Projects proposed in capital investment plans are intended to serve a programmatic purpose, which can also be expressed in quantified units. Performing the same programmatic function in a facility that is reduced in physical size will reduce the energy needed to power that facility and provide that function. Increases in density allow further energy reductions per programmatic unit. Conversely, proposed projects may be bigger than necessary, utilizing more energy during a lifetime of operations and maintenance, as well as greater capital costs (Jowitt et al., 2011, 92). ‘Right sizing’ buildings and other common urban infrastructure investments such as roads can also help to reduce embodied carbon—carbon emitted into the atmosphere during the production of the construction materials themselves. Although there will be some major infrastructure projects, such as the electrical transmission system for a city, that cannot be downsized, the scale of a project is often one helpful dimension to consider.

One of the most effective ways to reduce carbon emissions is to switch to less carbon‐intensive fuels (IPCC Working Group III, 2014, 41). According to the most recent report by the IPCC, over 25% of global emissions come from the energy supply utilized—more than any other sector (IPCC Working Group III, 2014, 14). This is because most of the world’s infrastructure is powered by fossil fuels such as coal, oil, and natural gas. In 2010, these three types of fuel provided 80% of the world’s energy (U.S. Energy Information Administration, 2013). Every kWh of energy switched to renewable sources such as wind, solar, and hydroelectric power eliminates the direct emissions associated with energy supply. Also, switching between fossil fuels can provide emission reductions. For instance, natural gas generates less CO2 per kWh than oil or coal (U.S. Energy Information Administration, 2011). This reduction will not be nearly as great as switching to renewable sources, but a reduction in emissions will occur nonetheless. All approaches matter – emission reductions can be achieved through investments in localized renewable energy generation (e.g., distributed solar or wind), in the local movement toward increased proportions of renewable sources, and in the movement of centralized generation to lower carbon sources.

To incorporate energy saving (or carbon sink) technologies into proposals would require the designers of buildings and other infrastructure assets to collaborate for this purpose, perhaps consulting different references (e.g., product specifications) and vendors than they may be accustomed to, and familiarizing themselves with the features, specifications, and tolerances of alternative materials and products. The process of design would be similar to that undertaken for a conventional facility, but the phasing of participation and the parameters governing the approach to the design would be different. For example, passive design strategies are critical to reducing energy loading in buildings and infrastructure. Passive design is a way to utilize the natural resources available at the site to reduce required inputs. By considering site characteristics, the design team can maximize the use of existing features in the natural environment (as opposed to manufactured, energy intensive features) to provide desired operating parameters and uses for the facility (Grondzik et al., 2009, 287). One example of a passive design strategy, for instance, is the incorporation of daylight and solar radiation through the installation of insulated windows to reduce electricity needs. Technologies that take advantage of passive design strategies, such as cross ventilation for a building and geothermal heat for power generation can dramatically cut a project’s greenhouse gas emissions. There are hundreds of such technologies.

Page | 17