zones get the housing separate the housing and the industry get the industry out of the housing so that people could actually breathe and live they call for high-rise housing blocks in the best land not the worst land which was what was happening at the time they call for abundant parks the housing blocks and parks they call for sunlight into all spaces and they call for free and efficient circulation the automobile was in and we were now transporting goods and services by automobile and truck the Corbusier developed a design for the radiant city where he separated the automobiles and and and movement of goods and services on the main level and had the walkways on the level above for pedestrians he also set out a set of guiding principles for architecture he called for column wall separation so no more bearing walls his columns beams and then hang the walls off of the structure that would open up the plan so we wouldn't have masonry walls and very very short spans we would then be able to free the design of the facades and actually do curtain walls all glass facades to get light and air into the spaces and he called for horizontal bands of windows now that we didn't have to bring the structure down the first modern building attributed to the Bauhaus was in the 1920s 1925 and you can see the structures inside no bearing walls and the exterior walls all glass hung from the hung from the structure from that point Philip Johnson and Henry Russell Hitchcock brought the movement the modern movement over from Europe to the US in a major exhibition at the Museum of Modern Art in 32 and they called it the international style the reason is that we could take that those guidelines and apply them anywhere in the world didn't matter at this point so it was now a style and from that you have the beautiful lever house and the first modern the first full city plan based on the principles of the modern movement and modernism was based obviously on fossil fuels because it could be an international style we could take the same building type that you saw in Poudang and and anywhere else in the world and and just overcome the exterior environment by using fossil fuels it's now 2015 and we have a new problem and we are the only ones that can solve this problem similar to the way it happened back at the turn of the century and I'll show you why today world population is about 7.2 billion people by 2030 world population is expected to increase another 1.1 billion by 1.1 billion people by 2030 world urban population is expected to increase by 1.1 billion people absorbing the entire population growth globally meaning that all the construction is going to happen in urban areas and cities and that's what we're finding today so over the next two decades there'll be about 900 billion square feet of building built and this will be new buildings and tear down and rebuild new buildings in urban areas this is just in urban areas worldwide that's an area equal to 60 percent of the entire building stock of the world this is what I showed today it's like building a New York City or rebuilding a New York City every 35 days globally that's how much construction we're doing if we get it right we solve the climate problem if we don't get it right we lock in emissions and energy consumption for 80 to 100 years 80 years is the average lifespan of a building globally and 120 years is the infrastructure that goes along with that building so where's most of this construction going to take place well 53% of all this construction over the next two decades is going to take place in China we know that 38% but second is North America the U.S. and Canada another 15% takes place so between the U.S. and China 53% of all construction is going to take place over the next two decades then after that cycle is over then you have India coming in and Africa and stuff like that so if we get that right we have a huge opportunity to set the tone globally we also know where all the emissions are coming from 75% comes from urban environments from cities and we know that in order to stay under two degrees centigrade we need to phase out CO2 emissions in urban environments by about 2050 now why do we say 2050 and this afternoon John Holdren who addressed the commission said we need to get on track to have a 50% chance of staying on the two degrees seat well let me talk about that for a minute these are the four scenarios that was run and Holdren was talking about one of these which was the 2.6 scenario these are the four scenarios that the IPCC ran. They have different phase-out times they have different phase-out times different peaks and different phase-out times and you can see the 2.6 peaks around 2020 and then phases out by about 2070 2080 so you eliminate CO2 emissions by about that time and each one of those scenarios burns all different amounts of carbon the only scenario that gives us a chance of staying under two degrees C is the 2.6 scenario phasing out by 2070 but that's a 66% change that was the one that was what Holdren was talking about today but that gives us a 33% chance of blowing over two degrees C and I'll tell you why this is not good you should have seen this talk today what's gonna what's gonna fall on us is a nightmare but so the scientific community ran a fourth scenario another two RSV 2.6 and they said let's peak a little sooner between 2016 and 2020 and phase out CO2 emissions by 2050 hence the roadmap to 2050 that gives us a high probability 80 85% of better chance of staying on the two degrees C now why is that 2.6 really important is why is it important to to to actually have a high probability the other three scenarios if you pass two degrees C the plan keeps on warming you cannot bring it back it's game over so 50% chance 66% chance whatever you want to call it it's terrible odds playing with this kind of this kind of problem once you pass two degrees it is so much inertia and so much CO2 that you put in the atmosphere comes it stays up there for hundreds of years and it just doesn't come down and the planet just keeps on warming there's a big lag time so if we if we don't make it we're in really big trouble if we meet the 2.6 scenario and we have a good chance of doing that and the planet doesn't reach two degrees C goes gets about 1.5 1.6 1.7 and then starts coming back because we phase out emissions and now the ocean uptake and the land uptake and the planned uptake begins to take carbon out at a slow rate but we still begin to come back so it is the only plausible option that we have and the only group that can get us to that is you in 2003 we discovered the building sector and there was the architects pollute issue which is now kind of iconic it was a great great cover but it was the first time we wreck we realized that we were not only the problem but we were the solution and in 2006 we formed architecture 2030 I left architecture practice and we've been working on solutions within our sector and we issued back then the 2030 challenge we called in 2015 we call for a 70% fossil fuel reduction in operating buildings and the more renewables you use you just offset that energy so we know that buildings need energy so we're at a 70% reduction today in 2020 we call for an 80% fossil fuel reduction in 2025 90% and in 2030 we're calling for all buildings to be carbon neutral that doesn't mean they don't use energy they use energy but not fossil fuel carbon emitting CO2 emitting energy we discovered that and we'll I'll show you that in a minute we discovered what was happening in the US to the building sector and we built the program around what the architecture community and planning community was accomplishing in the US and took that to Europe before we took that to Europe the ambitions were very low when we showed what was going on in the US which I'll show you in a minute all of a sudden ambitions were raised it was amazing to see because they thought the US was really holding everything back and realized that we were moving ahead actually very quickly quicker than anybody else we put all that in a road map to zero emissions went to the next meeting UN FCC meeting in Bonn and presented the whole road map we also called for not only meeting the 2030 targets for new buildings and major renovations but also for the developed countries to reduce by 50% on a two to three percent square footage a year of total building stock reduced by 50% their energy consumption of that building stock two to three percent of their building stock a year reduce it by 50% out over time and then developing countries the same reduction but only one and a half to two percent of their building stock so that was all in the road map and if you meet that road map this is what we presented at the OECD in Paris and in Bonn this is CO2 emitting energy that we use globally and non-CO2 so renewables hydro nuclear is up there so about three quarters little more than three quarters of all energy consumption in the world this is just the building sector global building sector if we implement that strategy the 2030 targets for new buildings and 50% for a portion of the building stock every every year then we begin to reduce the energy consumption of buildings by one and quarter percent annually and you can see that by 2050 by phasing in by doubling the only doubling the amount of renewables that we have globally now we're able to actually phase out CO2 emissions in the world this was really heartening to the parties so what did I show them in in Paris I showed them that we issued the 2030 challenge targets that 70% of the top 20 AE firms have adopted the targets and are working to meet the targets that doesn't mean they're all meeting them on all the buildings we know that but they're working toward it and they're starting to make good progress the latest the I survey shows that 54% of US firms have adopted the targets and that's 63% this was a heartening number of AE firms feel they could meet the carbon neutral target by 2030 that was in the 30s and 40s years back it's now up to 63% the federal government has adopted the targets in section 433 of the energy independence and security act phase out all CO2 all fossil fuels for building operations and new buildings and major renovations and all federal facilities by 2030 that's the law today it's 65% reduction and the DOE finally issued the rules on how to do that so the rules have been issued the fossil fuel companies and their constituents in Congress are trying to get this repealed and so the AI has been fighting the AI has been doing an incredible job keeping 433 in in law California we work with them there they've adopted the 2030 targets for commercial buildings and did one better ten years better on new residential buildings zero net energy by 2020 by code and they've now set out their code processes to get to those targets and many states and cities and counties have adopted in various forms or another the 2030 targets the AI has the 2030 commitment that you're all familiar with there are now 325 firms benchmarking and more important reporting and the reporting has gone up this year dramatically which is really great they they're not everybody's meeting the 70% but but there are some interesting findings in that when people actually run simulation programs and begin the process very early on in the design they have a much much greater chance of meeting the targets we have 2030 districts that go to a 50% reduction in the whole district by 2030 energy consumption and emissions and those districts are spreading like mushrooms all around the country their private sector led and there's a bunch more forming now and other in other cities they're building on a private sector led and then they bring the public sector in afterwards so their private public partnerships and then you know the plus 2030 series it ran in in 27 markets in the US and Canada and the A's now doing an online series so how do we get to zero or carbon neutral well what we say at architecture 2030 is and as designers is that it's a two-step process the first step the biggest reduction comes in design it's how we design our buildings it's really design and planning everything from from how we locate our buildings transportation systems density walkable communities all the way down to building design building form day lighting different kinds of passive strategies what color the buildings made out of what kind of elements shading elements all these things enter into into design and we we know from the 70s and 80s you can squeeze anywhere from 50 to 80% of the energy consumption out of out of a building from a typical building and our codes are now at 50% so we know you can squeeze another 20 30% out from a typical building but all buildings need energy and so we say make up the rest with not fossil fuel energy but renewable energy everything from site renewables site scale renewables whatever you can get on site to to utility scale to micro grid micro grids neighborhood scale all the way to utility scale renewables we also know that there's an information gap we need the information in order to be able to design down to get to that 50 60 70 80% reduction the information that's out there is highly technical in many cases it's compartmentalized and we're finding that there's a limited audience for this within the architecture and planning community although that's changing in order to solve part of the information gap we took a stab at it and we developed the 2030 palette which is online now at www.2030pallet.org and it lays out all the principles the guiding principles for planning and and design all the way down to building elements and we're continually building that out it's an ongoing process really a love of architecture so where are we today and what did we show in Paris and in and in Bonn that really moved began to move the needle we showed the US building sector this was the projection in 2005 the building sector was using about 40 quads of energy that's a unit of energy the whole US uses about 90 something quads so the building sector is like 40 something percent so in 2005 the building sector was consuming 40 quads of energy and the energy information administration the part of the DOE projected that by 2030 the building sector because of all the buildings we've been adding we were adding about five billion square feet a year of new building back then we would need 43 percent more energy to operate the building sector remember the recession hits in about 2007 middle of 2007 2007 before the recession the projections came down the targets were issued and we discovered the building sector in 2002 to 2003 when the metropolis came out people started to get on board you had the GBC had lead information was getting out there so the energy consumption leveled out a bit for a year or two but the projections were still up 2009 you had the recession half of that big jump down was we weren't building that many more buildings because we went down from five billion square feet about 1.75 billion square feet and so we had a big reduction but about half of that was also efficiency gains in design construction engineering products now from 2009 built into the DOE models is the recession so 2011 there's a drop again 2013 we actually reduced emissions in the building sector from 2005 all the way out to 2013 and the projections were almost flat now 2015 we're down again we're down again we're actually flat business as usual this is nothing fancy this is what we know this is the way this is what we're doing now this is not all this is not the gains that we're expected to get and all the other things when we get all the architects on board and everything else this is where we are now we're actually added 30 billion square feet to our building stock and our energy consumption in the US is less you know why we Obama's issue the you know we're going to phase out coal and all that kind of stuff coal is phasing itself out because there's no demand actual capacity in the US is down so all the nuclear plants have been cancelled coal plants that are coming of age are being phased out not because there's regulations or anything is because there's no demand demand is going down at 75% of all the power that's produced in the United States goes to buildings and that's what you've done and that's what we presented in your now that's just business as usual this is if we just use what we have that's really efficient high efficiency boilers better glazing better insulation everything else if we incorporate that in our building the IA projects we're down that doesn't even include design strategies they have no clue about design they don't understand what architects do very few people do but when you put in design strategies we're going down through the floor you remember the ARA and all the money to put money back into the economy that number that's five hundred sixty billion dollars are what consumers were expected to pay in the US for energy by 2030 five hundred sixty billion dollars is what they didn't pay that's the same as the whole bailout during the during the recession that's what Congress approved I think five hundred eighty billion something like that now look at these numbers so we got a double whammy this is how much money that consumers are expected to save that they were going to pay by 2030 that they're not going to pay it's in the trillions of dollars the numbers are absolutely staggering so we issued another imperative we call it the 2050 imperative the AIA took it to to Durbin South Africa during the International Union of Architects where all the architecture organizations from all over the world got together they said it doesn't have a chance of passing somehow the guy from Australia Australia Institute of Architects got a hold of it and said we got to pass this brought it somehow got it to the floor and unanimous so the architects the architecture organizations globally have pledged for their members 1.3 million architects that they're going to design to carbon neutral standards they're going to do it not right away but once you get this going then it has a snowball effect we then heard from the from the Chinese well the US one it's a long story but anyway we went to China over two three two over a three-year period we got all the international firms that have offices in China like Skidmore and Gensler and everybody else to sign on to a China court pledging that all their plan all their city planning developments and buildings they were designed to carbon neutral standards or and we understand that high density areas it's difficult to do high performance and with the ability to import renewables to get those projects to carbon neutral this just got signed two weeks ago by took me two years to get the international firms to sign on within four months we had the largest local design institutes from every region in China 28 local design institutes sign on to the accord and the CEDAAB which is the acronym for the organization like the AIA for all the local design institutes was the one who instigated it and they signed the accord for all the local design institutes the local design institutes are government owned and they took me aside and assured me that when China decides to do something we will take only months to do it not years and years to do it because it's coming down from the government so they were great that was an interesting truth we also based on those early presentations in Bonn and Paris the UN FCCC declared one full day at the Paris negotiations that are taking place this next month starting November 30th to December 11th one full day out of that will be devoted just to buildings to elevate the issue that buildings are critical in order to get this issue solved now that is huge to devote you have no idea how bureaucratic the UN FCCC is to get a full day devoted to buildings was absolutely huge and we had a bunch of partners pushing for that but we got it we got it through they realize that if they don't get the building sector under control it's not going to happen and they know that a lot of that cannot be done by treaties or anything like that that it's going to be the building sector itself that creates the guidelines and the framework to make a total paradigm shift to get this done and that's what we need there's a carbon neutral cities alliance but I want you to notice there is Boston this is an alliance of 17 I think 17 cities that have agreed to 80% to zero emissions by the year 2030 and I showed this today Boston has positioned itself right in the middle of this put itself on the international stage right in back of the Pope and and so you better believe everybody's looking at Boston you don't make it it is a big embarrassing and you don't want the Pope against you this is so this is what I presented today as the Commission how is Boston going to get an 80% reduction in the whole city by 2050 so here's where you are today you've actually made some gains this is emissions in Boston the city of Boston back to 2005 on the left and that's where you are today that's total greenhouse gas emissions in Boston and Boston has set out two targets now I didn't stretch that the thing all the way out the graph all the way out so you see 2020 and 2050 right next to each other actually it would go way out to the other side of the room but the 20 20 target is a 25% reduction below 2005 levels and the 2050 target is an 80% reduction below 2005 levels you're at a 17% reduction today but it's starting to go slightly up and the projections aren't might actually go even up how did you get 17% in such a short period of time well you did took care of the low hanging fruit you switch from cold to gas and oil to gas and natural gas which is lower emitting fossil fuel and so you've used up the low hanging fruit now starts the real work and in politics politicians usually use up the low hanging fruit really quickly and then leave it to the next guy well that's not so now the next guy's on the hook so how are we going to get from 17 to 25 and then all the way to 80 well here's the building site there still there 73% of total emissions is just building operations in Boston so we put together a plan that we presented today to the Green Ribbon Commission on getting to 80 by 50 how can Boston get to 80 by 50 we actually developed a plan for New York it's very similar urban areas are similar there are about 724 million square feet of building and I say about because these are numbers we we've been going back and forth with people people here to get us information we haven't had time to do due diligence so this is very quick and back of the envelope so there about 724 million square feet of building in Boston Boston is adding about four and a half to seven million square feet we think it's seven and I showed seven today not the four and a half but the four and a half is when I look at the actual statistics that are on the city website I'm getting four and a half but the construction companies are telling me it's it's more like seven or actually even greater so I'm I think it's seven 73% of the city's emissions come from buildings 93% of all electricity production goes just to operate buildings and the equipment that's in buildings so two things we have to deal with we have to deal with that 724 million square feet and the 7 million square feet of new buildings plus we need to bring in renewable energy so how are we going to deal with all those three well there is a formula you do deep efficiency renovations of the 724 million square feet and you bring the new buildings in at very very low energy consumptive levels high performance new building design and major renovations also and then you use renewables to make up the rest the same same thing we had with the design so we developed the scale for for Boston 100 being the average building energy consumption the ICC 2015 and ashrate 25 2013 will be adopted in Boston in 2016 that actually gets us a 50% reduction below the average so it's a really good aggressive code but we need to go past that if we're going to get the 80% reduction so in 2019 we need a 20% better code in 2022 that'll give us another 10% below the 50% 2022 we need a 40% code that'll get us to a 70% total reduction and by 2030 Boston is going to need in order to get that 80 by 50 is going to need a zero net energy code for new buildings now what is zero net energy well you use the 40% code which is essentially prescriptive requirements you use prescriptive requirements to get down that low the 70% which is what we talked about in design and then the rest has to be made by onsite renewables but in dense urban areas you're not going to have the capability to do all onsite renewables so we say bring in offsite renewables not offsite fossil fuel energy and so how do you do all that we now have NBI just did for commercial buildings a design guide to get the 40% below prescriptive requirements so we know we can get to those codes we also say that in 2016 when you adopt the ICC and ASHRAE the latest code standard develop a 20% better and a 40% better stretch code in 2019 the 20% stretch code would then be the code so then you have a 40% a zero net energy code stretch code and then in 2022 when the 40% code is adopted then you have a zero net energy stretch code and incentivize the hell out of the stretch code so that anybody building a new building will want to do better than the code and there are a lot of things you can do there's fast track permitting put them to the front of the line time is money especially in the building sector then get to the front of the line that's worth a lot of money you give them a density bonus that's worth a fortune you can do tax credits property time I mean their deductions rebates reduced fees permitting fees there's financing options and on-bill repayment but I'll show you how to even do better than that so there are lots of ways to incentivize the building sector and the more advanced builders will then take those options so what are the intervention points for the codes we know we have that 724 million square feet well obviously new buildings the 7 million square feet is an intervention point where the code applies and that's automatic major renovations we want the code to apply to major renovations not just the portion of the building if it's a major renovation then we want it to apply to the whole building and then we say building purchases because major renovations will offset the new buildings coming in especially if they're efficiency renovations but how you going to get at the 74 724 million square feet the only number that we know to get to most of that is building purchases there's about 12 to 14 million square feet that changes hands every year why are building purchases especially it's the buyer that needs to make the reductions why is that the best place to do it because the people who can buy buildings who can afford to buy buildings have a lot of money a lot of them are doing it for investment a lot of them are doing it the own building you don't buy a building at three four five hundred dollars a square foot up to probably a thousand dollars a square foot if you don't have money and you don't have good credit and to borrow the little additional amount to meet code is a drop in the bucket and in commercial buildings if you show lower operating costs you're the amount of money that you can borrow actually goes up you can probably offset the whole the whole thing so it's the perfect opportunity but there are issues with that we also told the city and state today that you ought to get your house in order and set a target for all 67 million square feet of your building in Boston to get the carbon neutral by 2030 and set the roadmap and set the example for the private sector and to talk to the colleges and universities we have the students and activists and they're supposed to be leading thinkers to get them to agree to the same thing 2030 carbon neutral so at what point do you meet the intervention codes well code compliance for new buildings and major innovations you meet the code you get the building consumption way down through efficiency through design and then you do onsite renewables and that's how you meet the code you either use the prescriptive requirements or use the onsite renewables to reduce the the amount and do the performance path for building purchases you can't force people out of a building to do deep renovations especially if the building is occupied and if you buy it for investment purposes for example or you just going to move into a small piece of the building and you just want to renovate that so we give the buyer three options one is you meet the codes and you do onsite renewables so you actually do for somebody's going to do a major renovation they're going to move into occupy the building they bought it to occupy they're going to renovate they meet the code if it's in a dense urban area and they can't get the renewables on to get to the code level then we say buy the rest but do the efficiency renovations if you're buying it for investment purposes or you have tenants and you're not going to move them out you don't want to disturb them then we say do non-intrusive efficiency requirements like changing out thermostats occupancy sensors LED lights things that don't require much that don't disturb anyone but that you can get 10 15 20 up to 30 percent reductions actually in energy consumption and then buy the rest renewables and it has to be newly generated renewables within the metropolitan region or the state if there's not enough renewables being generated that creates the market for the renewables in New York City it costs a penny a kilowatt hour more instead of 19 20 21 cents you're at about 17 18 cents something like that depends on time of day more to buy renewables and they have to generate the renewables so this creates the market for renewables now if I'm buying a building at $1,000 a square foot of $500 a square foot and I don't want to do anything to pay an extra penny you think they're going to squawk no way so now you have the renewables coming in every renovation then has to meet the codes and you begin to get to the reduction targets that you want and you incentivize now the renewables you create a whole new market for renewable energy within the area and that creates the jobs that go with the renewables because somebody has to build them somebody has to install them so what's the benefit for the city in adopting a plan like this well first of all there's additional tax revenue from all the construction that going that's going to go on there's about 300 million dollars a year worth of additional construction to meet the new codes and do the efficiency and put in the renewables that money can go city can use that for all sorts of things for public housing fun training programs to put in the renewables and incentivize the stretch codes give it back to the private sector for doing better that program would meet the 80 by 50 target if you don't do that and if the architecture community doesn't get on board and design it you can't meet the target impossible because of all the additional construction and the renewables it creates about four or five thousand new jobs that money goes through the economy a bunch of times and it reduces energy costs across the board now I'm going to end with two slides and then we'll enter into a discussion but why am I bullish that this can all happen if the design community in the planning community does its part then what about the renewables for all the energy that we're going to actually need I'm going to put this in motion this is the cost of a giga drill that's a big unit of energy of electricity retail electricity coal and natural gas over time from 1980 all the way to today with inflation put in so the cost of energy that we that people were paying in 1980 we're paying just about the same amount today because it because basically the cost of energy is only risen by the amount of inflation that's taken place between them and now now in 1980 in 1970s when the energy crisis hit we started playing around with solar energy and trying to do solar this and solar that photovoltaics this was the cost of a giga drill in 1980 one thousand one hundred dollars a giga so our graph only goes up to 250 so it's on the ceiling of the next floor is what the cost of solar was and we were still using it we're still trying to use it in buildings and everything else now I'm going to put in motion what happened since then this is the cost of a giga drill of producing electricity using solar energy it's now at parity with fossil fuels that doesn't mean storage with storage another issue but producing it producing the energy getting it into the grid is at the same cost as fossil fuels and what's happened because of that this is two thousand two thousand and one this is of new energy production globally 81% was non renewables so coal gas nuclear and oil and 19% was renewables solar wind biomass hydro so if all the new energy produced in the world back in 2001 81% was fossil fuels and nuclear now I'm going to put it in motion the 2014 the crossover point happened in 2012 2013 renewables there's more renewables being built in the world today new renewables than new fossil fuels and nuclear combined and if you think that's going to change that's not changing that red line is coming down and that green line is going up until we phase out co2 emissions and once the red line hits then we've essentially phased out any new fossil fuels coming in and then we have to get at the entire existing stock of fossil fuels thank you that's really good the coal market is drying up that more renewable being built we're actually making energy efficiency gains this is good you know I was in you know I was in Europe they were just they fell off their chairs this was going on in the US they thought the US was the stumbling block to any gains in in Paris this was two years ago everybody was gloom and doom and you know nothing's going to happen only we're doing something in Europe when they saw that what the U of what was happening in the US and our State Department didn't even know about it I had to get the State Department the same presentation in a private room and in bond they were like whoa we're actually doing something actually do something good yeah yeah architects are so naturally optimistic we need to hear this one so well before we do any questions I did want to say just want to say one I want to be just gratuitous here at for a second you know that that to a lot of us we have a lot of architects in the room a lot of people have been working in energy efficiency and advocacy I know a lot of people but I'm seeing this I'm seeing the wrinkles on the faces of people working on this for a long time in this community you are a hero to us I just want to say you really you you really are you're a you're a hero to us for a while and one of the guys in my office came up to me today with a book that you wrote in 1979 about solar energy really is that you've been at this long what got you started it was it was it was by accident back then I was teaching this was in the middle 70s I was teaching at the university I had left me near the East Coast all my friends were going West to make their fortune so I figured I'd go West I ended up at the University of New Mexico I did some it was the 70s you know we had long hair and we did some things that the little conservative in certain parts of Mexico at that time they didn't like what I was doing anyway kind of got kicked out of the University I wanted to go to Berkeley I desperately wanted to teach at Berkeley that's where everything was happening so I applied to Berkeley I was actually a finalist and did a national search for one position and I was one of the three finalists they flew me out I went through the interviews I didn't get the job I was depressed for about a minute because I walked out of the room and the guy named Bill Gillen who was the dean at Oregon was waiting for the two people who didn't get it and he gave me offered us jobs at Oregon because Berkeley did the national search and Oregon if you remember the Oregon experiment and Christopher Alexander was doing was from Berkeley to Oregon they were like symbiotic schools back then a lot of cross-verbalization so anyway Bill was there and offered us post jobs and I said all right I said this is interesting I needed a job I was out of the job so you know so I'll teach studio what else what else would what else would I you know structures you know solar energy I said Oregon there's no solar energy I didn't want solar energy I said our students have gone crazy for solar energy they've been building testings on the roof we needed an instructor to teach it you're from the southwest you've got to know more than we know up in Oregon that was his rationale that I was from the southwest I said I know I don't know anything about solar energy so to make a long story short I said I'll come the next semester there's no way I can come and teach so give me six months I got together with some and by then if you saw the textbooks on solar energy back in the 70s the early 70s they were this thick and they were all formulas and integers and style you couldn't even read the book if you were an architect I got an engineer from San Diego National lab I said you wanted to design a solar house somebody pointed it to me I said I know nothing about solar energy but I make a deal you tell me what I'm you give me reading assignments and then explain it to me in English and then I will try to apply those principles to a house and we'll get something done within the next six months so I read every book on solar energy I didn't know what I was reading he explained it in English took notes I then developed a whole scenario and designed a solar building for it by the time I got to Oregon I was the global expert on solar energy and architecture because no architect could read those books so I taught the courses at Oregon had great students we ran program simulation programs and we decided to well actually I put my foot in my mouth at a conference people confronted me and we showed the principles that we developed at Oregon the engineers got all upset because they were trying to get DOE money and I was trying to steer it through the architects and on spite I said I'd write a book and that I'm having to write a book because I said I was going to do it and so that's how the rest of the system. These are all long stories by the way I'll just warn you these are all long stories so let's come back to today to this morning I mean we're really happy that you can make it out here and meet with the Green Ribbon Commission this is a very influential group and I think we're pretty proud of the progress we've made so far on energy efficiency and good public policy I guess the question is I'm sitting here trying to take notes and trying to tweet a little bit and a net zero building code by 20 euro net zero building code did you tell this to the Green Ribbon Commission? Yes. And how was that received? I thought they were great I thought we got no negative comments a lot of the builders came up and said great we loved this direction we had two builders came up to me we were building property owners saying we've been trying to do this it doesn't before we came up with this plan we actually did this plan for New York which is in scale much larger than Boston and when I looked at Boston the numbers were similar New York was 71% of all energy emissions is attributed to building so it's the same problem in urban areas you're going to get the largest portion attributed to building operations so when I looked at the numbers we basically started to come out with a very similar scenario and you can't get there any other way but we made it in New York we talked to CBR we floated a whole bunch of things by the way the first thing we floated by what are you crazy you want to shut down the whole real estate industry in New York there's not going to fly I've never read that before. Yeah so we then floated something else but by the time we floated you can buy your way out at a penny a kilowatt hour they were happy as can be oh that's yeah we don't have to do anything nope you don't have to do anything you can buy your way out but if you renovate then you've got to renovate to the standards but at a thousand dollars a square foot what are you going to spend a thousand five dollars a square foot big deal thousand ten dollars a square foot they said that'll fly we'll get you know we're on board so we then presented that today and I didn't see anybody getting upset in fact we got a lot of thank yous for bringing it to their country. Now you know that Boston and a lot of cities have a lot of old buildings as you pointed out there's a lot of existing building stock here and I think that you're the architecture 2030 and the 2030 commitment has been great in helping us understand how to design for energy efficiency right now I mean we know what what what UI is you know what like our density is so we can do that but but carbon neutral is still kind of how kind of out there for us and I think we look carbon neutral say well how do we actually get our hands around the construction how do we get our hands around the the carbon value of construct the building itself before you even get to the operation so what can you tell us about that well you know to get the carbon neutral building operations it's get down as far as you can and then either produce the rest on site or import we say import at architecture 2030 we're not a stickler for you got to produce everything on site and be you know be crazy about this so you know you get down you know you really push to get down to 60 70 80 percent through design and then the rest you make up one way or another with renewables we can do that. As you get down building operations and our latest codes are getting us 50 percent of the way there all of a sudden now building materials and making the materials and constructing the buildings is becoming a bigger percentage of the energy consumption so from day one when you build a building 100 percent of your carbon footprint 100 percent of the energy consumption. is building materials and building the buildings. Most of it is building materials. There are literally thousands of materials. Aluminum, coatings, rubber, labyrinth, wire, and gypsum, steel, wood, new name of transportation, digging up the stuff. It takes, from our studies, it takes about 15 years to pay off that debt of building operations. That's for a new building. That's for a new building. That's right. So you start with 100% carbon footprint that's building materials, zeroes, operations. Then in year one it goes like this, goes like that. They finally cross each other at about 15 years or so. It depends on the building. So it takes you a long time. So if we're building 900 billion square feet of new building teared down in new building, teared down and out and gone in new building, that's a huge amount. Almost half of that is going to be building materials of the carbon footprint. So the materials part now has become very important and we're starting to jump on them. So we're going to have to derive carbon neutral on the part of the building manufacturers, the building product manufacturers too, right? What I tell the architecture community is you have no clue as to how much power you have. You are the gatekeeper. You are the gatekeeper of this whole issue. Let me give you an example. How many of you have practices or work in those? You know the product manufacturers, how many try to get into the door to stock your shelves with their products, right? We had to beat them. I had practiced for 30 years. We had to lock the doors sometimes so we wouldn't get bothered by the salesman coming around trying to stock our shelves with their products. Why? Because then we specify their products and they get sales. Sometimes if we decide all the big offices in the AIA and everything, we're only going to specify if it's somewhat cost-competitive, carpet that's carbon neutral. There are a few companies out there that make carbon neutral, so you can actually get a bunch of different types of carbon. And if a carbon manufacturer comes in and doesn't have a carpet that you say, do you have a carpet that's carbon neutral? Did you do a lifecycle assessment? Where's your lifecycle assessment? Can you show me your lifecycle assessment? You don't have one? You can't put it on my shelf. I'm sorry. You better believe every carbon manufacturer in the world will come out with a carbon neutral carpet because the architecture community decides, just decides, power the pen. I'm not going to put it into my spec. I'm going to spec, even if it's a performance spec. Performance? Carbon neutral, 80% reduction or whatever. What about concrete? The American Ready Mixed Concrete Association adopted the 50% reduction target by 2030 in the embodied energy and carbon of concrete. Central concrete, a whole bunch of concrete companies now are meeting through lifecycle assessments that 50% reduction below the average for that product type. Now what if we say, okay, we just specify you've got to meet this and Central Concrete comes in, I can meet it. You don't think every concrete, they're not going to go out of business. So they're going to figure out how to get the reductions, transportation and use local aggregate through this and that. The architecture community is the gatekeeper of every product, not only in a building, which is glass, steel, paint, fabric, coatings, rubber, iron, lights, you name it. But it's part of the manufacturing process of every product on the planet, glassware, forks and spoons, placements, tables, you name it, that product goes into our building. If we start changing the products in the building sector, you don't think they're going to change that product and then not their other line. So we're the gatekeepers of the entire industrial sector. Now if we get together and do some things, then it makes change happen. And that's why no matter what they decide in Paris, if we don't do it, it's just not going to get better. I know that you said that we're not, don't worry about what happens in Paris, it's not that important. But for me, to think that we've got 1.3 million architects around the world, it's not just us in the United States. Now it's a global community of architects, it's all started to understand this too. And you bring those people together to Durban in Paris, and that's a huge level you're pulling for us, right? I think what happens is people say, okay, well now how are you going to do it? The first thing you have to do is make people aware of the issue and get them to buy into the problem. And once they buy into the problem, the wheels start turning. So you're not going to see everybody designing carbon neutral buildings tomorrow, but the wheels start turning. Think about this. I couldn't get the AIA, they were coming to Santa Fe, New Mexico, where I'm based, they were having their annual meeting, and I couldn't get a meeting with the board. It's not just the old AIA. They wouldn't even meet to hear about the issues. We had discovered the issues by then. So this was months before. I talked to Susan's announcing Metropolis, that's a whole other story, but they decided to give us the cover after twisting their arm a bit. We wouldn't give them the story unless they gave us the cover. They gave us the cover. The cover came out the week before the AIA board got to Santa Fe. They came to Santa Fe, they stayed at the La Fonda Hotel, I walked over, I knew one of the board members. So they came to Santa Fe, they all had their Metropolis magazines in their hand. We still couldn't get a meeting with the board, but that started the ball rolling. And then as more people got involved, then you had the 2030 commitment, now you have firms, then you have the, you know, then you have the UIA, then you have the China Accord and things like that. Now you have a buildings day in Paris. There was not one magazine, you know, you couldn't. Before Metropolis came out, the environmental community was burning down dealerships. SUVs had posed a trial, and they were burning down dealerships in Denver and in other places that housed SUVs. I don't know if you remember all that. And, you know, once we discovered the buildings, like the architects started the freak out, they didn't stop burning out buildings down there, that's going to happen here. But there was no mention. Today you can't pick up a magazine without, you know, a green roof like this and that, wearing fun. I go to the hotel, now they're recycling towels and, you know, please don't use your towel four or five times before we have to go out. I mean, and that's only since, you know, 2003-2004 when we discovered the issue, that's, you know, ten years. And so the next, so growth is always exponential in a sense. So it starts out small and then it grows and grows, and we're at the, we're at the knee of the curve, and then in a very short period. So I'm totally optimistic. So to the one question I got on Twitter, why have we, you know, why, how can we be optimistic? You know, given the terrible odds you've had earlier in presentation about us going off the cliff, you give us a lot of reason to be optimistic right now. We're changing, it's definitely coming. We're making a difference, right? The question is time. The only question now is can we get it done in time to avert the two degrees? That's really the question. And the cities that have come out, the carbon neutral cities alliance have a huge responsibility and they've put their name out there. They want the publicity. They want to be recognized as leaders. They've sat with the pope. They got invited to, you know, to the Vatican. They've got their picture taken. They're on the front page. They've got to come through. So, you know, so by getting people to do that, and like Durbin and, you know, and the China Accord and stuff like that, people put their reputations on the line. They don't do it right away, but the wheels start turning. So the question becomes, is can we avert the two degrees Celsius? And we'll all find that answer together, hopefully. You ready for some questions from the audience? Sure. You guys want to say, okay. All right. We're going to have to play, I don't know, Geraldo or something. We'll walk right with the mic. You spoke about the two degrees, setting the two degrees C miles down. So this is a segue right onto that question. You said if we don't hit the two degrees, centigrade by a certain point in time, it's game over. Can you say a little more about the metrics on that and the timing? I didn't really follow your graph on that. Yeah. Yeah. We have to begin to peak emissions very, very quickly, like between now and 2020. Low emissions now are going up. So they have to peak, which means CO2 in the atmosphere is still going, would still not go up this way, but would go up then at a straight line. And then we have to begin to reduce CO2 emissions. In the built environment, it's essentially the power sector and the industrial sector, the products. By about, the scientists say, between 2045 and about 2060, we need to 2065. There's a wiggle room in there. The actual average line goes down through around 2050, but there's wiggle room on each side, a lot more on the upside than on the downside, which means we have 35 years to get rid of carbon in the building sector. Now, when cities pledge 80 by 50, they're not just pledging CO2, they're pledging all emissions, an 80% reduction. So that's methane, that's some of the more potent greenhouse gas emissions, but they don't have a long lifespan, but they're very, very potent. So the science tells us to have a 85% chance of better CO2 emissions in the power sector, most CO2 emissions, not all. Most CO2 emissions have to be phased out by 2050. All emissions, greenhouse gas emissions, by about 2070, 2080. So that's methane and the rest. That's the timeframe we have. My feeling is it begins to look hard very early on and it gets easier as you move out in time as we learn more and we know more about how to design carbon neutral. You saw that graph that I showed at the end with solar coming down. I mean, that's like unbelievable, $1,100 a gigawatt to $75, $60 a gigawatt. It's unreal. My feeling is once storage comes in, especially at the individual building level and it becomes cheaper and cheaper, that's going to do the same. It's expensive now, but it's coming down. As we move out in time, companies are going to find they're going to sell more and more. Distribute energy becomes huge. That means we're all our own power producer and we can actually store it on site. So for low-rise buildings, it almost becomes your own power plant if you have enough roof space and can generate enough. So as modules become more efficient, you can capture more per square foot of space. People are looking at now paints on facades. That's a huge area in buildings, especially in high-rise buildings. You combine that with all the strategy, daylight and tragedy and things like that. And I believe we'll get there. Hello, Ed. I'm blown away. Thank you. You know that we've had some exchanges. I've been trying to go and address education of future architects. And my postulate has been, if we want to go and reach our 2030 target, we need 50% of all graduates to be capable of designing carbon neutral buildings by 2020 and 100% by 2025. Would you please shoot holes into that assumption? No, that's true. The schools are behind. The schools are way behind the profession. I don't want to say that, but that's the case. The issue has been with the schools is that energy has been taught as a course and not in studio. I mean, that's really the issue. In 2007, we did a global emergency teaching. And if you remember that, we reached about 250,000 people worldwide. We did it from New York and we asked the schools. It was for the schools for education. We asked the schools to do one thing and one thing only. And it was just to add a requirement to every design studio project that the building design use no fossil fuel energy. Just one sentence. Everything else in the program stays the same. It's a structure. It's housing. It's a hospital. Just add one sentence. And we said the instructor doesn't even have to know how to do this. But just give it to the students as a requirement. What are the students doing they get? They get up into teams. The teams go out and do research. This is what we found on the internet on how to get the carbon neutral. We found this. We found that. We went to the DOE site. There's this building in Kansas that's doing it. There's this. There's that. Before you know it, the instructors now know everything there is to know and they've learned about the students. They didn't have to pick up a book. So all we asked for is a sentence. This is a sentence that changed the entire education. We haven't gotten a sentence yet. We asked VI, the Design Futures Council, Design Intelligence, in their survey to add three or four words to the ranking of schools that the students be, it goes to the professionals. And then they rank the schools that, in your opinion, are the students being trained to advance the profession or something like that. And we added three words and designed to a sustainable future or something like that. So that would be a key element. They adopted that, but I did not see that in the wording of this. I didn't get my copy yet, but we'll see. Because the rankings are very important to schools. And if they fall from the rankings, because the students aren't able to produce for the firms, which are now all committed, every major firm is committed. If they can't produce low-carbon projects, then they're not going to get jobs. So we'll see how that plays out. I thought it was going to be this year's. It may be next year's. Maybe I thought differently. But what we were looking for is an intervention point where we could have a transformative, where it could be transformative. A very small element that can actually have huge impact. And so we asked for three or four words. They said they were going to do it. But I thought it was going to be this year. But I'll have to check and see when the issue comes out. That was a great presentation. Thank you. Sort of a two-part question. I didn't hear you mention anything about carbon pricing. And I'm curious whether you think that's actually necessary, or whether the work that you guys have done shows that you can get there without it. And then sort of the other part of that coin, or the question is, do you think the rapid decline in the cost of renewables will send negative price signals to the market and will end up with poor designs that don't address comfort, that don't address daylight, because we can just plaster the roof or a nearby site with renewables? Carbon pricing would be huge. Politically, it's going to be a... I don't think we're given the makeup of Congress now, and the fact that new elections are coming up, it all depends. Carbon pricing will depend on who gets in and who's sympathetic to addressing this issue in the next administration. So I don't want to single out any parties or anything like that. We try to stay apolitical. But the carbon pricing would be huge, because if you put a price on carbon, then renewables be... then you're sending a huge signal to the marketplace. Although that signal is getting there, but you want to move this thing quickly, because time is really critical now. And so the answer to that is yes, carbon pricing would be big. Would renewables be... would we then design business as usual? I don't think so, because you can phase in... renewables are a very small percentage of total energy production, and fossil fuels is huge. So you're not going to produce enough renewables unless you reduce demand in order to get to that zero point. So I don't see that sending the wrong signal. In fact, the more renewables we get, the better. And in fact, because demand is now going down, there's, you know, Duke Energy canceled all their Florida nuclear plants, and they were going to build some in North Carolina, South Carolina. I can't remember they canceled those, because there's no demand now. And a lot of coal plants are phasing out. So the demand side is huge. And I think architects realized, are beginning to realize, a lot of them do realize their role now in all this. So it's just a race against time. Thank you very much for your leadership over these years. It's really great to be here in this room and see all the work that's been accomplished. But you talked about renewables in your roadmap to zero, and you said simply doubling what we have today would get us there. And I either misunderstood that or I'd like an explanation on that. Okay, yeah. So where we are now is about 25% of all our energy consumption is non-CO2 emitting. So that includes hydro, it includes nuclear, it includes everything that doesn't is non-CO2 emitting. The rest, three quarters, three quarters are slightly more, is fossil fuel. So it's oil, gas, coal. So what we've said is, what I just showed you was the building sector itself. So not the whole world. That was the whole world building sector. That if we reduced demand in the building sector, so like we're doing now in the U.S., we do that globally. And how do we do that globally? By bringing all new buildings in and renovations in at a very, very low, meeting the 2030 target, 70% then 80%, then 90%, then zero. If we do that and we renovate 2% to 3% of our building stock every year to a 50% reduction, that's actually what our codes are at now. So we get a 50% reduction or 2% to 3%. That's about in the U.S. I think it's about 5 billion square feet. It's what we were building before, what we were building new before the recession and what we were renovating before the recession. We're actually renovating 5 billion of building new. If we do that, then, and if we do it globally, then the demand curve comes down and then you have about this much renewables, if you double that, then by 2050 you reach zero. So that's, so it's a combination. First up I want to say thank you for coming here tonight. All of us have pretty much drunk the Kool-Aid, which is why we're here tonight. So what's holding back the rest of architects? Peter talked a little bit about education, but in your gut, what's really holding people back? Is it fear that they'll lose their clients? No, I don't think it's a client. So I've never had a client in 30 years of practice and a lot of building designs come to me and put his arm around me and say, look, I want my project. I want to spend more money on energy consumption. Everyone, please. It's really important to me that I spend a lot of money on it. We just, you know, as a matter, you know, the client doesn't tell you, it gives you a program, it gives you a budget, you have a lot of flexibility in the form of the building, the shape of the building, the materials. You think they read the spec, you know, the damn spec we put out were just thick. They don't read every, you know, they might, there are a few things they might want, but in general. So we really do control the design of the building. So I don't think, we can't blame it on the client. So let's move them out of the picture. So what's holding back? I think education is one thing. They have a lot of tenured faculty. They just, you know, look, the folks from the 70s off from the 80s and 90s, the guys who were teaching the subject, when Reagan took the panels off the White House and fossil, you know, he made a deal with the Saudis and everything, and they dropped the price of, you know, oil down to less than ten dollars. I can't remember, went through the floors and you could give it away. When he did that, the whole solar movement and design movement just crashed and burned and didn't have to think about it anymore. That was a manufacturer of crisis. This one's not going away. This is a real crisis, and it's getting worse and worse and worse. In 2003, we just identified the issue. It's been picking up. That's why you're all here. You know, in 2003, I would have gotten four people here. So it's happening. The question is, can it happen fast enough? What about the outliers? Why aren't they picking up on this? I think it just takes inertia, and I think the inertia is building, and it's like what I said. You know, the exponential curve starts out like this and it goes like this and it goes like this and it goes like this and it goes like this. The population curves like that too. It doubled our population and it was at 2,000. So it took 2,000 from the time the first person walked on the planet to get to a certain place. It took all that time and then we doubled that in a matter of 10 years or 20 years, something like that. So we're at the knee of the curve here and then it's going to grow. So I think everybody will be onboard very soon. You don't have all these things happening all of a sudden in rapid fire. Every major firm signed the China Accord. Gensler, thousands of artifacts they have. Arab, Skidmore, BLR, HKS. Every major international firm has signed on. Plus, the local design institutes, Shendai, they house, I don't know, they're building 3,000, 4,000 architects planners. I mean, these are huge organizations. They've signed on. What does that mean? The ball is now going to start to work. We're now getting questions from Eric. Now what are we going to do? Skidmore is now developed. BLR just developed a plan for its offices in China and all over. So I think, you know, I think what happens is you get this and this and this and you see it happening but it's not fast enough and then you get to the knee of the curve and then it goes like this and time is on the bottom scale. So in a very short period of time, you get a doubling and then a doubling and then a doubling. I think we're getting close to a doubling point and then I think you're going to see it go just go crazy. And I think everybody will, in a talk in 2007, 2008 in New York City, I gave a talk at Cooper Union. I wanted to give a talk because I went to the school of Pratt and I remember going to Cooper Union to have a great space that I can't remember Thomas Jefferson or somebody gave a talk there. So I wanted to give a talk there. I said, I'll come to Cooper Union. I'll do it for a minute and I'll do it in that space because I just remember from Pratt. So they let me do a talk. They gave me and we had a big audience and I said, what we need is architects. I said, we're like kids. What we need is real-time simulation. A computer game. So as I'm designing, if I turn the building this way or I'm doing this or I stretch it out or I add some glass here or I throw some, I see immediately that the needle goes up or down. How much energy can something run? I said, do you do that? I said, you guys out there, you could make these computer games where people go and chop people's heads off and blow them up and, you know, and they're running all over the world and, you know, there's all sets and stuff. I said, you can do that and you can't give me real-time simulation for building design. I said, this is insane. This is what we need because we're like kids when we design. We love to design. We don't want to run crunch numbers and then send it out to the engineers. We've already sold the client. Three months later, we get this whole report back of charts and graphs. We don't even know what the hell they mean. And it then tells us we have a bad building so we throw those away because we sold the client already. We're not going to say, hey, I just designed your bad building. They're not going to happen. Give us real-time simulation. I can see what I'm doing and I see the needle go up or down. If it goes past this point, it's in the red. If it goes below the point, it's in the green. Hey, I'm doing great. I'm below the 20-30 target. Somebody heard us at that. So fire. They called me last year, a year and a half ago. Ed, remember that talk you gave at Cooper Union? We just got real-time simulation in our product for Sketchup. Now, it's been a year on the market. They're starting to get market share. People are starting to use it. It's a plug-in. They now have a plug-in for Revit. Real-time. They're using DOE2. It's getting more robust before it took a little time and they weren't sure about the results. Now they're getting more robust. They're tying it into the engineers and the systems coming in. It's getting robust. Autodesk wants to do it now. Real-time simulation. You get real-time simulation and I'm sitting there designing. I see that market. I see my building in the red all the time. I'm going to start making... What if I shade the west windows? There must be some coming in. I'm looking to the heat. The cooling load is huge. Why is the cooling load so big? Let me throw some... Wow, the cooling load went down. My electric load, there's no daylight. They have actually a wheel that shows daylight. You're in the red. You're in the green with daylight. I don't have any daylighting in the color. Let me get some throw. I'm killed to have had that when I was practicing. It's a design tool. That's all happening now. There was no sapphire three years ago. All of this is now happening. We're at the knee of the curve. Once this goes within a very few years, we're going to be... In Paris, almost all the days are going to be pledges. Companies are going to come out. Apple is going to come out. We're going to get the 80 by 50. We're going to get the zero. We're going to do that. Countries are going to come and say we're going to do this. There's now over 100 countries saying zero by 50. Over 100 countries are saying we're going to get the zero by 50. They want a long-term goal. The Saudis don't want a long-term goal. Russia doesn't want a long-term goal. The US is on the fence. All the island nations and the South American countries want the 80 by 50 long-term goal. That all stands out of those meetings. The battle is going to be... But nobody's saying how do you get there? So we're bringing sapphire there and autodesk there and some people from China who have developed planning strategies into a how-to session on December 9, two days before they make the final agreement to give them the courage to actually go forward. So it's going to be the building's day and then this session. That was a long answer. Thank you very much. I think I came in somewhat half empty and now half full. In both the same place where I was before. You got your back. It's terrific. I guess one question you've thrown out a lot of numbers and I think that that's terrific and you've talked about a lot of pledges and one of the concerns that we have is that it's really easy to pledge and hard to follow through and I'm talking about that as part of an architecture community as part of a professional community that is serving higher ed and we have a lot of residents that have no idea what that is. Except for a couple of them who are actually doing it. What's your thought on how to encourage all of the different communities to follow through on the pledges? They're easy to make kind of like marriage, right? How do we make this work? They are easy to make. The vows come easy and then the work starts. So it's the work and my feeling is as the architecture community becomes more educated and they do it by trial and error too. They do a building and then they analyze it later and they go oh Jesus what do I do here and what do I do there let me not make the same mistake in the next building and they get better at it and they get better then the tools get better now we have some better tools. Then it's a question of pledges that we can get to here. I think that's going to be the key. I think that's what turned around I honestly believe that that's what turned around the negotiations in Paris to get more confident and have a longer term a better goal on a long term horizon is the fact that the architecture community just is peaking emissions in 2005 which is what we did in the U.S. We peaked greenhouse gas emissions and energy consumption in the building sector in 2005 and we've added 30 billion square feet to our building stock then sends a huge message that this we're actually reducing so that this can be done and it's not fuel switching it's actual energy consumption reduction at the site it's E.U.I. it's actually building this is not source this is what the buildings use we're reducing now not everybody's doing it but there are enough people doing it that know how to do it that are starting to do it and bringing in the new buildings much more efficient now by code a lot of it's by code that we're beginning to make these gains so all of a sudden everybody's seeing wait a minute this is something's happening here and this could actually happen repeat a lot of countries are talking about well we're not going to peak till it was 2050 then it was 2040 China now was 2030 now China's talking about 2025 and now cities in China are talking about 2020 and earlier all of a sudden as people see that these things can get done the pledges become better and better and better then everybody's looking okay you don't know how many questions now I'm getting from China how the heck are we all going to sign this thing what are we going to do now Ed what are we going to do now well we'll figure it out we'll get to it there's enough smart people at Arab some of the big firms that know how to do this we're going to have to really actually planning is way ahead of us the whole new urban stuff and transit development and walkable communities and stuff like that it's almost getting mainstream now so the planners in a sense especially especially that group has gotten their act together and they have now convinced the Chinese government to mandate different kinds of planning elements that all new cities transit development all that kind of stuff that's going to be I hear that those planning guidelines now are going to come down as law in China once that happens in China they like to see things fixed and this is thou shalt through this everybody does and that's coming and the guys who have been working in that space for 10 years are waiting for this moment where Moher and these other big government agencies are now going to mandate that now new cities walkable communities block sizes so you can walk they have a whole set of 12 6 principles that are very very well defined 10 12 strategies that I've just seen come out so it's happening and what we're going to do next is get you some dinner thanks all thank you I've been on so to so many community meetings with such an incredible wealth of really really intelligent people that can debate endlessly the details of very specific things over and over and over again and then on to the next meeting and then on to the next meeting it's pretty hard to keep up the tenacity of the stance of a strong design