Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Rebuilding Green: The Next Revolution
When a tornado flattened Greensburg, Kan., in May 2008, the city vowed to rebuild -- with a twist. All new municipal structures would be built "green," with businesses and homeowners encouraged to follow suit. Likewise, in New Orleans, where Brad Pitt's Make It Right foundation is constructing new, affordable green homes for Ninth Ward residents displaced by Hurricane Katrina.
Such projects have decisively moved green building from the exclusive realm of the wealthy into the affordable mainstream. But you don't have to see your home flattened by a natural disaster or be part of a community-wide initiative to build green.
Many Americans -- spurred by the need to save money and energy or to create a healthier indoor environment -- are incorporating green building concepts into existing homes and businesses, either through small upgrades or major renovations.
The truth is that most of our country's buildings just aren't very efficient. Forty percent of all U.S. energy goes to heat, light, and cool buildings, hitting all of us in our wallets and generating 43 percent of our nation's carbon dioxide emissions.
So how does each one of us join the green rebuilding revolution? An energy audit -- often offered free by a local utility -- is the place to start. It shows where air and energy dollars are leaking from your building and makes recommendations to staunch that flow. Surprisingly, you can improve energy efficiency by at least 30 percent with minor upgrades whose costs are recovered within a single year, according to Brendan Owens, a vice president at the U.S. Green Building Council.
Such upgrades can include resealing seams around doors and air ducts, tuning up mechanical systems, and switching to compact fluorescent light bulbs. You can see additional savings from installing double- or triple-paned windows, good insulation (using recycled materials), or energy-efficient appliances (see the federal EnergyStar website). All these paybacks start immediately: when I replaced my old, inefficient windows with double-paned glass, I saw a 40 percent reduction on my next energy bill.
Conserving water is also vital to our communities and saves money. Flow restrictors on showerheads and faucets, while not very glamorous changes, are cheap and reduce water consumption dramatically. Newer dishwashers, low-flush or dual-flush toilets (offering half-flush and whole flush options), and front-loading washing machines save multiple gallons. On demand water heaters can also save water and energy. Family health concerns are another reason to go green. Indoor environments frequently exude toxic chemicals found in many modern building materials. Even small projects like painting or replacing carpet or furniture are opportunities to make less toxic choices and to protect children who like to taste-test their surroundings.
When painting, use low- or no-VOC (volatile organic compound) paints. These are widely available and look just as good as old-style paint. Carpet now comes in nontoxic, recycled squares so you can take them up one at a time for washing or replacement.
As you tackle green projects, consider construction waste disposal. Doors, windows, cabinets, shutters, appliances and more can be reused, recycled, or given to neighbors, salvage yards, antique dealers, or groups like Habitat for Humanity. Some materials can even be sold for a small profit on websites like Craigslist. Finding new homes for old materials will also reduce your dump or trash fees. Also consider quality, reused materials for your green project; they're typically less expensive than new and are sometimes of better quality.
There are many more green retrofit possibilities. The U.S. Green Building Council's LEED checklist (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) can help guide you. You don't need to pay for LEED certification; simply look at USGBC's web site and take tips that make sense for your project. Or read Living Like Ed: A Guide to the Eco-Friendly Life, a book by actor and activist Ed Begley Jr. that conveniently catalogs green retrofits, starting with the easiest and least expensive, and progressing from there.
How much will your personal effort benefit our nation and world? Green architect Ed Mazria, founder of the nonprofit group Architecture 2030, estimates that for every $21 billion invested in the energy efficiency of our buildings, we could close 22 coal-burning power plants, reduce natural gas use by 204 billion cubic feet per year, cut oil use by 10.7 billion barrels a year, and cut carbon dioxide emissions by 86.7 billion metric tons. We'd also save consumers $8.46 billion a year, and create about 216,000 jobs.
If that sounds like a lot of light-bulb changing and window replacing, don't be daunted. Just remember: You don't have to do it all at once. Start small. Learn by doing. Every little bit helps.
- Posted in



6 Comments so far
Show AllChange begins at home...
A timely reminder that it's not all about delivering the world of banksters and the MIC. We can walk the talk.
Thanks, Erica.
I was hoping that "rebuilding green" meant rebuilding our long range goal of where green needs to go.
I know from experience that incremental changes, even big ones, in solar design will take place with or without government funds. Garage inventors can afford to experiment on this scale.
Changes specifically in the field of solar/wind electricity generation, and in no other field, will take place with government funds, solely because funds are set aside from your electricity bill for one purpose. Community electricity generation is way too expensive for the garage inventor, but the funding shall make all the difference. The system works here.
If trends keep up, changes in transit will never happen, ever. You will die first, even if you're 10 years old now. There are plenty of great ideas out here, but no funds whatsoever and no chance for an inventor to privately bring a better product to market, because the private entry fee for bringing out a transit product is $100 million, and the industry treats inventors rotten. I need to tell the entire green movement, you've done much good, but you currently stink out the house at long-range technology improvements for mass transit. You guys specifically choose the path of breathing ozone and dying. And these are the good guys!
Inventors' efforts to inhibit a runaway Arctic methane release are also D.O.A. Good ideas, but no money between Eureka and product rollout. Inhibiting or stopping the effects of global warming should be a worldwide research and prototyping effort, but no country is in charge and no country even wants to be in the lead. Bunch of dead polar bears.
Was it JFK who said that even the longest journey starts with one single step?
Perhaps mass transit really isn't in our future. Perhaps moving billions of people back and forth twice a day just doesn't make sense at all. Perhaps it would be more constructive and sane to re-localize our lives. Work where we live, shop where we live, and produce the things we need locally using local resources as much as possible.
Fat chance of this being implemented - we'd have to change the way we live and think, instead of relying on some miracle technological fix.
Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against technology per se as long as it is used to help us towards a less destructive way of life. Technology that merely makes our current way of life a little less destructive is a band-aid solution that will only postpone the break down.
Of course, I could be wrong...
It always makes all the data in an article suspect when there is one obvious error. Since US daily oil consumption is 20.7 million barrels or 7.55 billion per year then 10.7 billion barrels could not be saved. Makes me wonder about the number of coal-burning power plants.
You're right, of course. But the principle of saving on a large scale still stands. One would hope that the reader is sophisticated enough not to get hung up on a misplaced decimal point.