cost of building green - perception vs. reality

[mark handler]

The cost of building green - perception vs. reality

Posted: Jul 1, 2010 at 5:55 AM [Jul 1, 2010]

http://www.annarbor.com/business-review/the-cost-of-building-green---perception-vs-reality/

One of the hottest issues in the green building world is whether there is a significant premium to building “green” as opposed to the use of standard building products and practices. It is not uncommon for some members of the construction industry to say that the cost of building “green” can add 10 percent or more to the cost of construction even though there are studies that indicate that this is not the case.

The chasm between perception and reality was highlighted in a recent study conducted by the Northeast Ohio Chapter of the United States Green Building Council and Sustainable Rhythm, a consulting organization that works within the commercial, office, residential, green-space and senior-housing markets.

The 24-page study titled “Opening the Door to Green Building” was issued June 18 and is based on the responses of 200 participations (90 percent in Ohio) to an online survey given in March and April to four groups:

•Owners, facility managers and real estate executives, developers and tenant leasing agents (17 percent)

•Service firms including architects, engineers, interior designers, general contractors and trades, LEED consultants, commissioning agents, and legal/accounting and insurance professionals (59 percent)

Products companies including building materials and systems companies (17 percent)

•Government/advocacy including code officials, government agencies and nonprofit advocacy groups (7 percent)

The study focused on how the implementation of green building principles has transformed from a specialty market sector to one that is being considered across every building market. In doing so, participants were asked “if there is a significant cost difference between green building and standard building products and practices?” The results were:

•62 percent “Yes”

•26 percent “No”

•12 percent “Unsure”

However, according to the study, “those who have analyzed the market have found that in reality, there is a negligible premium or as low as a 1-2 percent premium dependent on level of green building design solutions and/or the LEED certification level pursued (see the Cost of Green Revisited, 2007, Davis Langdon and The Cost of Green, 2009, Urban Green Council).” According to the study, the perception of a high premium predominates at the highest level with participants identified as owners, facility managers, corporate real estate and real estate developers, and those involved in tenant leasing and finance.

Regardless whether based in fact, it is noteworthy that when asked about perceptions relating to the cost premium for “green” building, participants provided the following responses:

•1-2 percent more cost, 5 percent of participants

•3-5 percent more cost, 19 percent of participants

•5-10 percent more cost, 24 percent of participants

•10-25 percent more cost, 37 percent of participants

•More than 25 percent more cost, 9 percent of participants

Views on the cost of building “green” are also reflected in the responses of participants regarding factors motivating the industry to build green. According to the study, reducing overhead costs of energy and increasing energy efficiency seem to be “the strongest resonating arguments in the market.” When asked “what kind of information would you like to see more of on green building from your vendors,” the study states that 75 percent of respondents identified “return-on-investment” as the most desirable content information for enabling decision-making.

Interestingly, the issue of climate change is perceived by a fair number of participants as a negative to promoting green building, which may reflect controversy in the industry as to whether the alleged environmental and climate change impacts are currently a widely accepted basis for building green and motivating others to do so.

Harvey Berman, a LEED® Accredited Professional, is a partner at the law firm of Bodman LLP practicing in its Ann Arbor office. He is chair of the firm's Construction Practice Group and represents clients in construction, real estate, and business matters. Contact him at (734) 930-2493 or at hberman@bodmanllp.com.

 

[mtlogcabin]

Perception is Reality

Interesting study which pretty much summed up why I am hesitant about embracing it. To many organizations jumping on the band wagon. I would prefer the "energy efficient" term with documentation that the product is just that. A ROI should be based on dollars back to the investor/owner and nothing more. If they want to feel good because they reduced green house gases or a carbon footprint thats fine include it as the reason to go "LEED" not "Green".

 

[FredK]

If I may comment. The head planner here came from a kali city that took 80 or so older mobile homes out and replaced them with about the same number "green buildings" with approximately 800-1300 sq ft. Total cost was something approaching some stupid number of 700K per unit with solar installed. I asked why they didn't do module buildings with an energy efficient requirement and with solar for about 100-125K each. Stupid look on his face since this was his pet project.

Oh the bottom line: government housing and rent was lisited at 700-900 per unit. No way will that ever pencil out. But he said the tax and grants and etc..... The BS just never stops IMHO.

 

[conarb]

The first question we have to ask is whether that building codes should have anything to do with political agenda like green and energy codes, the code mandate is to protest the health and safety of occupants of buildings, not to advance left-wing political agenda. Much of the impetus for both green and energy codes comes from the now much discredited global warming hoax and the Gaian "save the earth" fanatics. Building departments have no business adopting and enforcing political/religious codes.

So far green codes have been a disaster here, we have a few cities and at least one county with green codes.

The Built It Green website tells us that GreenPoint Rating “reassures home buyers that a home is truly healthy”. Don’t believe it!We found formaldehyde concentrations in GreenPoint Rated homes to be higher, on average, than in conventional homes. The three GreenPoint Rated developments we tested had indoor formaldehyde above 77 ppb, the average for the Katrina FEMA trailers that are in the news for making families ill. A salesperson at one of the developments told us she gets headaches in the sales office.A development that is in review for GreenPoint Rating had nearly 300 ppb in one area of the home. A Built It Green representative told us that 300 ppb would not prevent those homes from receiving GreenPoint Rating.¹

We are now calling the "green codes" the "toxic green codes".Another problem is that greed codes and energy codes should be separated, LEED buildings have been shown to consume 29% more energy than non-LEED buildings, Henry Gifford performed the initial studies, and has been joined by the eminent building scientist Joe Lstiburek.

Is the USGBC peddling in greenwash? The charge, that LEED certified buildings are not, in fact, energy efficient at all, was raised by Henry Gifford, owner of Gifford Fuel Saving. He is a man who has decades of hands on experience (particularly with boilers) managing, owning, renovating and residential properties and buildings in New York City. Mr. Gifford has apparently spent his entire career focusing on what saves energy, while earning money by saving people money on fuel.

In March 2008, Mr. Gifford blew the whistle on what he perceives as a smoke and mirrors approach to sustainability by the USGBC, the creators of the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design green building rating system, better known as "LEED" stemming from a 2007 report commissioned by the organization to actually measure the energy performance of the buildings they are certifying as "green". Central to Mr. Gifford's position is the USGBC's apples to oranges approach of comparing the median energy performance of one group of buildings to the mean performance of another.

Another article by Joseph Lstiburek (which is so humorous, it could be a story transcript for the "Daily Show"), in the journal of ASHRAE (the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers), shames architects and the engineers that support them for chasing "points" for superfluous "green" motives that have nothing whatsoever to do with saving energy once in place. Indeed, Mr. Lstiburek asserts, some efforts may absorb more energy to get them there in the first place, having the opposite effect. Mr. Lstiburek praises Mr. Gifford's work while going further to shame the USGBC's "form over substance" practice of allowing building owners to claim LEED ratings before their buildings are even complete.

If one were debating the meaning of "Greenwash", I'm pretty sure labeling a building green (before it ever earns the right to do so) would qualify. Marketers, brokers, owners, developers, etc... all milk the sh*t out of anticipated LEED ratings.²

If anyone is interested here is the Gifford report.¹ http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-5101-San-Jose-Environmental-Health-Examiner~y2009m7d1-GreenPoint-Rated-homes-have-more-formaldehyde-than-FEMA-trailers

² http://www.green-buildings.com/content/78357-henry-gifford

 

[mark handler]

Once again Dick you are looking at the short term costs.

No one, that I have seen or read, that green and leed are cheaper to build as a mater of fact the following is from the Leed Council

Average additional construction cost:

• LEED “Certified”: less than 1%

• LEED “Silver”: 1‐2%

• LEED “Gold”: 3‐4%

• LEED “Platinum”: 4‐8%

It is long term costs.

Savings of Energy, savings of water, saving of filling up our landfills through recycling if construction material.

You obviously don't care about the future or your grandchildren's future.

Ya know the same BS came out in '78 when the CA energy code came out.

I didn't agree with the '78 CA energy code

So all the people that made money from replacing windows to meet the CA energy code should give it back

 

[mtlogcabin]

Which one sounds like it does not belong within a building departments regulatory authority.

2006 IBC 101.3 Intent.

The purpose of this code is to establish the minimum requirements to safeguard the public health, safety and general welfare through structural strength, means of egress facilities, stability, sanitation, adequate light and ventilation, energy conservation, and safety to life and property from fire and other hazards attributed to the built environment and to provide safety to fire fighters and emergency responders during emergency operations.

20006 IECC 101.3 Intent.

This code shall regulate the design and construction of buildings for the effective use of energy. This code is intended to provide flexibility to permit the use of innovative approaches and techniques to achieve the effective use of energy. This code is not intended to abridge safety, health or environmental requirements contained in other applicable codes or ordinances.

IGCC Public Version 1.0 March 2010 101.3 Intent.

The purpose of this code is to safeguard the enviroment, public health, safety and general welfare through the establishment of requirements to reduce the negative potential impacts and increase the positive potential impacts of the built enviroment on the natural enviroment and building occupants, by means of minimum requirements related to: conservation of natural resources, materials and energy: the employment of renewable energy technologiess, indooor and outdoor air quality: and building operations and maintenance.

The "Green and LEED" should be design guidelines that if someone wants to build too to feel good about the enviroment that is their business. The energy code is all that a building department should be concerned with. During my plan review and inspection process I don't care if federal stimulis grant money requires American made products be used and Davis Bacon wages be paid, although they may be positive requirements for creating jobs and stimulating the economy it is not the building departments responsibility to assure compliance. Same thing with "Green & Leed" designs it should not be the resposibility of a building department to assure compliance.

 

[mark handler]

I do not buy the underlying assumption that the intent of all laws and codes should to safeguard the public.

We all need to aware of, and take a hand in, stopping the destruction and waste, we in the construction industry cause. It is time to step up and do whats right.

It is a good thing that some of us dinosaurs are retiring, and/or dying off.

 

[ewenme]

mtlogcabin:

You left out "affordability," which comes right after "through" and before "structural strength". Think FredK's example of 700K per replacement puts that outside the code purpose. But, in my latest project for the boss, I've shown that our average builders in this area can build to meet ICC/ANSI 700 Green Building Standards without any more expense than they already have. When you live/work in a town full of 'granolas' you have to find ways to encourage reduction, reuse and recycling...and green building. I do that by one-on-one education of the contractors. Next, the mayor wants to 'require' every new home to be at least a bronze-level green home. Wish me luck!

 

[peach]

LEED makes the building owner bleed green..

It's not cheap... and points are awarded on such things as recycling and BUILDING MAINTENANCE...

It's a good marketing tool to get a LEED rating.. check out those building stats in 2 years..

 

[conarb]

We have a LEED Platinum home in the Oakland Hills, the owner/builder is a contractor with a physician wife, they are buried in it and currently trying to get out from under it, they are trying to sell it for $1,000 a foot when comparable homes in that area seldom reach $500 a foot. The home is a real energy hog from what I hear, I don't wonder, the windows are poor efficiency aluminum oriented for view rather than energy efficiency.

From the rumors I've heard he needs to get close to his asking price to break even, he'll never get it, his costs were apparently somewhere between double and triple what a conventional home could have been built for.

From what I've heard the ICC has rented headquarters in Washington DC, apparently they pay over double the rent for comparable office space for the bragging rights, but apparently they can recoup their higher costs by selling books and training building inspectors.

Both Green and Energy efficiency are very expensive, I read yesterday on a real estate appraisers' forum that Fannie and Freddie have deemed that solar panels do not increase value, so not to give any additional value when appraising them, I've looked and haven't been able to confirm that but will post if I can.

 

[mark handler]

I think we know someone that can fix the windows.......

 

[conarb]

I could, but with that exposure it would requires some drastic shading on the west elevation blocking the bay views. The home I have in design now in Silicon Valley I'm estimating the glass package now, but my Canadian fabricator has "gone on Holiday" for a month, because of the redwood trees my glass packages are going to be the same around the entire home, LoE-366(#2)/laminated clear/i81(#6), specified in consultation with Cardinal Glass and the Lawrence Laboratories' Daylighting Institute, I'm guessing it will come in somewhere north of $300,000, about 10% of the cost of construction so not that bad to build a home that doesn't require heat or air conditioning.

There is also the case of our San Francisco Federal Building, designed by Southern Calfiornia architect Thom Mayne, it's nicknamed Hugh G Rection by the employees.

San Francisco requires at least minimum LEED certification, the problem is that LEED certification isn't granted until after the building is completed. The Federal government built a new Federal Building in the city, it is suppose to be the "greenest" building in the country, yet it has been denied any kind of LEED certification. What does the city do now that the building is up and completed? Albeit, two years behind schedule because of the innovative systems, and we know behind schedule is time, and time is money, so we know who's pocket that money is coming out of. Here is an article on the building.

Now I read this in the paper:

Originally Posted by S. F. Chronicle And finally: First, the big new Federal Building in San Francisco was late and over budget. Then workers complained about needing sunglasses and umbrellas indoors to shield them from the glaring sun.

Now comes word about another bit of embarrassment at the $144 million "green" behemoth at Seventh and Mission streets.

Officials recently installed four giant, stainless-steel plaques near the entryway in recognition of the many planners, architects and others who helped make the eco-friendly building possible.

Only it wasn't long before office workers were making pilgrimages to the wall - and snickering at the engraved name of one "Hugh G. Rection."

That plaque is now gone. Of course, so are all the others, temporarily - seems they were installed crooked. *

* http://www.sfgate.com/columnists/matierandross/

 

[mark handler]

The problems, in the "article on the building" do not cite the problems on leed.

In the "article on the building" not one word on Leed.

So now every project that is overbudget will be blamed on Leed. What scapegoat did we use prior to Leed.

 

[conarb]

Mark:

They haven't been publicizing the reasons for the cost overruns, they seem to focus of the problems the inmates are having with all the glare, apparently the shading doesn't work, they work under umbrellas in the building. When looking at the reasons for cost overruns I don't think you can isolate it to the green requirements, they are usually caused by design deficiencies, leaving things out because of unfamiliarity with what they are used to doing allowing the contractors to invoice extras.

I do know that a developer was trying to get the City of San Francisco to waive their historic building code to tear down a building and build a new one several stories higher than their height limit. One of his main arguments was that he was going to be building a LEED Platinum building which was going to cost triple conventional construction costs, so he had to have the prime location and the added stories for the square footage necessary to make the project economically feasible. An attorney representing the groups fighting the applications retained me to provide evidence that LEED was a fraud, it never went anywhere when the economy put everything on hold.

If you had bothered to read the Gifford report that I linked you would have read Henry Gifford's words:

Part of the problem may reside in the system’s roots. The USGBC, which created the LEED system, was founded in 1993 byDavid Gottfried, a real estate developer, and Rick Fedrizzi, who was a marketing executive for an air conditioning company¹

And Mark, maniac that you are, I am fully aware that you put the words in quotes twice because the old link I footnoted was to a column that updates daily, but a little research shows that the article was cited in another publication. I do resent the implication.

¹ http://869789182725854870-a-energysavingscience-com-s-sites.googlegroups.com/a/energysavingscience.com/www/articles/henrysarticles/BuildingRatingSystems.pdf?attachauth=ANoY7cqsBFo4CU-iwuQOJ-HCNu0YN65hdx4onvCH8c_KdzrX7zzrp4drGSqb58FsazQqHr35QAPn-F0KZxrDz8hv5VFszcouf7tSSd7oOcusqBDHXWm7LVZV4Dqthchyj0PAcrj0IID_YoSLC_oGmGOVtMIAJCQ7DQ9Trl8u1MRA4s2Q6gWzDPbJ08raus-79CanqoZqVdn6IxOHUWCzOHAcbAcBlrt6rD7DG8k3VTa9O6TkquCz-ia4UwjqrgXrXa4H7eXroeoB&attredirects=0

 

[mark handler]

So between 21:14 and 21:23, Yesterday, the SF newspaper changed the context in the link?

How come when you post something, its gospel, but when other point out errors in the post or in your logic, it's heresy?

I have read the "Gifford report".

 

[Yankee]

Design, design, design. Design your way into energy effieciency.

Once you've f*** up the design, you cannot cannot cannot build your way back into efficiency, no matter what product you use.

 

[Coug Dad]

Before anyone celebrates the death or retirement of the dinosaurs it would be best to learn some history dating back to the OPEC oil embargo and real energy shortages in the 1970’s. Firms I worked at developed real energy saving approaches during the design of new or renovated buildings. However, since there were no codes or pretty crystal plaques to force compliance, they had to convince developers of real world cost savings. The good engineers did, and the proof was in the energy bills. Real, documentable paybacks and happy clients where achieved. So much of what passes as “green” today has absolutely no basis in real economics. The real “green” crisis today is money, or has no one looked at recent federal, state and local budgets. A private developer can add whatever features they want, it is their money. However, when it comes to being stewards of public funds, it should be expected that government buildings require and document some level of payback.

 

[mark handler]

Energy Strategies of LEED

•Reduce demand

•Harvest free energy

•Increase efficiency

•Recover waste energy

So some want to eliminate these?

 

[ewenme]

Mark:

You pose a good question, but it raises questions. If the cost to harvest 'free' energy exceeds the value of the free energy, is there not a 'waste of monetary energy'? Also, in order to reduce demand and increase efficiency, there will need to be changes in life-style and education of the general public as to what those changes need to be. The American general public doesn't take kindly to being asked to change what they have become accustomed to. At what cost will the required changes in life-style and the demands for continuing education be feasible? Throwing money down a rat hole is a waste of energy, time, and money. Until people really want something, it will be an uphill battle.

 

[conarb]

Mark:

Since you are inferring that I was being less than honest in my post #10, I will explain. I posted two San Francisco Chronicle columns, the first by John King on February 25, 2007 which is still available by the link, and the second Hugh G. Rection column by Matier & Ross, two San Francisco reporters who do a daily column on San Francisco politics and local fraud. The link to the Matire and Ross column changes daily and the original column is no longer available in archive, but it occurred on or before October 9, 2008 when when I first linked it on October 9, 2008.

Energy Strategies of LEED•Reduce demand

•Harvest free energy

•Increase efficiency

•Recover waste energy

•Reduce demand

In a free society that is a function of supply and demand, when the price goes up the demand goes down, in a socialist totalitarian society it is a function of law. laws written by those who think they know what's best for others, many coming out of our educational brainwashing institutions, in Eisenhower's words from his Farewell Address: "....we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite."

•Harvest free energy

Sure, but do it in an economically viable manner, all solar panel production available today in not economically today unless subsidized by the productive taxpayers in society. Silicon Valley today already is working with transistorized light capture, buying today's solar technology would be like buying an IBM mainframe computer in 1981 when a desktop computer could do the same job in 1982. Bill Joy, who some call 'The Thomas Edison of the Internet" said:

Semiconductors (the foundation of Silicon Valley) can be used to convert light to solar electricity and for other applications to the green revolution. The Web was envisioned a long time before it was invented, and the same will be true now in green technology.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/02/13/BUBA15SUQT.DTL#ixzz0tClyjvna



​

•Increase efficiency Sure, but do it wisely, don't build buildings with cheap plastics, styrofoam, and toxic wood products, don't seal up buildings so they rot out in a few years and have to be replaced while they poison the occupants, build buildings to last a thousand years. In 1982 an Italian contractor came over to try to get me to invest in importing his concrete building technology, I took him on a tour of the buildings I was building, he commented through our interpreter: "You build out of matchsticks, how long are these houses going to last, 40 to 50 years? My house is 400 years old, and it's been in my family for all of those years, it should last another 400 years and remain in my family. Later I took a trip to Modena Italy when he invited me to have dinner at his house with Luciano Pavarotti, the home is beautiful setting on over an acre of landscaped grounds.

•Recover waste energy

And just how is that economically done? Every attempt at ERV and HRV systems cost more to operate than they save, the danger of Legionnaires' Disease is great, in our AHJs with green ordinances there are mosquitoes breeding in the cisterns, are people really going to separate items from their gray water wash, like baby diapers?

Many of those who promote environmentalism are profiteering off of a gullible public, they are just as guilty of green profiteering as the war profiteers during World War II, haven't you ever seen or read Arthur Miller's play All My Sons, Greenwashing, Green profiteering, should be a criminal act.

 

[conarb]

I read this in the financial news today:

Whether it is their residence, a second home or a house bought as an investment, the rich have stopped paying the mortgage at a rate that greatly exceeds the rest of the population.

More than one in seven homeowners with loans in excess of a million dollars are seriously delinquent, according to data compiled for The New York Times by the real estate analytics firm CoreLogic.

By contrast, homeowners with less lavish housing are much more likely to keep writing checks to their lender. About one in 12 mortgages below the million-dollar mark is delinquent.

Though it is hard to prove, the CoreLogic data suggest that many of the well-to-do are purposely dumping their financially draining properties, just as they would any sour investment.

“The rich are different: they are more ruthless,” said Sam Khater, CoreLogic’s senior economist.¹

What this article doesn't say is that Los Altos is at the center of the Green Building Code toxic home syndrome problem, I know of several homes that people have walked away from becasue of illness and fear of formaldehyde.

Of homes with more than 100 ppb formaldehyde, nine out of eleven were in Los Altos. Of homes with more than 120 ppb formaldehyde, three out of four were in Los Altos. Over half of the homes tested in Los Altos had more formaldehyde than the 77 ppb average in the Katrina FEMA trailers.

Initially, we could not understand why homes in Los Altos were different from homes in nearby communities. Construction practices and construction materials should be similar throughout the county.

The difference was a green building ordinance passed by the City of Los Altos in late 2007. Beginning in January 2008, all new homes in Los Altos were required meet the criteria for GreenPoint Rated.

To be GreenPoint rated, a home has to meet energy conservation requirements. Those requirements mean that new Los Altos homes are more tightly sealed than homes in other cities.

At the same time, GreenPoint Rated encourages use of engineered wood products in place of traditional lumber. Engineered wood uses less virgin timber, so it is good for the environment. Unfortunately, some engineered wood products emit considerable formaldehyde.

The combination of these two requirements produces homes that emit formaldehyde, but lack adequate ventilation to dilute the toxin. The result is elevated formaldehyde inside the home, as we have found in Los Altos.

Build It Green, the private group that provides the GreenPoint Rated system, encourages builders to use materials that are low in formaldehyde. However, GreenPoint Rated does not have specific requirements addressing formaldehyde concentration. Homes with very high formaldehyde can be GreenPoint Rated.¹

I am trying to get approval to build in the next city over from Los Altos, the unincorporated area of Santa Clara County that also has green ordinance, I am trying ever trick I know to avoid the green ordinance, even at that I have retained Linda Kinkaid to test every suspect material before it goes into the new home. My owner's first request was that no chemicals, plastics, or engineered lumber is used in his home, I am leaving a portion of the old home to qualify as a remodel, then erecting a steel frame around everything so shear walls are not necessary, even plywood offgasses formaldehyde, and seals the building up so it can't breathe. I figure why not? Our structural engineers require so much steel anyway now we might just as well take all shear loading in the steel. Palo Alto has a green ordinance, the green rater had several pages of "G" sheets in the plans, with all the steel required they still made them put OSB in and on the home, the owner didn't want it, the inspectors hated it so much that they went around trying to push business cards between it and the studs making the contractor hand nail it becasue it's so "stiff" that it doesn't pull up tight to the studs when gun nailed, if they turn up the pressure too much it will break the surface of the OSB and then they will still have to renail it. It's one thing to put poor people in toxic boxes but forcing people who can afford to live in multimillion dollar homes to live with toxic junk is absurd¹ http://www.examiner.com/x-5101-San-Jose-Environmental-Health-Examiner~y2009m9d8-Elevated-formaldehyde-in-new-Los-Altos-homes

 

[mark handler]

Green and LEED does not require the use of OSB

Is someone trying to Hijack the thread?

You can build with concrete, steel and other low formaldehyde products.

How can I avoid being exposed to formaldehyde?

· Choose building materials that are low in formaldehyde for home remodeling and construction projects. Choose furniture or cabinetry made of solid wood or softwood plywood can help reduce exposure.

· Use building products such as solid lumber or metal instead of particleboard.

· Increase ventilation when new sources of formaldehyde are brought into your home.

· Maintain moderate temperature and humidity levels when you have new building materials in your home.

· Consider washing permanent-press clothes and fabrics before you use them if you are sensitive to formaldehyde.

· Prohibit the use of tobacco products (e.g. cigarettes and cigars) indoors.

 

[mark handler]

There was formaldehyde in products long before Green and LEED.

So now we are blaming Green and LEED, for all the evils in the constructed environment.

Cost overages, poor design, formaldehyde , hey lets blame Unemployment on Green and LEED too.

 

[conarb]

Mark:

Energy efficiency is mandating sealing up buildings, sealing them with toxic sealants and insulating them with toxic insulation and toxic foams, green raters are mandating "cleaning up the forest floor" by installing engineered wood laden with toxic products, mainly formaldehyde. Lstiburek's mantra is "Build it tight but ventilate it right", the problem is that by the time you turn up the ACH to 1.0 or even 3.0 you are expending more energy running fans and constantly conditioning exterior air than a normally built building consumes. We had the sick building office building syndrome back in the 80s, now we are making the same mistake all over again, this time in homes, how soon people forget.

That's okay, Green Building law is the next big thing for the legal industry, they'll make a fortune like they did with asbestos law. In the last couple of months I've been contacted by two large law firms asking about setting up green building law departments. Suing architects and builders who build buildings that make people sick is a good thing, the bad thing is that many are just trying to comply with codes.