In Salon’s article “How to build a green building without really trying (or caring about the planet),” I was expecting to read a piece on how intuitive it is to use building materials and structural design in a wise and consequently green manner. Boy, I was wrong — about the article.
Writer Daniel Brooks’ focus on LEED certification as the green building movement leader results in a criticism of the state of green building. His premise is that scrutiny of the standard’s application turns out buildings that fit LEED’s happenstance checklist better than true environmental benchmarks.
For example, for the same number of points, designers could add an inexpensive bicycle rack (and not actually change any behavior) or install an efficient heating system – much more expensive, but much more influential on environmental impact.
True, LEED is changing itself a few ways in 2008. It’s teaming up to evaluate communities, not just buildings, and it’s reassessing its checklists. But if our country is to seriously go down the path of green building, LEED isn’t going to suffice.
And because buildings alone account for 39 percent of our emissions, we must be looking into green building and retrofitting. Not to mention, energy efficiency is often called our ‘first fuel’ and is the quickest way to ensure emissions reductions while we develop more comprehensive and long-term solutions.
That said, competition for LEED is welcome, particularly if the marketplace is the most efficient and cost effective place to raise standards. Or perhaps something more like what the California Public Utilities Commission recently initiated. I’ve also heard rumblings over how useful a strict, nation- and industry-wide standard would be (one standard would make building across statelines easier). This is certainly a niche calling out for more policy development, innovation, and entrepreneurship.
– Kari M.
RSS
Subscribe by Email
Follow Climate Progress on Twitter
So here’s a solution from noted non-scientist Pat Sajak,
So, those who believe disaster is around the corner face a dilemma: while they’re educating their fellow citizens and demanding governments regulate believers and non-believers alike, the problem continues, and the date of the world’s doom draws ever closer. But there is a solution. It’s relatively simple, can begin immediately, and will change the dynamics of global warming overnight. Instead of continuing to preach to the rest of us, the true believers need to step forward and set an example. I’m not talking about recycling Evian bottles; I’m talking about giving up cars and moving into smaller houses or apartments, or even forming communes where people can live simpler, more Earth-friendly lives. Yes, I’m talking about living the kinds of lives they want all of us to live.
Such a movement could literally start tomorrow. It would need a leader, of course; someone who could inspire others to choose a more spartan lifestyle. The obvious choice would be Al Gore, who already has a loyal following. If he would eschew large homes, gas-guzzling cars, private jets and the consumption of meat, millions more would likely do the same. If enough people joined the cause, Mr. Gore and his followers would be able to demonstrate the results of this new way of living in very short order. They could lead by example. They could create a movement. They could have uniforms and badges and secret handshakes. The could have their own reality TV show. In short, they could become a major force for change. Carmakers would be driven out of business or forced to dramatically alter their products to meet the demands of this eco-friendly Gorian tsunami. Companies of all stripes would, similarly, have to adapt or perish.
There are alternative checklists coming out this year, but the fact is that builders know how to build these buildings. It’s not hard. And there’s demand. Quibbling over bike racks doesn’t hide the fact that R-19 walls are common in new construction these days. Yay!
Best,
D
Beefeater,
What you wrote has truth to it, except at the level you think that it will happen.
Just like how can George Bush send troops into battle if he himself was given special treatment to get out of actual fighting and has daughters, neither of which joined the armed services or even the medical corps. There was only one senator who had one of his adult kids in the military at the start of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars and nobody did from the House of Representatives. World War II was different with many leaders with children who were in the military and combat.
Live what you believe. That’s so important.
You’re asked so many questions, I’ll handle only some of them.
Personally I have made many of those changes of using less fuel. I remodeled a big old house with more insulation, we heat only a few rooms except when we had people over. My electricity bill is 32 dollars a month. Windows make the best lights. I’ve planted around my house what’s called permaculture, tall evergreens in the back for windbreaks, open in front to soak up the sun.
You made the comment that disaster is around the corner. It’s not. It’s like the frog in a pot of water on a stove and the temperature is rising slowly, the frog will die before he knows to jump out of the warming pot. We won’t get a Pearl Harbor moment for World War II or 9/11 for the war against terrorism. It will just be a lot of little disasters, a little more warmer summers and warmer winters until the warmer summers and warmer winter have changed our climates to something completely different. Some parts of our country should just get used to gravel for their yards except grass.
Not doing something to change public opinion on global warming and fighting the battle alone would be like trying to attack Nazi Germany with just a few thousand volunteers. Without the weight and force of a whole country behind you and enough tools to do the job like all the planes, ships, tanks, bullets and money to do the job, it would be futile.
But that is not to say that many people are already doing the things that you suggest that the true believers do. What many people don’t do is read up on all the things that some people have done already and are doing. You can go tell your Pat Sajak buddy that’s just what a lot of people are doing.
What of Al Gore. One thing that he has to do is be effective with his message. If all he did was save fossil fuel energy from of his personal use and not traveled to get the message out, it wouldn’t save a thing. The big picture has to be looked at.
But what of Al Gore’s personal use. Here’s a link to this website of an article about that.
http://climateprogress.org/ 2007/ 12/ 16/ gore-greens-his-tennessee-home/
A lot of your other comments were meant to be silly and it’s good to have some fun. That just begging the question though, is this a real problem and are future generations going to be worse off in a warmer, hotter, drier and wetter climate and world? From what I have read and from the science, that’s what future generations will have. One example is in 2003, Europe had a hot summer that killed 30 000 people because of the heat. It was an unusually warm summer. By 2100 if we are going as we are now with our greenhouse gas emissions that will be an unusually cool summer for Europe. That is every summer will most likely be much warmer than that one.
We will be changing our climate for the long term and for the warmer. Once we have done it, it will be to late to say, oh, maybe that wasn’t to smart. Some things we just shouldn’t mess around with.