Impact of embodied carbon in the life cycle of buildings on climate change for a sustainable future

According to the literature approximately 40% of global energy in 2007 has been using in the buildings which is responsible for 30% of total carbon emission. This human induced carbon emissions cause climate change by increasing global temperature. In this sense, energy consumption in the life cycle of buildings results in two different components: embodied carbon and operational carbon. Embodied carbon, encompasses extraction and processing of raw materials; manufacturing, transportation and distribution; use, reuse, maintenance, recycling and disposal. Operational energy is consumed in operating the buildings, e.g. heating and cooling systems, lighting, and home appliances which accomplish some household functions. A number of measures and targets have been introduced, including various fiscal and regulatory instruments to handle climate change and move towards low and zero carbon buildings. Overall, the increase in efficiency of energy use is as vital as production of energy and results in direct or indirect energy savings, and subsequently mitigates high energy cost. The aim of this paper is to highlight the impact of "different strategies" on embodied energy and ultimately on the environment. This concern provides a more integrative approach to calculate a building's embodied carbon in the housing life cycle assessment considering the following strategies: (1) Choice of construction materials such as wood and glass etc... When designing buildings, (2) Minimizing distance between building and raw material supply, (3) Choosing recyclability in building materials and parts, (4) Minimization of building-related waste during the construction processes, and (5) Planning in accordance with recent efforts for standardization of embodied carbon in the buildings. material supply, (3) Choosing recyclability in building materials and parts, (4) Minimization of building-related waste during the construction processes, and (5) Planning in accordance with recent efforts for standardization of embodied carbon in the buildings.Copyrigh

Groundwater

About 18% of the total water resources potential of Turkey is made up of groundwater resources. Significant portion of the streamflow of major rivers is supplied by groundwater through springs and baseflow. In 1960s and early 1970s, the financial capacity of Turkey did not allow construction of large dams for irrigation. Development of groundwater resources in alluvial plain aquifers where the agriculture was concentrated has been a priority. In 1990s, the building of large dams has been boosted and irrigation by surface waters preferred due to the lower operational cost. From 1990s, not enough funds have been allocated to explore and develop groundwater resources. In spite of its strategic significance, much more has been invested to investigate and develop the "visible" resource. This unbalanced policy of water resources management has reflected also in the organizational and institutional structure of Turkey. Groundwater resources of Turkey mainly occur in alluvial and karstic aquifers. Large coastal plains and deltas, grabens and pull-apart basins constitute the major alluvial aquifers. The thick and extensive carbonate rocks along the Taurus mountain belt favor formation of productive karst aquifers. The fractured rock aquifers are either low yield or of local importance. Igneous rocks have no permeability and they have very limited outcrops. Groundwater occurs in younger volcanic rocks with limited extension. However, volcanic rock aquifers at foothills of volcanoes, such as Erciyes and Nemrut, may supply a great amount of groundwater where they are recharged by snowmelt. Metamorphic rocks are hydrogeological barriers, in general. They may bear very little amounts of groundwater that might support aquatic ecosystems. Turkey has faced some water mismanagement problems whose consequences are observable in terms of the decline of groundwater levels, reduced spring and streamflows, desiccation of lakes and wetlands and loss of ecosystems. These consequences resulting mainly from managing surface waters and groundwater resources separately, ignoring that they are interacting subsystems of the same and single source, are becoming more frequent and severe. Implementation of the EU-Water Framework Directive has helped, to a certain extent, to maintain the "good status" and to "recover" the degraded water resources and the ecosystems. The "safe yield" approach that has been used in groundwater management needs to be changed to a "sustainable yield" approach which considers also the ecological water needs. This can only be achieved by competent persons who are educated in hydrogeological characterization, conceptualization and modelling of groundwater systems