Page 121 - The Green Building Bottom Line The Real Cost of Sustainable Building

100 CHAPTER 3

sidering the total emissions, but all in all OK given the fact that our overall emissions
per employee have remained stable. What is particularly interesting in our ongoing
effort to audit our footprint is the fact that one of our projects, Enterprise Mill in
Augusta, Georgia, is entirely powered by hydroelectric (water) power from the Augusta
canal that has flowed through this historic cotton mill since the mid-nineteenth century.
The mill generates power well in excess of the needs of this mixed-use, 250,000-
square-foot commercial and residential development, and we sell the excess power
back to the grid at a green premium. How much excess? About 2,050 tons of eCO are
2
avoided as a result of power generation through alternative energy On-site. In short,
given the fact that as a company we are directly responsible for 270 tons of eCO while
2
generating almost ten times that amount in clean energy, our company is not just car-
bon neutral but carbon negative without the use of offsets. At roughly nine tons of eCO
2
per staff member, we are essentially providing enough clean energy to the grid to
account for growth of almost two hundred additional employees, while still remaining
carbon neutral. This particular example of using a specific real estate project for energy
generation indicates the direction our industry needs to go: on-site, alternative distribu-
tive energy.

So What Do We Get Out of All of This?
Calculating your company’s carbon footprint and creating an emissions reductions
program result in both tangible and intangible benefits. Tangible benefits include:

1 Financial savings through energy efficiency.
2 Financial savings from operational efficiencies.
3 Being a product leader and first to market with low-carbon goods and services.

The first two benefits are straightforward. If you use less electricity or fuel to generate
energy, financial savings accrue straight to the bottom line. Lower annual operating costs
also result in a higher valuation for buildings, which can have a significant impact. For
example, a $10,000 decrease in electricity costs can translate into an increased property
value of $100,000 using a capitalization rate of 10 percent. That is one heck of a return
on investment. Not only does this money go straight to the bottom line, you are also
reducing your greenhouse gas emissions and improving air and water quality. That is the
win-win decision the triple bottom line intends: Your firm benefits financially, the envi-
ronment benefits from less GHG emissions, and society benefits from cleaner air. Carbon
offsets, regardless of which means an organization pursues, come at a cost. Green tags
cost money, but the less carbon an organization generates, the fewer offsets are needed.
This translates into cost savings for organizations looking to reduce their footprint.
Another way of looking at this, from the perspective of an environmental econo-
mist, is to internalize the externalities. Organizations seeking to reduce their carbon
footprint can internally assign a cost to carbon or other negative environmental pol-
lutants, putting a value on emissions that traditionally is not accounted for in profit
and loss statements. This type of accounting can change the financial outcome of
decision making and quickly lead to more sustainable thinking across the organiza-