Energy Star-certified buildings are on the rise in the United States! In 2010 alone, the number of Energy Star buildings in big cities has doubled in size compared to the past ten years combined. A qualified building must use on average 35 percent less energy and emit 35 percent less carbon emissions to be certified by the government as an Energy Star building. We’re thrilled to see greener buildings gaining momentum across the states – read on to see which cities made the biggest gains!
In 2008, only a paltry two cities had over 150 Energy Star buildings. The country has caught up to the benefits of energy efficiency, as now nine out of ten of the top cities in the U.S. boast over 150 Energy Efficient buildings, with 6,200 soon to be certified nationwide.
The new buildings have reduced CO2 emissions by a figure comparable to the emissions of 1.3 million homes. Aside from saving energy and waste, these buildings are also saving a lot of money – to the tune of $1.9 billion dollars a year.
And the winners are:
1. Los Angeles (510 Energy Star buildings, $117.9 cost savings in millions)
2. Washington D.C. (301, $74.2)
3. San Francisco (248, $75.1)
4. Chicago (232, $62.7)
5. New York City (211, $86.6)
6. Atlanta (201, $38.7)
7. Houston (175, $62.9)
8. Sacramento (168, $19.1)
9. Detroit (151, $18.7)
10. Dallas Fort-Worth (148, $35.2)
Via Smart Planet
Lead photo by Thomas Pintaric
Awesome article Lori! Glad to see others implementing green strategies into real estate! We have been “greening” up properties for a little over 2 years now and love the fact that we can earn more profits and do a great thing at the same time! My main goal is showing folks how to use “green” responsibly and not to over-do it. Green real estate is very powerful and we will be seeing much more of it very, very soon. Thanks.
Matt Stookey
Blogger on http://Greenhabbing101.com/
In an article above this. It says White House shells out 452 million for green retrofits. The government is picking and choosing paying residents to sort and recycle everything, and probably not having much heat or air conditioning. Maybe some people will enjoy the adventure. But I don’t understand how a government can pick and choose their tenants based on political beliefs or subsidize them. If it’s new construction your talking about subsidized housing for the upper middle class. WTF!!!
And yet a lot of these cities still have air pollution problems. Which shows green buildings are nothing more than an expensive marketing fad.
http://ti.org/antiplanner/?p=4121