Efforts to attain sustainability vis-à-vis the built environment are hindered because they are often focused away from the real roots of the various problems. This article analyzes the usefulness of embodied energy as an indicator of environmental performance and suggests that it may not be as useful as its proponents make it out to be. Other indicators and levels of analysis are suggested as being more accurate.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Brand, S. (1994). How buildings learn: What happens after they’re built. Toronto, Canada: Penguin.
2.
Cole, R. J., & Kernan, P. C. (1996). Life cycle energy use in office buildings. Building and Environment, 31(4), 307-317.
3.
Harris, D. J. (1999). A quantitative approach to the assessment of the environmental impact of building materials. Building and Environment, 34(6), 751-758.
4.
Portney, P. R. (1993-1994, Winter). The price is right: Making use of life cycle analyses. Issues in Science and Technology, p.71-71.
5.
Von Weizsäcker, E. U., Lovins, A. B., & Lovins, L. H. (1997). Factor four: Doubling wealth, halving resource use. London: Earthscan.
6.
Wackernagel, M., & Rees, W. (1995). Our ecological footprint: Reducing human impact on the earth. Gabriola Island, British Columbia, Canada: New Society Publishers.
