|
View previous topic :: View next topic
|
| Author |
Message |
halrhp
Joined: 07 Apr 2006
Posts: 5
|
 Posted: Fri Apr 07, 2006 5:10 pm Post subject: "Deep and Merely Tinted Greens" epitomizes greenwa |
    |
|
In his article, "Deep and Merely Tinted Greens," Michael Cockram wrote:
"The hallmark guidelines in commercial building come from the U.S. Green Building Council in the LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) program. Since it began, LEED certification has become extremely influential in bringing sustainable practices into the mainstream. It is increasingly adopted as a minimum standard by municipalities and is now required by the federal government for new structures."
Cockram's message is the epitomy of greenwash, only hinting quite indirectly and very late in the article that a science-based perspective on buildings and the environment might differ from the prevailing wisdom and dominant behavior -- even allowing that USGBC has become "dominant," which it certainly is not. In spite of its rapid growth, the extent to which modern building practice reflects LEED ratings is minimal at best. Most building is going on as business as usual in spite of the very serious environmental defecit we are accumulating for future generations to repay -- with interest.
It is inconceivable to me that under any meaningful definition of "sustainable" that the LEED ratings are "bringing "sustainable practices into the mainstream." The LEED ratings intentionally set the bar far below what is attainable today in terms of best possible environmental design and do not push very far from current practice toward limits on resource consumption and pollution emissions that could be seriously considered sustainable. The bar is set low intentionally to increase the "market" for LEED ratings. Most folks who have been serously involved in the development of LEED ratings will acknowledge this. Why does Mr. Cockram provide such as contrary view?
Just for example, a sustainable building would have carbon dioxide emissions around 7% of current average levels and would eventually have to have not only net zero emissions but would have to involve sequestration of some fossil carbon. That is the only way we could conceivably reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide levels to where we could confidently expect minimal or no climate change as a result of anthropogenic activities. Current levels are around 370 ppm, pre-industrial levels were around 280 ppm. Assuming that 350 ppm would not induce warming, a strategy to get down to that level actually must involve radical changes in the way our buildings are built, much of our electricity is generated, and the way our cars and trucks are powered. I don't see LEED doing anything really significant in terms of motivating mainstream actors or even the most environmentally responsible and committed actors toward this level of improvement. Not that it should or ever declared that it would. But in an article on shades of green, such an assertion as that quoted above is quite misleading.
To get a quick sense of the magnitude of the problem, check out Ed Mazria's fine web site, architecture2030.org. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Kevin
Site Admin
Joined: 13 Apr 2004
Posts: 1075
Location: Eugene, Oregon
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 16, 2006 11:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I appreciate your passion on behalf of a very important position, and I tend to agree that the article would be more strictly precise to say, "bringing more sustainable practices into the mainstream", but you appear to be picking on a minor point of style to mis-identify the enemy, and it appears as a result your attack aims in the wrong direction. I think your posting ultimately goes a little too far, resulting not in overall greater precision, but instead in a misdirection of the accusation of "greenwashing".
http://www.architectureweek.com/2006/0405/environment_1-1.html
You express disappointment in the strength of the LEED requirements. Of course they need to be continuously improved, and I'd love to see practical, constructive discussion of specific points for improvement!
Yet in the real world, those standards are not only superior to average practice, but are also effectively under attack by even weaker standards, which appear to be sponsored by consumption-oriented business lobbying organizations as an aggressive PR strategy. How does that fit into your perspective?
So then, which is more accurately the "epitome of greenwashing": an article the main point of which is to expose the alternative standards subterfuge - or, praise for the LEED standards, despite their imperfections - or, the promotion and use of weak and misleading alternative standards to, in practice, undercut whatever LEED is actually achieving? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
csintexas
millennium club
Joined: 06 Feb 2006
Posts: 1667
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 17, 2006 9:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
I have to agree with Kevin. We have to look at all of these types of programs as steps in the right direction. Even the NAHB green program is better than nothing. At least environmental factors are on the table and being discussed.
Until energy prices and the cost of not building green becomes prohibitive Americans will continue to waste and consume excessive amounts of energy. The only way around that is to legislate efficiency which is what we are doing more of these days.
I think it was an interesting point in the article about points given or subtracted from a house based on size. Can anyone imagine that we may some day say that a two person household can only be X amount of sq. ft.? Maybe every person will have consumption credits and if you go over the limit you have to pay high luxury tax.
To be honest my wife and I live in a 3200 sq. ft. house. We could have built 1/2 that size and I certainly could have designed it to use less energy but we like the extra room and the payments and energy costs are well within our budget.
Waste is built into our system and it will take many years to stop it. LEED could have standards that are truly sustainable but unless municipalities require all buildings to meet those standard it will not be used.
I think what we need most is accurate energy consumption modeling and clear guidelines and information on green design. With current computer technology energy modeling could be incorporated into all CAD software. Currently it is too costly to evaluate each home or small building individually. My area requires a ComCheck or ResCheck report on every building but I don't consider those programs to be sufficient to really create efficient buildings.
_________________
Chris Stewart
Modern Texas Home Project |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mx2
millennium club
Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 1906
Location: Miami, Florida
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 18, 2006 10:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
Well said Kevin. There no better way to achieve new heights then to build upon what works, rather then continuously tear everything down and start all over with unproven methods...
LEED is by far the leading criteria for sustainable design in practical ways. I believe in a Darwanistic approach in this matter, since buildings still seek LEED certification. There still is some common sense left in the world that sees the whole picture. If not, the sudden wasteland we may wake up in may jolt some ideas...and I like the idea for discussion about improving that which does not work. First it requires some homework...speaking of work...
mx2
_________________
*Art of Architecture: The conscious use of skill and creative imagination in the production of an aesthetic building.
*Science of Architecture: The calculated use of technical skill and knowledge in the construction of a functional building. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
halrhp
Joined: 07 Apr 2006
Posts: 5
|
| Posted: Fri May 12, 2006 10:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
In response to Kevin's comments and those who supported his post,
While your point about the focus of the article is well-taken, it did not address the focus of my comment. I focused my comment on the uncritical and excessively hyperbolic language characterizing the LEED rating system and its accomplishment(s). My reference is to a science-based perspective on sustainability, and I indicated that explicitly by my comment in the third paragraph of my post:
"It is inconceivable to me that under any meaningful definition of 'sustainable' that the LEED ratings are 'bringing "sustainable practices into the mainstream.' "
I strongly object to the rampant misuses of the term "sustainable" in the language of the environmentally-concerned building community. It only feeds and bolsters the meaningless claims of those addressed in Cockram's article, like NAHB, who simply use the term as a marketing buzz word. I pointed to Mazria's web site at the end of my comment because I think Ed has correctly identifed the magnitude of the problem and the gap between present practice, even very best practice, and something that might, by any stretch of the imagination, be called "sustainable."
I would be delighted to provide you with numerous references to serious efforts to define sustainability based on science. The design community needs to shift its focus from improvement over present practice as a metric, as is the case of LEED, to an approach that measures performance against science-based targets for resource consumption and pollution emissions. Only then can we begin to use the term "sustainable" in a meaningful and useful way.
I would also suggest that there are many tools available to assess building environmental performance that are far more robust and far better grounded in science than the LEED rating system. Notwithstanding the considerable market penetration of the various LEED rating systems, merit is not measured by market share or penetration. In fact, if that were the case, then cigarette smoking or alcohol consumption or drug use other unhealthful and unsustainable practices would be considered even more praiseworthy than LEED.
If you look at the EcoQuantum tool for residential design in the Netherlands, you will find a science-based tool for environmental performance that is based on a long history of life cycle assessment practice in that country. Or look at the LEGOE software in Germany which runs in the background while working in CADD mode and provides life cycle assessment results for designs without additional effort by the designer. There is a new system in Japan called CASBEE and there is the GBTool which evolved out of BEPAC from British Columbia based on the British Research Establishment's BREAM tool. All of these are more grounded in science and should be studied carefully and considered for incorporation into future versions the LEED rating schemes.
My plea is for more responsible use of the language -- specifically, "sustainable" and "sustainable buildings." I believe that the common use in the building community simply distracts us from the magnitude of the problems we face.
I have a PowerPoint presentation that I made April 19th on the ASHRAE Satellite broadcast and webcast that I would be glad to share with anyone who may be interested. It defines a method for identifying "sustainable" target budgets for building design. Please let me know if you would like a copy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SDR
millennium club
Joined: 02 Oct 2004
Posts: 1640
Location: San Francisco
|
| Posted: Fri May 12, 2006 12:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Can we both support the system that is in place AND question its effectiveness ? I think, generally speaking, that "both/and" is preferable to "either/or" in assessing any given situation.
If, as the poster argues, the LEED system is in need of strengthening, and is also being attacked "from below," it is likely (given the reluctance of many to accept any controls or limits at all, and the acceptance to date of the LEED standards) that those standards should be reviewed and strengthened, rather than a new and different system be introduced to replace it.
Can this be agreed to, as a start ?
SDR |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SDR
millennium club
Joined: 02 Oct 2004
Posts: 1640
Location: San Francisco
|
| Posted: Sat May 13, 2006 7:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well, I didn't mean to deflate the thread with my attempt at diplomacy. . .
SDR |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
csintexas
millennium club
Joined: 06 Feb 2006
Posts: 1667
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Sun May 14, 2006 7:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
I would like to see your presentation, please post it somewhere and give us a link.
I don't think a building should be called sustainable unless it is but I have no problem with the term being used to work towards that goal.
_________________
Chris Stewart
Modern Texas Home Project |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
blogger
del.icio.us
digg
slashdot
