4.7 Article

Introducing sufficiency in the building sector in net-zero scenarios for France

期刊

ENERGY AND BUILDINGS
卷 278, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE SA
DOI: 10.1016/j.enbuild.2022.112590

关键词

Buildings; Net -zero carbon; Scenarios; Foresight; Sufficiency; Land take

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In France, the building sector accounted for 16% of carbon emissions in 2015. It plays a major role in the carbon transition and can contribute to achieving carbon neutrality by 2050 through sufficiency, efficiency, decarbonised energy, and carbon sinks.
In France, the building sector (residential and commercial) represented 16% of carbon emissions in 2015 (use-phase). The building sector therefore has a major role to play in the carbon transition by acting on all available levers: sufficiency, efficiency, decarbonised energy and carbon sinks. How much can the sector contribute to the overall goal of carbon neutrality by 2050? The article presents findings from Transition (s) 2050, a set of scenarios developed for the whole economy by ADEME, the French Environmental Transition Agency. It focuses on sufficiency: which role can it play in the decarbonation of the building sector, both in the use-phase and beyond? What would enabling conditions be? Sufficiency can contribute to achieve further energy savings compared to efficiency-only scenarios in areas such as domestic electrical appliances or space cooling, hence easing the wider decarbonation effort. Furthermore, sufficiency has systemic implications beyond the use-phase. It contributes to decreasing energy consumption in the industrial sector, as building less has direct impact on the demand for construction material. It also has impact on other resources such as land. Land take and building waste are significantly lower in the most sufficient scenarios. However, implementing sufficiency requires profound changes both in policies for the building sector and the way these policies are designed. (c) 2022 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据