Committee on the Environment

October's UN Climate Summit and Climate Week NYC wrapped up without any timely action on carbon emissions. Fortunately, the carbon footprint of the AEC sector came to light over the last five years-notably for materials like cement, concrete, steel, glass, insulation and asphalt-as well as National and regional Buy Clean programs to encourage production of low-carbon materials and low-carbon building designs. But "Electrification" and "Clean Energy" are still the current buzzwords, "Adaptation" and "Remediation" the plans, and scrubbing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere-if ever feasible-our future cure-all.

Unfortunately, a significant fact pattern is overlooked, annual emissions have increased every year for more than 50 years, except during global recessions-a noteworthy correlation.

Hear hear. 

A most useful mental "metric" in a carbon-based global economy is dollars=carbon.

Spending money burns stuff. Working with clients to build less, modestly, affordably might be the simplest thing architects can do to "make a difference". But... this goes against most of our training and predilections, and usually goes against our business interests. Not to mention being a very hard sell.

In my experience this cuts across all political and belief systems. Whether you are talking about gold-leaf doo-dads or Mitsubishi Heat Pumps, Lawyer-foyers or massively thick layers of foam insulation, MORE and FASTER are the constants.

(Those among us who are focused on sustainable development in the still-developing areas of the world have perhaps the best opportunity to make a bigger difference. The rest of us... do what you can to RESIST.) 

October's UN Climate Summit and Climate Week NYC wrapped up without any timely action on carbon emissions. Fortunately, the carbon footprint of the AEC sector came to light over the last five years-notably for materials like cement, concrete, steel, glass, insulation and asphalt-as well as National and regional Buy Clean programs to encourage production of low-carbon materials and low-carbon building designs. But "Electrification" and "Clean Energy" are still the current buzzwords, "Adaptation" and "Remediation" the plans, and scrubbing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere-if ever feasible-our future cure-all.

Unfortunately, a significant fact pattern is overlooked, annual emissions have increased every year for more than 50 years, except during global recessions-a noteworthy correlation.

James,

I have to disagree here - while it is true that pretty much all materials have some carbon impact, I don't think "dollars = carbon" is a good way to look at it.  Spending money does not always "burn stuff".  The embodied carbon of materials varies greatly, and sometimes you might pay more for a low-carbon material, and sometimes you might pay a lot less.  For instance - concrete with fly ash as a cement replacement has a lot less embodied carbon than a traditional concrete mix, and it might cost the same.  

RMI (Rocky Mountain Institute) has some simplified information on this topic here (https://rmi.org/insight/reducing-embodied-carbon-in-buildings/) - the results of their study a few years ago show that products can be specified for reduced carbon impacts across the board for low and no-cost premiums.  

And some material choices will go further and sequester carbon, preventing emissions - such as biogenic materials like wood and straw.  Dollars to dollars, a stack of straw bales vs a concrete wall obviously do not have anywhere near the same carbon emissions.

There are many tools out there now to evaluate the carbon impact of material choices, including BEAM (https://www.buildersforclimateaction.org/), EC3, C-Scale, and probably more I'm not thinking of at the moment. It's on us as architects to step up and learn how to do better to work towards a livable future for all.  

regards,

Anna de Anguera, AIA, LFA, LEED AP BD+C

Studio Pear

www.studiopear.us

Hear hear. 

A most useful mental "metric" in a carbon-based global economy is dollars=carbon.

Spending money burns stuff. Working with clients to build less, modestly, affordably might be the simplest thing architects can do to "make a difference". But... this goes against most of our training and predilections, and usually goes against our business interests. Not to mention being a very hard sell.

In my experience this cuts across all political and belief systems. Whether you are talking about gold-leaf doo-dads or Mitsubishi Heat Pumps, Lawyer-foyers or massively thick layers of foam insulation, MORE and FASTER are the constants.

(Those among us who are focused on sustainable development in the still-developing areas of the world have perhaps the best opportunity to make a bigger difference. The rest of us... do what you can to RESIST.) 

October's UN Climate Summit and Climate Week NYC wrapped up without any timely action on carbon emissions. Fortunately, the carbon footprint of the AEC sector came to light over the last five years-notably for materials like cement, concrete, steel, glass, insulation and asphalt-as well as National and regional Buy Clean programs to encourage production of low-carbon materials and low-carbon building designs. But "Electrification" and "Clean Energy" are still the current buzzwords, "Adaptation" and "Remediation" the plans, and scrubbing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere-if ever feasible-our future cure-all.

Unfortunately, a significant fact pattern is overlooked, annual emissions have increased every year for more than 50 years, except during global recessions-a noteworthy correlation.

James,

I have to disagree here - while it is true that pretty much all materials have some carbon impact, I don't think "dollars = carbon" is a good way to look at it.  Spending money does not always "burn stuff".  The embodied carbon of materials varies greatly, and sometimes you might pay more for a low-carbon material, and sometimes you might pay a lot less.  For instance - concrete with fly ash as a cement replacement has a lot less embodied carbon than a traditional concrete mix, and it might cost the same.  

RMI (Rocky Mountain Institute) has some simplified information on this topic here (https://rmi.org/insight/reducing-embodied-carbon-in-buildings/) - the results of their study a few years ago show that products can be specified for reduced carbon impacts across the board for low and no-cost premiums.  

And some material choices will go further and sequester carbon, preventing emissions - such as biogenic materials like wood and straw.  Dollars to dollars, a stack of straw bales vs a concrete wall obviously do not have anywhere near the same carbon emissions.

There are many tools out there now to evaluate the carbon impact of material choices, including BEAM (https://www.buildersforclimateaction.org/), EC3, C-Scale, and probably more I'm not thinking of at the moment. It's on us as architects to step up and learn how to do better to work towards a livable future for all.  

regards,

Anna de Anguera, AIA, LFA, LEED AP BD+C

Studio Pear

www.studiopear.us

Hear hear. 

A most useful mental "metric" in a carbon-based global economy is dollars=carbon.

Spending money burns stuff. Working with clients to build less, modestly, affordably might be the simplest thing architects can do to "make a difference". But... this goes against most of our training and predilections, and usually goes against our business interests. Not to mention being a very hard sell.

In my experience this cuts across all political and belief systems. Whether you are talking about gold-leaf doo-dads or Mitsubishi Heat Pumps, Lawyer-foyers or massively thick layers of foam insulation, MORE and FASTER are the constants.

(Those among us who are focused on sustainable development in the still-developing areas of the world have perhaps the best opportunity to make a bigger difference. The rest of us... do what you can to RESIST.) 

October's UN Climate Summit and Climate Week NYC wrapped up without any timely action on carbon emissions. Fortunately, the carbon footprint of the AEC sector came to light over the last five years-notably for materials like cement, concrete, steel, glass, insulation and asphalt-as well as National and regional Buy Clean programs to encourage production of low-carbon materials and low-carbon building designs. But "Electrification" and "Clean Energy" are still the current buzzwords, "Adaptation" and "Remediation" the plans, and scrubbing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere-if ever feasible-our future cure-all.

Unfortunately, a significant fact pattern is overlooked, annual emissions have increased every year for more than 50 years, except during global recessions-a noteworthy correlation.

I want to add two thoughts to my previous slightly jokey response.
1) The comments initially made by Bill Caplan touched directly on issues that coincidentally are being discussed in this Harvard GSD event (I just got an email this afternoon -- I have no involvement):

GSD Practice Forum Panel Discussion

Quoting the summary here:

"This panel discussion brings together disciplinary experts, practitioners, and students from the fields of architecture, landscape architecture, and urban planning and design to address structural hurdles and potentials embedded in ethical 21st-century design practice.

The conversation, moderated by Practice Forum Chair Elizabeth Christoforetti, begins with a pragmatic acknowledgement of the conditions within which contemporary design practice is situated: Buildings alone are responsible for over 40% of global carbon emissions, and the exponential growth of our urban world presents an ethical imperative for practices of the built environment with respect to climate impact. Physical growth is inextricably linked to increased carbon demand and waste generation. At the same time, political pressures and professional ethics demand rapid expansion to improve life for the many through a significant increase in the provision of low-cost housing units and supportive social infrastructure. The increasing capacity of technology to scale growth and development amplifies both the risk and opportunity of these seemingly contradictory conditions. Adding to this is a long-growing conflict between our fiduciary responsibility to our clients, often translated into the generation of financial returns, and our dedication to disciplinary knowledge, which is rooted in cultural (rather than capital) production.

With an action-oriented mindset, we ask how design practice may respond. Must we recalibrate our understanding of "growth"? Can a recalibration of professional limitations (and thus the professions themselves), such as the essential disciplinary and legal division between designing and building our world, contribute to a renewed form of ethical practice for the 21st century? What is the role of the public vs. private sectors in a practice that serves the public good? Is it possible to run an ethical practice rooted in a value system of infinite growth in a finite world?"
----

2) To give an extremely prosaic example from a current project, a municipality we are working with is required to super-insulate the roof of a fairly large existing building to meet a stretch energy code requirement. This sounds good until we realized, through researching the Global Warming Potential (GWP) of the materials, and doing some rough calculations, that the GWP of the added insulation was maybe 3x the Global Warming Impact reduction from expected energy savings. So that didn't sound so good any more, and we started looking for exemptions... until we learned that the rationale for this particular stretch code requirement is based on reducing peak load, not on energy savings. The reason for the emphasis on peak load has to do, we were informed, with paving the way for future electrification of the built infrastructure. In this case the dollars=carbon metric seems to be true for the present, but maybe it is false for the future. So maybe the stretch code represents the right choice, big picture, but considering the near-term realities, the questionable realism of the all-electric future, and the immediate GWP impacts of all that additional insulation, it seems worth asking the question: when is more actually better?

James,

I have to disagree here - while it is true that pretty much all materials have some carbon impact, I don't think "dollars = carbon" is a good way to look at it.  Spending money does not always "burn stuff".  The embodied carbon of materials varies greatly, and sometimes you might pay more for a low-carbon material, and sometimes you might pay a lot less.  For instance - concrete with fly ash as a cement replacement has a lot less embodied carbon than a traditional concrete mix, and it might cost the same.  

RMI (Rocky Mountain Institute) has some simplified information on this topic here (https://rmi.org/insight/reducing-embodied-carbon-in-buildings/) - the results of their study a few years ago show that products can be specified for reduced carbon impacts across the board for low and no-cost premiums.  

And some material choices will go further and sequester carbon, preventing emissions - such as biogenic materials like wood and straw.  Dollars to dollars, a stack of straw bales vs a concrete wall obviously do not have anywhere near the same carbon emissions.

There are many tools out there now to evaluate the carbon impact of material choices, including BEAM (https://www.buildersforclimateaction.org/), EC3, C-Scale, and probably more I'm not thinking of at the moment. It's on us as architects to step up and learn how to do better to work towards a livable future for all.  

regards,

Anna de Anguera, AIA, LFA, LEED AP BD+C

Studio Pear

www.studiopear.us

Hear hear. 

A most useful mental "metric" in a carbon-based global economy is dollars=carbon.

Spending money burns stuff. Working with clients to build less, modestly, affordably might be the simplest thing architects can do to "make a difference". But... this goes against most of our training and predilections, and usually goes against our business interests. Not to mention being a very hard sell.

In my experience this cuts across all political and belief systems. Whether you are talking about gold-leaf doo-dads or Mitsubishi Heat Pumps, Lawyer-foyers or massively thick layers of foam insulation, MORE and FASTER are the constants.

(Those among us who are focused on sustainable development in the still-developing areas of the world have perhaps the best opportunity to make a bigger difference. The rest of us... do what you can to RESIST.) 

October's UN Climate Summit and Climate Week NYC wrapped up without any timely action on carbon emissions. Fortunately, the carbon footprint of the AEC sector came to light over the last five years-notably for materials like cement, concrete, steel, glass, insulation and asphalt-as well as National and regional Buy Clean programs to encourage production of low-carbon materials and low-carbon building designs. But "Electrification" and "Clean Energy" are still the current buzzwords, "Adaptation" and "Remediation" the plans, and scrubbing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere-if ever feasible-our future cure-all.

Unfortunately, a significant fact pattern is overlooked, annual emissions have increased every year for more than 50 years, except during global recessions-a noteworthy correlation.

James, thank you for passing on the Harvard GSD Practice Forum Panel Discussion's premise, as well as your thoughtful comments on my original post.

Faced with the global reality of Business-As-Usual, much of what we intend to be "sustainable" and "green" inadvertently ends up as Greenwash. Daylighting these issues through transparent discussion is the first step toward understanding the problem, and to derive new paths forward.

Your comment "Working with clients to build less, modestly, affordably" sounds like a good place to start. Thank you for that articulation. RMI's study suggested by Anna is also helpful (https://rmi.org/insight/reducing-embodied-carbon-in-buildings/).

Perhaps others might join the discussion. Doing so would benefit us all.

I want to add two thoughts to my previous slightly jokey response.
1) The comments initially made by Bill Caplan touched directly on issues that coincidentally are being discussed in this Harvard GSD event (I just got an email this afternoon -- I have no involvement):

GSD Practice Forum Panel Discussion

Quoting the summary here:

"This panel discussion brings together disciplinary experts, practitioners, and students from the fields of architecture, landscape architecture, and urban planning and design to address structural hurdles and potentials embedded in ethical 21st-century design practice.

The conversation, moderated by Practice Forum Chair Elizabeth Christoforetti, begins with a pragmatic acknowledgement of the conditions within which contemporary design practice is situated: Buildings alone are responsible for over 40% of global carbon emissions, and the exponential growth of our urban world presents an ethical imperative for practices of the built environment with respect to climate impact. Physical growth is inextricably linked to increased carbon demand and waste generation. At the same time, political pressures and professional ethics demand rapid expansion to improve life for the many through a significant increase in the provision of low-cost housing units and supportive social infrastructure. The increasing capacity of technology to scale growth and development amplifies both the risk and opportunity of these seemingly contradictory conditions. Adding to this is a long-growing conflict between our fiduciary responsibility to our clients, often translated into the generation of financial returns, and our dedication to disciplinary knowledge, which is rooted in cultural (rather than capital) production.

With an action-oriented mindset, we ask how design practice may respond. Must we recalibrate our understanding of "growth"? Can a recalibration of professional limitations (and thus the professions themselves), such as the essential disciplinary and legal division between designing and building our world, contribute to a renewed form of ethical practice for the 21st century? What is the role of the public vs. private sectors in a practice that serves the public good? Is it possible to run an ethical practice rooted in a value system of infinite growth in a finite world?"
----

2) To give an extremely prosaic example from a current project, a municipality we are working with is required to super-insulate the roof of a fairly large existing building to meet a stretch energy code requirement. This sounds good until we realized, through researching the Global Warming Potential (GWP) of the materials, and doing some rough calculations, that the GWP of the added insulation was maybe 3x the Global Warming Impact reduction from expected energy savings. So that didn't sound so good any more, and we started looking for exemptions... until we learned that the rationale for this particular stretch code requirement is based on reducing peak load, not on energy savings. The reason for the emphasis on peak load has to do, we were informed, with paving the way for future electrification of the built infrastructure. In this case the dollars=carbon metric seems to be true for the present, but maybe it is false for the future. So maybe the stretch code represents the right choice, big picture, but considering the near-term realities, the questionable realism of the all-electric future, and the immediate GWP impacts of all that additional insulation, it seems worth asking the question: when is more actually better?

James,

I have to disagree here - while it is true that pretty much all materials have some carbon impact, I don't think "dollars = carbon" is a good way to look at it.  Spending money does not always "burn stuff".  The embodied carbon of materials varies greatly, and sometimes you might pay more for a low-carbon material, and sometimes you might pay a lot less.  For instance - concrete with fly ash as a cement replacement has a lot less embodied carbon than a traditional concrete mix, and it might cost the same.  

RMI (Rocky Mountain Institute) has some simplified information on this topic here (https://rmi.org/insight/reducing-embodied-carbon-in-buildings/) - the results of their study a few years ago show that products can be specified for reduced carbon impacts across the board for low and no-cost premiums.  

And some material choices will go further and sequester carbon, preventing emissions - such as biogenic materials like wood and straw.  Dollars to dollars, a stack of straw bales vs a concrete wall obviously do not have anywhere near the same carbon emissions.

There are many tools out there now to evaluate the carbon impact of material choices, including BEAM (https://www.buildersforclimateaction.org/), EC3, C-Scale, and probably more I'm not thinking of at the moment. It's on us as architects to step up and learn how to do better to work towards a livable future for all.  

regards,

Anna de Anguera, AIA, LFA, LEED AP BD+C

Studio Pear

www.studiopear.us

Hear hear. 

A most useful mental "metric" in a carbon-based global economy is dollars=carbon.

Spending money burns stuff. Working with clients to build less, modestly, affordably might be the simplest thing architects can do to "make a difference". But... this goes against most of our training and predilections, and usually goes against our business interests. Not to mention being a very hard sell.

In my experience this cuts across all political and belief systems. Whether you are talking about gold-leaf doo-dads or Mitsubishi Heat Pumps, Lawyer-foyers or massively thick layers of foam insulation, MORE and FASTER are the constants.

(Those among us who are focused on sustainable development in the still-developing areas of the world have perhaps the best opportunity to make a bigger difference. The rest of us... do what you can to RESIST.) 

October's UN Climate Summit and Climate Week NYC wrapped up without any timely action on carbon emissions. Fortunately, the carbon footprint of the AEC sector came to light over the last five years-notably for materials like cement, concrete, steel, glass, insulation and asphalt-as well as National and regional Buy Clean programs to encourage production of low-carbon materials and low-carbon building designs. But "Electrification" and "Clean Energy" are still the current buzzwords, "Adaptation" and "Remediation" the plans, and scrubbing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere-if ever feasible-our future cure-all.

Unfortunately, a significant fact pattern is overlooked, annual emissions have increased every year for more than 50 years, except during global recessions-a noteworthy correlation.

James,

Thanks for the link and the "prosaic" example.  In your example project of adding roof insulation, you don't mention which types of insulation you studied.  I think you'll get vastly different GWP numbers from different materials, which will change the calculations you describe.  

I did a quick test using the BEAM tool, and it's pretty easy to input a hypothetical project and test out different scenarios for adding insulation to the roof of an existing building such as your project.  I found for adding R-20 insulation board on the roof a vast range of results - the worst of which being XPS by far.  So that is one to avoid.  The industry standard less bad options would be Polyiso, EPS, Mineral Wool or Fiberglass board.  Another interesting option is wood fiber board insulation, which will store CO2.  There is a new US-based product TimberBoard by TimberHP in Maine (https://www.timberhp.com/products/timberboard).  And since you're on the east coast, you have the option of getting products shipped over from Europe at a relatively low carbon impact (unlike us out here on the west coast, sadly).  There are a couple other Europe-based wood fiber insulation options: Pavatex (https://www.acaraconcepts.com/wood-fibre-insulation/) and Gutex (https://475.supply/products/gutex-multitherm?_pos=2&_sid=1744ec75a&_ss=r).

I'm attaching the summary sheet of my BEAM tool test of adding R-20 insulation on top of a hypothetical existing 20,000 sf building which gives some emissions results by material for your reference.  

Appreciate your digging in to this important topic!  

regards,

Anna

James, thank you for passing on the Harvard GSD Practice Forum Panel Discussion's premise, as well as your thoughtful comments on my original post.

Faced with the global reality of Business-As-Usual, much of what we intend to be "sustainable" and "green" inadvertently ends up as Greenwash. Daylighting these issues through transparent discussion is the first step toward understanding the problem, and to derive new paths forward.

Your comment "Working with clients to build less, modestly, affordably" sounds like a good place to start. Thank you for that articulation. RMI's study suggested by Anna is also helpful (https://rmi.org/insight/reducing-embodied-carbon-in-buildings/).

Perhaps others might join the discussion. Doing so would benefit us all.

I want to add two thoughts to my previous slightly jokey response.
1) The comments initially made by Bill Caplan touched directly on issues that coincidentally are being discussed in this Harvard GSD event (I just got an email this afternoon -- I have no involvement):

GSD Practice Forum Panel Discussion

Quoting the summary here:

"This panel discussion brings together disciplinary experts, practitioners, and students from the fields of architecture, landscape architecture, and urban planning and design to address structural hurdles and potentials embedded in ethical 21st-century design practice.

The conversation, moderated by Practice Forum Chair Elizabeth Christoforetti, begins with a pragmatic acknowledgement of the conditions within which contemporary design practice is situated: Buildings alone are responsible for over 40% of global carbon emissions, and the exponential growth of our urban world presents an ethical imperative for practices of the built environment with respect to climate impact. Physical growth is inextricably linked to increased carbon demand and waste generation. At the same time, political pressures and professional ethics demand rapid expansion to improve life for the many through a significant increase in the provision of low-cost housing units and supportive social infrastructure. The increasing capacity of technology to scale growth and development amplifies both the risk and opportunity of these seemingly contradictory conditions. Adding to this is a long-growing conflict between our fiduciary responsibility to our clients, often translated into the generation of financial returns, and our dedication to disciplinary knowledge, which is rooted in cultural (rather than capital) production.

With an action-oriented mindset, we ask how design practice may respond. Must we recalibrate our understanding of "growth"? Can a recalibration of professional limitations (and thus the professions themselves), such as the essential disciplinary and legal division between designing and building our world, contribute to a renewed form of ethical practice for the 21st century? What is the role of the public vs. private sectors in a practice that serves the public good? Is it possible to run an ethical practice rooted in a value system of infinite growth in a finite world?"
----

2) To give an extremely prosaic example from a current project, a municipality we are working with is required to super-insulate the roof of a fairly large existing building to meet a stretch energy code requirement. This sounds good until we realized, through researching the Global Warming Potential (GWP) of the materials, and doing some rough calculations, that the GWP of the added insulation was maybe 3x the Global Warming Impact reduction from expected energy savings. So that didn't sound so good any more, and we started looking for exemptions... until we learned that the rationale for this particular stretch code requirement is based on reducing peak load, not on energy savings. The reason for the emphasis on peak load has to do, we were informed, with paving the way for future electrification of the built infrastructure. In this case the dollars=carbon metric seems to be true for the present, but maybe it is false for the future. So maybe the stretch code represents the right choice, big picture, but considering the near-term realities, the questionable realism of the all-electric future, and the immediate GWP impacts of all that additional insulation, it seems worth asking the question: when is more actually better?

James,

I have to disagree here - while it is true that pretty much all materials have some carbon impact, I don't think "dollars = carbon" is a good way to look at it.  Spending money does not always "burn stuff".  The embodied carbon of materials varies greatly, and sometimes you might pay more for a low-carbon material, and sometimes you might pay a lot less.  For instance - concrete with fly ash as a cement replacement has a lot less embodied carbon than a traditional concrete mix, and it might cost the same.  

RMI (Rocky Mountain Institute) has some simplified information on this topic here (https://rmi.org/insight/reducing-embodied-carbon-in-buildings/) - the results of their study a few years ago show that products can be specified for reduced carbon impacts across the board for low and no-cost premiums.  

And some material choices will go further and sequester carbon, preventing emissions - such as biogenic materials like wood and straw.  Dollars to dollars, a stack of straw bales vs a concrete wall obviously do not have anywhere near the same carbon emissions.

There are many tools out there now to evaluate the carbon impact of material choices, including BEAM (https://www.buildersforclimateaction.org/), EC3, C-Scale, and probably more I'm not thinking of at the moment. It's on us as architects to step up and learn how to do better to work towards a livable future for all.  

regards,

Anna de Anguera, AIA, LFA, LEED AP BD+C

Studio Pear

www.studiopear.us

Hear hear. 

A most useful mental "metric" in a carbon-based global economy is dollars=carbon.

Spending money burns stuff. Working with clients to build less, modestly, affordably might be the simplest thing architects can do to "make a difference". But... this goes against most of our training and predilections, and usually goes against our business interests. Not to mention being a very hard sell.

In my experience this cuts across all political and belief systems. Whether you are talking about gold-leaf doo-dads or Mitsubishi Heat Pumps, Lawyer-foyers or massively thick layers of foam insulation, MORE and FASTER are the constants.

(Those among us who are focused on sustainable development in the still-developing areas of the world have perhaps the best opportunity to make a bigger difference. The rest of us... do what you can to RESIST.) 

October's UN Climate Summit and Climate Week NYC wrapped up without any timely action on carbon emissions. Fortunately, the carbon footprint of the AEC sector came to light over the last five years-notably for materials like cement, concrete, steel, glass, insulation and asphalt-as well as National and regional Buy Clean programs to encourage production of low-carbon materials and low-carbon building designs. But "Electrification" and "Clean Energy" are still the current buzzwords, "Adaptation" and "Remediation" the plans, and scrubbing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere-if ever feasible-our future cure-all.

Unfortunately, a significant fact pattern is overlooked, annual emissions have increased every year for more than 50 years, except during global recessions-a noteworthy correlation.