Greenwash

I think the first order of business should be for all of us to talk about the problems and the pitfalls of the Green movement, in general terms, and also how these pitfalls relate to the building industry.

I myself noticed, very early on, that most green builds were being done by people who had way more money than the average bear. Most of the homes that I see featured in magazines, and hence most featured green materials being used are only reasonably usable for the "Eco Chic". Most days, during materials research, I find most of the featured material to be cost prohibitive for the average person.

It's a problem.

Keeping this in mind, I often hear cats on Steve Thomas's Planet Green show, "Renovation Nation", blurt out an enthused "why isnt everyone doing it?"

I find this occurrence a little bit greenwashy and flakey.

After I heard that about half a dozen times on that series, I realized Greenwash (aka green propoganda) was showing its cards.

Yeah, Steve-O, I love you buddy, and I love your show, but maybe everyone isnt "doing it" because those fucking recycled tiles cost $30 a square foot! And maybe we're all not doing it because, while $20,000 for solar panels may be a cool treat for that cat from Sonoma, most of the rest of us have to eat and pay bills with that money. And maybe their are no contractors who can blow Cementious Foam Insulation here in Pittsburgh because the foam companies wont give you product unless you purchase a license (which is essentially a franchise fee) that costs $40,000 to $50,0000. In order for you to blow that stuff, you can't just buy the machine and the material. You have to buy the license, an 18' trailer to house everything, and the machine, and the product, and the training.

I would love to offer clients an eco spray-foam option.

But you've got to be kidding me? $50,000 ?

LOL!

While there are definite ways to build and make things clean, energy efficient, sustainable, and cost effective, the average person, with an average income, who wants to green-up their build or remodel, will, most likely, have to sacrifice some green concepts in order to keep the green paper in the reality ballpark.

Generally speaking, green is a result that costs a premium.

So, I believe in the true movement, and I will work my fingers to the nub to protect this beautiful earth. But the everyday person can't swing the current premium.

There are also definite ways to save money. There are definitely more Bohemian materials available that wont cost a premium. The limitation here is that it is too much to expect the everyday person to swing their aesthetic tastes far into the Bohemian range of available materials, where one might be able to mitigate cost increase.

So, here we have Bohemian Materials: the other issue that needs the light of reality. Their exists a vast chasm between those of us who can get into more raw, natural, bohemian materials, and the majority of the populus. Unfinished wood, clay, blue jeans, and the various and asundrous uses for things like Coke bottles and old tires are not really going to be on the palette of your average Joe and Jane. I observe that, sometimes, we hippies and green hipsters get so jazzed about the possibilities of material uses, that we forget how fucking stupid it is to expect that everyone is going to want to fill old tires with concrete or rammed earth and make a house out of it.

< Randy's Hippy Voice>

"Hey man, I dont know what everyone is hasslin' about ? Why are you spending all this money on your renovation? A bunch of my buddies and me started this new form of insulation where we eat a 100% raw diet, relieve our bowels into an aged, yet organic coconut shell, and jam it into the stud-bay with corn cobs and B-grade Maple syrup! Its zero VOC, sustainable, will last 400 years, and only costs a fraction of normal pink insulation! Why isn't everyone doing it?"

Because dude, it's shit in a coconut!

Again, this is another place where I think we Greenies need to take a step back and get real.


I came across an article recently that really opened my eyes wide, and made me reconsider my efforts towards becoming a LEED AP. It is an article by Henry Gifford on the results of a study, where, after obvious manipulations were reversed, LEED buildings were found to, on average, use more energy than a conventional building of the same size:

"Therefore, what the data actually
indicate is that the 22% of LEED buildings
whose owners participated in the study and
reported their energy data used an average
of 29% more energy than the most similar
buildings in the dataset that the study
authors chose to use as a comparison! Going
to so much trouble and expense to end up
with buildings that use more energy than
comparable buildings is not only a tragedy,
it is also a fraud perpetuated on US
consumers trying their best to achieve true
environmental friendliness. Worse, by
spending so many years without measuring
anything, and then obscuring the truth when
data is finally available, the USGBC has
squandered the tremendous public good will
that has accumulated behind the cause of
environmentally friendly buildings."

You can also read the USGBC's response to Gifford's claims, along with his rebuttal.

There's a lot to chew on...


What do you think?