• Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades

Green Privilege

conarb

Registered User
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
3,505
Location
California East Bay Area
In honor of Earth Day yesterday there was an article about the green movement, the first comment looked at "green privilege", I know you give special privileges to the disabled and colleges give special privileges to the disabled, black, Hispanic, Gay, women, and other members of the suspect classes, but do you really put the greenies at the head of the line?

\ said:
Green Privilegeby DAN VANDERMOLEN

I would add to your list of things to avoid are creating perks for those who go green. Things like special parking spots and traffic lanes for electric or other hybrid cars. These cars might not only be for the rich but certainly are less affordable then what a large segment of the population can afford.

In the county I live in they now offer a reduction in the building permits and faster permit times if you claim your building to gold or platinum LEED standards. Now if you you can afford LEED you are given privilege over others who might just be doing a small remodeling job on their home. Who is really greener the one that tears down and builds a large luxury green home or the one that makes small improvements on their modest home?

Could you imagine being in line at the deli in your grocery store waiting your turn while someone else cuts in front of you because they are buying grass feed beef or organic products and the store decided to give those customer privilege over your budget choices? At least in this case you could take your business elsewhere unlike a permitting department.

Public services like roads and permitting departments should be fair level playing fields providing equal services independent on how wealthy you are. They should not be handing out green privileges based on some subjective standard.

- See more at: http://www.greenbuildingadvisor.com/blogs/dept/guest-blogs/white-wealthy-and-whiny-environmental-movement-need-makeover#sthash.gqfRBAWj.dpuf
 
George Will wrote an interesting column a week ago:

\ said:
Syracuse University alumni are new additions to the lengthening list of people who can stop contributing to their alma maters. The university has succumbed — after, one suspects, not much agonizing — to the temptation to indulge in progressive gestures. It will divest all fossil fuel stocks from its endowment. It thereby trumps Stanford, whose halfhearted exercise in right-mindedness has been to divest only coal stocks. Evidently carbon from coal is more morally disquieting than carbon from petroleum.

The effect of these decisions on the consumption of fossil fuels will be nil; the effect on the growth of institutions’ endowments will be negative. The effect on alumni giving should be substantial because divesting institutions are proclaiming that the goal of expanding educational resources is less important than the striking of righteous poses — if there can be anything righteous about flamboyant futility.

The divestment movement is a manifestation of a larger phenomenon, academia’s embrace of “sustainability,” a development explored in “Sustainability: Higher Education’s New Fundamentalism” from the National Association of Scholars (NAS). The word “fundamentalism” is appropriate, for five reasons:

Like many religions’ premises, the sustainability movement’s premises are more assumed than demonstrated. Second, weighing the costs of obedience to sustainability’s commandments is considered unworthy. Third, the sustainability crusade supplies acolytes with a worldview that infuses their lives with purpose and meaning. Fourth, the sustainability movement uses apocalyptic rhetoric to express its eschatology. Fifth, the church of sustainability seeks converts, encourages conformity to orthodoxy and regards rival interpretations of reality as heretical impediments to salvation.

College tuitions are soaring in tandem with thickening layers of administrative bloat. So here is a proposal: Hundreds of millions could be saved, with no cost to any institution’s core educational mission, by eliminating every position whose title contains the word “sustainability” — and, while we are at it, “diversity,” “multicultural” or “inclusivity.” The result would be higher education higher than the propaganda-saturated version we have, and more sustainable.¹
I stopped donating to Stanford 8 years ago because of the "diversity" agenda, when they call begging for money I now tell them that I no longer donate because of not only the "diversity" agenda but the "divestiture" agenda, couldn't similar arguments be made against building departments that are now being made against universities? I went to a large auto parts store recently, the entire front of the building parking lot is devoted to handicap parking spaces, talk about moving to the head of the line!

¹ http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/sustainability-gone-mad/2015/04/15/f4331bd2-e2da-11e4-905f-cc896d379a32_story.html
 
Top