Summary
1. Transparency is Crucial: Certifications and ratings must provide transparent data on energy use intensity, operational carbon, and embodied carbon to better assess buildings and portfolios.
2. 1.5°C Pathway Alignment: Industry-accepted targets need to be aligned with 1.5°C pathways using shared decarbonisation principles to ensure buildings meet climate goals.
3. Third-Party Certifications: These certifications can enhance transparency and highlight buildings and portfolios aligned with 1.5°C pathways, aiding stakeholders in making informed decisions.
4. Real Data Usage: Stakeholders should use real data and consistent carbon and energy metrics for accurate assessments, enabling better pricing and valuation of low-carbon buildings.
5. Overcoming Challenges: The current lack of clarity and inconsistent correlation with energy performance in certifications must be addressed to foster market development and confidence in low-carbon real estate.
Main Post
I recently had the pleasure of interviewing Oliver Bennett, a seasoned real estate developer who has been actively involved in the low-carbon real estate market. Oliver’s experience provides a compelling look at the importance of transparency and target alignment in certifications and ratings, especially as the industry aims to meet the stringent 1.5°C pathways for decarbonisation.
Oliver began by recounting his initial foray into the low-carbon real estate market. “When I first started, the landscape was quite fragmented,” he explained. “There were a myriad of certifications and ratings, but none provided a comprehensive insight into what truly mattered—energy use intensity, operational carbon, and embodied carbon.”
He stressed the importance of transparency in these certifications. “For stakeholders to make informed decisions, they need real data presented in a consistent manner. Without transparency, it’s nearly impossible to accurately assess the carbon and energy performance of buildings and portfolios,” he said. This sentiment echoed the need for industry-wide reform to ensure that certifications are not just labels but valuable tools for assessment.
One of the most significant challenges Oliver faced was the lack of clarity in current tools. “Many certifications fail to provide in-depth insights into key performance indicators (KPIs). They often lack targets that align with the 1.5°C pathways, which means that many certified assets don’t actually meet these critical standards,” he noted. This gap in the market has led to a scenario where stakeholders are often misled about the true carbon performance of their assets.
Despite these challenges, Oliver remains optimistic about the future. He highlighted the role of third-party certifications in enhancing transparency and aligning with 1.5°C pathways. “These certifications can really shine a spotlight on buildings and portfolios that are committed to decarbonisation. They provide a benchmark for stakeholders to compare against, making it easier to identify and price low-carbon buildings accurately,” he said. This alignment is crucial for market confidence and the transition of building stocks towards more sustainable practices.
Oliver also emphasised the need for clear targets. “Industry-accepted targets should be informed by shared decarbonisation principles and should clearly indicate expected performance. This way, stakeholders can have a common set of goals to aim for, which in turn helps in creating a more cohesive and effective approach to tackling climate change,” he elaborated. By aligning these targets with the 1.5°C pathways, the industry can ensure that its efforts are in line with global climate goals.
Using real data and consistent carbon and energy metrics is another area where Oliver sees room for improvement. “Real data is the backbone of accurate assessment,” he asserted. “When stakeholders use real data, they can make better-informed decisions, which ultimately leads to more accurate pricing and valuation of low-carbon buildings.” This approach not only boosts market confidence but also encourages real estate owners to transition their building stock more readily.
In closing, Oliver reflected on the future of the low-carbon real estate market. “We’ve made significant strides, but there’s still a long way to go. By addressing the current lack of clarity and improving the correlation with energy performance in certifications, we can foster a market that’s not only more transparent but also more confident in its ability to meet climate goals,” he concluded. His journey underscores the importance of continuous improvement and adaptation in the face of evolving climate challenges.
Through Oliver’s insights, it’s clear that tapping into the low-carbon real estate market requires a concerted effort to enhance transparency, align targets with 1.5°C pathways, and use real data for accurate assessments. As the industry moves forward, these elements will be crucial in building a sustainable future.
Emily Thompson
Be the first to comment