Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
The Green House (Building) Effect
SAN DIEGO, California - Environmentally-friendly buildings have evolved from hippy habitats to office towers and shopping centres, becoming a far more commonplace presence in city skylines and communities throughout the United States, as well as overseas.Call it the "Al Gore Factor" or the "George Bush Effect", but there are several reasons behind the renewed interest in the energy-efficient, low-impact buildings -- ranging from dramatic footage of melting icecaps to rising oil and gas prices, to the United States' dependency on energy sources from unstable regions of the world. There is now little disagreement that the U.S. needs to curb its appetite for fossil fuels in the years to come.
"It's definitely a growing trend. We have more work than we can handle," said Carolina Caroline E. Fluhrer, an engineer at the Rocky Mountain Institute (RMI), based in Boulder, Colorado.
RMI, a consulting and environmental design firm, has observed the change in perceptions firsthand as their roster of clients grows to include corporate titans such as Wal-Mart and even the White House. "People are starting to realise that green building is just good business," Fluher said.
She noted that there is empirical data verifying the overall benefits of sustainable building. "It's no longer just hearsay -- there's hard evidence you do realise significant energy and water savings," she said.
The soft benefits of natural lighting and improved ventilation are also gaining credence among advocates who cite reduced absenteeism and better health for building occupants.
Much of that evidence has been gathered by the U.S. Department of Energy in case studies involving the past two decades of green-build projects. According to the DOE, high-performance buildings that incorporate green design principles are worth the initial upfront investment.
Although up to 10 percent more expensive during initial the phase of construction, green buildings are cost-effective in the long run, cutting energy expenses up to 50 percent over the lifetime of the building. The potential for energy savings is even greater for residential properties, providing powerful incentives for owners and developers to consider green options.
For the average wage earner managing a home mortgage, energy conservation isn't a partisan issue. Nationwide, the average home uses 1,400 dollars of energy and emits 4.0 metric tonnes of carbon dioxide per year, accounting for up to 20 percent of greenhouse gases annually.
Recent studies indicate that 60 percent of the U.S. public consider themselves to be environmentalists, and when surveyed 40 percent of homeowners state they plan on incorporating green elements in home improvement projects, running the gamut from using low VOC (volatile organic compounds) emitting paints to retrofitting their homes with solar panels.
So far, government agencies have refrained from defining what an eco-friendly or green building is. That task has fallen to the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC), a non-profit organisation founded in 1993 that has grown to include 12,000 members.
Over time, the USGBC developed the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED), a widely accepted standard for green building certification. LEED-certified buildings incorporate three if not all of these elements -- fuel efficiency, water conservation, proper ventilation, and resource conservation and site management.
"People are looking for ways to turn the clock back on global warming. Green buildings are a demonstrable aspect of that, especially as gas prices continue to go up," said Ashley Katz, a spokesperson for the USGBC.
According to Katz, as of 2007, just 2 percent of homes were green. The value of this marketplace is approximately 7.8 billion dollars. However, growth is expected in coming years. Given forecasts of the overall housing trends, this segment of the housing market is expected to increase to 10 percent by 2010.
"They're really popping up all over the place," said Katz. Grand Rapids, Michigan, for example, has one of the highest numbers of certified projects in the country. Currently, there are 400 LEED certified homes with 10,000 more in the pipeline.
In California, LEED principles are in the process of being codified, and the construction of state government-owned buildings must adhere to green guidelines. Seventy-two cities nationwide are following suit.
Awareness of the global impact of green homes reached a tipping point in 2007 when the normally staid National Association of Homebuilders gushed on their web site that sustainable building is "exploding", and that more than half of their members -- who build 80 percent of the homes in the U.S. -- will be incorporating green elements in upcoming projects.
Having said that, perhaps the greenest buildings of all will be the projects not under construction. According to the U.S. Census, housing starts for single family homes fell 24 percent over the past year and will continue to decline in coming months, slowing the pace of urban sprawl and reducing the rate of carbon emissions as the transport of labour and materials to and from work sites slows to a crawl.
In fact, while the housing market is slow, green building is one segment of the industry where demand is outstripping supply as homeowners and builders, whether driven by sentiment or pragmatism, seek earth-friendly alternatives to traditional housing construction.
© 2008 Inter Press Service
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...



9 Comments so far
Show AllGreen building development is fine in itself. But in my community, we are seing green development that is otherwise follow the same scheme of sprawling, car-oriented, walk, bicycle, and-transit unfriendly development. They even include "green" parking garages - an oxymoron if i've ever heard one.
So, the incresed car use spawned by these "green" developments will still make them big polluters when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions.
Better that we restore, green or not, our existing, depopulated urban areas.
This is great. Honestly. BUT....
I can't say I get all that excited about Wal-Mart (or god forbid the oh so "dirty White House") going "green". Hypocrites to the nth degree. If Wal-Mart wants to go "green", why don't they just dissolve themselves permanently. Give thier green buildings to the local community.
If builders want to go green, why don't they figure out how to use buildings that are already there instead of tearing down so much just to put up new McMansions.
I'm not knocking awareness of better building practices, but there is so much more that can and needs to be done. Going green is not about making money, or at least, there needs to be much more to it than that if it is going to make a hill a beans of difference.....
Just my humble opinion of course....
How green is Wal-mart when it imports so much stuff? Not very.
If the oceanfront condos on Floridas windy Gold Coast had windchargers of the silent, bird friendly rotating drum kind on their flat roofs, solar panels and solar water heaters for their pools and owners, they could be energy independent, sell the excess energy they produce back to the utility or use it to charge electric automobiles. As RMI shows, there is a growing demand for technicians, businesses and government to produce these custom installations on homes and buildings.
The whole thing is doomed. It is all about economics with the right hand jumping off the ideas of the left hand to push their agenda. Obama was the only candidate for change until it became popular. Suddenly they are all for change. There is a long way to go before this will sort itself out!
I am afraid there is not enough time! Too bad!
A great thinker, E.F. Schumacher said 35 years ago in "Small is Beautiful":
"...it is inherent in the methodology of economics to ignore man's dependence on the natural world" pg. 46
"The economics of giantism and automation is a left-over of nineteenth-century conditions and nineteenth-century thinking and it is totally incapable of solving any of the real problems of today. An entirely new system of thought is needed, a system based on attention to people, and not primarly attention to goods..." pg. 79
"Study how a society uses its land, and you can come to pretty reliable conclusions as to what its future will be." pg. 108
"What is the meaning of democracy, freedom, human dignity, standard of living, self-realisation, fulfillment? Is it a matter of goods, or of people? Of course it is a matter of people. But people can be themselves only in small comprehensible groups. Therefore we must learn to think in terms of an articulated structure that can cope with a multiplicity of small-scale units. If economic thinking cannot grasp this it is useless. If it cannot get beyond its vast abstractions, the national income, the rate of growth, capital/output ratio, input-output analysis, labour mobility, capital accumulation; if it cannot get beyond all this and make contact with the human realities of poverty, frustration, alienation, despair, breakdown, crime, escapism, stress, congestion, ugliness, and spiritual death, then let us scrap economics and start afresh." pg. 80
We might as well realize that until something catches on and becomes acceptable to the business types, we are unlikely to see it have much effect on our world. I remember how government energy price structuring doomed several solar power plants in southern California twenty years ago. In fact I bought one of the surplus panels and use it to run my Solar Chill swamp cooler. If we insisted that the utilities pay us a fair price for excess power we produce, we could do as they are doing in Denmark and other countries. Citizens there produce power with medium sized wind generators and sell the excess to the utilities. We are paid a fraction of what they are and this slows the sale and development of these machines here.
Once again democracy could rescue us from this greedy reluctance to share the wealth, but we would have to figure out how to use it first. The secret is to not vote for the approved candidates, but instead for the marginal, unapproved ones such as Dennis Kucinich and Cynthia McKinney. Then we could, as Adam Smith advised, "write our regulations carefully", to benefit us and our world.
This--to me, at least--is a small sign of changing consciousnesses.
We should look beyond the details and encourage this change. The large majority of the population still doesn't "get it." Strike not only when the iron is hot, but where the iron is hot.
See what is new in the Natural Building Movement
with the Mudgirls Natural Building Collective
http://www.mudgirls.ca/