|
View previous topic :: View next topic
|
| Author |
Message |
cousinbirgco
Joined: 15 Aug 2008
Posts: 59
|
 Posted: Wed Aug 20, 2008 3:04 am Post subject: "Greenwashing" |
    |
|
Good article from Coastal Contractor outlining some of the problems facing the "green" movement.
What do you think??
Breakline: In Green We Trust
As the green building movement grows, so does the potential for "greenwashing"
Two decades from now, new homes may be so uniformly efficient and environmentally friendly and that the term "green" will no longer mean much.
But today, homes with that label are one of the few hot trends in an otherwise moribund industry. While that has given some builders a much-needed niche, it is spurring others to apply the term with little to back it up — a problem known as "greenwashing" that's been spreading throughout the building products industry.
At least, that's a common complaint among advocates, who say they fear the ever-more-widespread use of "green" confuses and misleads the public.
"Some of these builders are putting that on as tagline, when all they might be doing is putting in compact fluorescent light bulbs and Green Label carpet," says Drew Smith, a founding member of the Florida Green Building Coalition and president of Two Trails Inc., a green building consulting firm near Bradenton. "It's becoming extremely annoying, and it's really annoying to the builders who are
doing it right."
A green home doesn't look any different than a conventional home, so buyers are at the mercy of their knowledge and a builder's marketing efforts. And builder's themselves who are interested in green building products rely on the honest marketing of manufacturers. The potential for greenwashing is high, and the only valid assurance seems to be in independent, third-party inspection that can verify that what's been done will actually provide a green benefit.
Definitions Wanted
At the heart of the issue is fact that there is no accepted definition for "green" in the building industry or beyond. The term arguably accurately describes energy efficiency, water-conserving building components, products made from local or recycled materials, so-called "healthy" materials such low-VOC paints, and many other products or services. More confusing still, seemingly "green" products or techniques may come up short if used improperly. Concrete, for example, can be green or not, depending on how it is made, how far it is trucked to the job site, and its application in a home.
"Even the most environmentally friendly product, if it is applied incorrectly, is not green," says Dennis Creech, executive director of the Atlanta-based Southface Energy Institute, an education and advocacy group.
That said, Creech and other advocates insist there is an evolving consensus within the industry on the meaning of "green building" and "green home." The bottom line: the term implies a system rather than single product or design choice — and a suite of environmental and human health benefits rather than a single one. "People want an easy solution to a complex problem, and there's not going to be an easy solution. That's why greenwashing is so appealing," Creech explains. "What green design is really about is looking at a site, looking at the parameters you have on that site, and customizing environmental solutions."
Help Within Sight
Smith says he tells builders they can go a long way toward truly green homes by focusing on energy and water efficiency, but other consultants may rank offsetting carbon emissions as a higher priority. Fortunately for the practical-minded, there is definitive hel. While there are no nationally adopted standards, dozens of advocacy organizations have developed green home certification programs that contain checklist requirements, including national ones such as Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) for Homes and state-based programs such as Vermont Builds Greener.
As for which programs are most reliably green, Smith and Creech agree that there are many certification programs out there, but the most important part of any program is an independent third-party verification — an outside inspection verifying compliance with green requirements. Creech said the problem isn't that the builders who opt into certification programs try to cheat; rather, with so many subcontractors and so many materials, mistakes are easy to make.
Creech notes that the green systems approach requires a seismic shift in the building culture, with subcontractors focusing on not only their own job but also on how they fit into the overall scenario. "It's everyone understanding how their role fits into the bigger picture." — Aaron Hoover |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
djswan
Joined: 17 Aug 2007
Posts: 837
Location: Montana, USA
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 20, 2008 12:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
_________________
n/a |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Antisthenes
Joined: 28 Nov 2006
Posts: 640
Location: Phoenix
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 20, 2008 4:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
can we get a 1 meter sea rise picture of the same?
_________________
The most necessary/useful piece of learning is that which unlearns what is untrue: 'evil'
may be acquired, Happiness through virtue which is based on knowledge!/? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cousinbirgco
Joined: 15 Aug 2008
Posts: 59
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 21, 2008 2:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Did someone say boat?? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
magneto_ms
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 15
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 22, 2008 10:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
that is a great picture djswan
_________________
Home Design Ideas - Forget interior design magazines. This is all the inspiration you need! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gags Bezley
Joined: 07 Oct 2008
Posts: 6
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 07, 2008 7:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
You only have to read LEED 2.2 to see greenwashing. A SRI of 29% for steep pitched roofs, Urban Heat Island Effect, Roofs, doesn't reduce heat influx or reduce electrical demand for A/C systems. It was put in there by devious asphalt roofing manufacturers.
Shame on USGBC.
In LEED-EB, there is a standard for emissivity of 90. This standard isn't greenwashing it's just stupid. An emissivity of 70-80 is sufficent with a high SR to prevent heat absorbtion. Many coatings are excluded because of this foolish 90 emittance standard. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
blogger
del.icio.us
digg
slashdot
