Green

I am plagued with having too many interests (hence the lack of focus on this blog).   Two of my older interests have been architecture and conservation.   If I had come of age either a little bit earlier or later, and if architecture paid a bit better, I could be designing many of the green properties that I just settle for reading about.

Over the weekend, the New York Times asked the question, “How ‘Green’ Can a Huge House Be?“, framed with the context of a 7,000 square foot home recently built as a model for a new “green” subdivision in North Stamford, CT.   It’s seeking LEED certification to confirm its “greenness”.

This leads to the interesting question of whether large homes can, by their nature, be considered “green”.

On the one hand, it’s definitely possible to design and build a mansion that is far more energy-efficient, and significantly less environmentally destructive than your average McMansion.

On the other hand, there is a large, and seemingly increasingly vocal movement which argues that large homes are symptomatic of an environmentally destructive consumption-driven culture.  The thinking goes that “we” want big homes to store and show off all our “stuff”.  The material required to build and maintain those big homes, and to acquire and assemble that stuff is destructive…and gee wouldn’t the world be a better place if we were less attached to our stuff, and therefore were comfortable in much smaller, more sustainable Ikea-furnished homes.    Under this school of thought, “big” and “green” are mutually exclusive.

The New York Times story mentions the compromise that LEED tries to strike:

The standards released in December settled on a “home size adjustment” formula that makes it progressively harder for homes larger than the designated average (2,850 square feet for a five-bedroom house) to meet LEED thresholds in categories like energy efficiency, indoor air quality and minimization of construction waste. Smaller houses, on the other hand, are rewarded with lower thresholds.

So, for example, a 2,500-square-foot three-bedroom house would have to earn about 30 points to qualify for the basic level of LEED certification (higher thresholds are called silver, gold and platinum), while the Windermere model home has to earn closer to 60 points to compensate for its size, said Matthew Nielsen, the project’s development manager.

Personally, I agree with the sentiment that “big” probably isn’t “green”….in principle.   However, I think that green supporters ought to take a more pragmatic approach.

Right now, one of the bigger challenges facing the “greening” of America is, I think, the fact that “green” also means “expensive”.   Until conservation becomes second-nature enough to Americans to move beyond “green” being mostly limited to trendy, boutique marketplaces, that’s the way it will remain.

One of the ways to promote that trend is to increase demand to the point where supply ramps up, and marginal costs decline.   And, one of the ways to do that is to let the trendsetters set the trend with their larger disposable incomes, and watch the benefits trickle down eventually to the hoi-polloi.

Given current attitudes, those trendsetters are likely going to buy a big house when house-shopping.  If their mega-house is trendily “green” (ignoring its size), great!   However, I’d be surprised if too many folks in that market would opt for a smaller footprint in the name of greenness.

If demand for green features at the high end of the real estate market means that green features eventually start becoming standard in more of the real estate market…that’d be a net gain for all of us.

In that context, I think it’s best to somewhat overlook the fact that “big” isn’t very green.

Getting folks to think about how to make their current lifestyles a bit greener, is probably a better recipe for success than seeking to convert Americans en masse to asceticism in the name of the environment.

In case you were wondering, Popular Science has published its attempt to identify the 50 greenest cities in America, based on criteria of renewable energy usage, public transportation, “green living” and the comprehensiveness of municipal recycling.

The top 10 from the list, for your consideration:

• Portland, Oregon
• San Francisco
• Boston
• Oakland, California
• Eugene, Oregon
• Cambridge, Massachusetts
• Berkeley, California
• Seattle
• Chicago
• Austin, Texas

Inhabitat is featuring a rather interesting idea for renewable power and water generation:

Their goal is to build a network of “energy islands”: floating hexagonal-shaped platforms of reinforced concrete and corrosion-resistant metals that would generate electricity via wind, wave, and solar in addition to having an OTEC plant. It’s estimated that each island complex could produce about 250MW, and that 50,000 “energy islands” could meet the world’s energy requirements (as well as provide two tons of fresh water per person per day for the entire world population — desalinated water is one byproduct of the OTEC process). OTEC plants work best when there’s a temperature difference of 20°C between water at the surface and the water below, making tropical and sub-tropical seas the best candidates for energy islands.

Graphics at Inhabitat show what the power islands would look like, as well as where such plants could operate.

However, there is something that isn’t particularly clear to me—how would such structures stand up to tropical storms?

Seen at the Guardian, and submitted without further comment:

Asked if [Ryanair CEO Michael O'Leary] was concerned about the chill that appears to be spreading across the sector, he said: “Not a lot. In many ways we would welcome a chill or something even colder.

“We would welcome a good, deep, bloody recession for 12 to 18 months.

“One, it would lead to lower fares and, two, it would expose the regulatory scam that is going on over here,” a reference to the group’s long-running argument with the Civil Aviation Authority over airport charges.

O’Leary also claimed that a recession would put an end to the “environmental bullshit among the chattering classes that has allowed Gordon Brown to double air passenger duty. We need a recession if we are going to see off some of this environmental nonsense.”

Sometimes, you have to wonder whether activists for a cause do more harm than good for their cause by misdirecting their crusade efforts. For example, consider this Jerusalem Post article:

In a campaign that has spread like wildfire across the Internet, a group of Israeli environmentalists is encouraging Jews around the world to light at least one less candle this Hanukka to help the environment.

The founders of the Green Hanukkia campaign found that every candle that burns completely produces 15 grams of carbon dioxide. If an estimated one million Israeli households light for eight days, they said, it would do significant damage to the atmosphere.

Naturally, a few observant Jews are not entirely pleased with the concept.

I can’t help but wonder if the Green Hanukkia folks are only succeeding in turning off a few folks who might be on the verge of being swayed to a more conservation-minded mindset.

The “do X so we don’t have to have another miracle” meme is an interesting one. Perhaps encouraging bike-gifting and bike-riding in lieu of driving would have been a more constructive message for Hanukkah?

Seen in the AJC:

It is one of Emory University’s most environmentally friendly buildings, a hallmark of the institution’s efforts to “go green.” To hear John Wegner describe it, it’s also a slaughterhouse.

The soaring glass windows in Emory’s Mathematics and Science Center reflect the woodsy view, confusing hapless birds who smash into it at full speed.[...]

Buildings that earn LEED certifications, the brass ring of environmentally sustainable construction, are often largely glass. Klem said few architects take their feathered friends into account. They are an unintended consequence of light-filled structures.

Apparently, the new math building at Emory killed several dozen songbirds due to the reflective glass, before the university started putting up mesh netting during migration season.

The law of unintended consequences strikes again, it seems.

Last week, I mentioned that Fireman’s Fund will permit folks who lost homes in the recent Southern California wildfires to reconstruct in a green manner.

It seems that Lexington may be going one better. From Insurance Business Review:

Lexington Insurance Company, a member company of American International Group, has introduced Upgrade to Green Residential, an insurance coverage allowing US homeowner policyholders to rebuild their property to green standards following a covered loss.

The company said that Upgrade to Green responds whether the insured home suffers a partial or a total loss from a covered event and extends coverage beyond the basic replacement value afforded by standard homeowners insurance policies. In the event of a covered partial loss to the insured property, the policy pays for the insured to purchase products and materials and make repairs to adopt Energy Star or equivalent levels of energy efficiency.

While I’ve got to believe that such a program is just asking for a resurrection of the insurance-to-value mess that many insurers worked through in the 90’s, it is nice to see carriers seemingly willing to sacrifice a little in the interest of some measure of environmental responsibility.

Travelers grabbed headlines awhile back for promoting “greenness” by offering hybrid owners a 10% discount on their auto insurance. Interesting gimmick, true…but I think Fireman’s Fund may be trumping them in greenness. From Insurance Journal:

In response to the Southern California wildfires that burned in late October, Fireman’s Fund Insurance Co. is responding with an innovative green upgrade for affected policyholders. The company said it will rebuild its Prestige Premier policyholders’ homes that were damaged or destroyed “green,” if desired by policyholders.

The relevant item from the a bulletted list in the article/press release, as to what they mean:

Green building features include Energy Star-rated appliances and lighting fixtures, home insulation, heating/ventilating/air conditioning, low VOC (volatile organic compounds) paints, sealants, adhesives, low-emission carpeting, Federal Energy Management Program- designated plumbing fixtures featuring water conservation, and use of forest stewardship certified wood for cabinets, ceilings, siding and framing.

Of course, my inner cynic wonders if the building codes in the affected areas are such that green is effectively required as-it-is. If so…well, it’s still good advertising/promotion, I think.

Also included in the item is an offer to replace (up to the relevant sublimits) destroyed or damaged landscaping with fire-resistant landscaping…but that falls into the category of “good citizenship that will also reduce future losses.”

Jetson Green is running an article on a new skyscraper going up in Chicago. One paragraph in particular caught my eye:

There’s an interesting side-story to 300 North LaSalle: it received a building permit in 30 days. That’s pretty incredible. Chicago has a Green Permit Program provides for increased flexibility and shorter permitting times based on the greenness of the design. Developers submit LEED registration as part of the building permit review process, and they’re required to commit to certain green features. Here, Hines committed to LEED certification, with a design that included a green roof. Additionally, upon completion, the developer is required to submit proof of LEED certification within 180 days or risk fee reimbursement or permit revocation. On the flip side, if you’re committed to LEED design, you can get moving quickly without all the red tape and politics can cost developers big money.

There’s nothing like the promise of significantly less red tape to get folks to do the right thing, yes?