How much green does “green” really save?

As most of my readers know, I’ve become interested in the “green” building movement since I studied for and passed my LEED AP examination last year. Out of all the thousands of LEED Accredited Professionals though, my guess is that on the skepticism scale I would be off the charts. As far as the United States Green Building Council’s rating system is concerned, my problem lies not with the idea of enhanced energy efficiency but more in the social engineering aspects of the rating system.

Not one, not two, but three stories have come across my work desk in the recent days, stories which piqued my interest and actually attempted to put some parameters on the burgeoning green building movement.

The first comes from the Wall Street Journal, where writer Sari Krieger asks whether the uptick in green construction can be maintained until the training and education of those who actually build the structures catches up with demand. The “green gap“, as Krieger calls it, is leading to an increase in educational interest in the subject of green building, a demand sure to continue as the American Institute of Architects mandates green continuing indoctrination, er, education beginning next year as part of their overall requirements for continued professional membership. (Look for individual states to follow the AIA’s lead in the coming months by mandating the same training in their continuing education requirements for the profession. I’ll bet Maryland is one of the first five to adopt that rule.)

When you consider that the demand for green buildings is somewhat artificial because of govermental edicts declaring certain public structures need to comply with a green construction standard (usually LEED Silver certification), the question becomes at what premium will the work be done? That training isn’t very cheap and certainly contractors will want to recoup their investment in it, particularly when the time spent learning the techniques comes out of time which could be making the company money on the job.

The idea of monetary impact was addressed in another forum I ran across, the Green Inc. blog of the New York Times. In Kate Galbraith’s Debating the Green Building Premium, it’s claimed a report by the U.S. Green Building Council (the entity behind the LEED certification system, remember) shows that the additional costs borne by owners of green buildings for construction work out to 2.5% of the total up-front cost. So if a building costs $1 million, the additional cost in construction is supposedly $25,000. I have a hard time believing that statistic when the certification alone runs around $2,500 and as I noted above labor skilled in green building techniques is at a premium. I would peg the number to be more like 5-10 percent.

Galbraith’s story also quotes the lead author of the study, who notes payback on energy costs comes in “five to eight years.” Generally I prefer a five-year or less payback based on the additional up-front investment; moreover what’s not clear is whether the study includes any additional costs for maintaining and verification of green building components – for example, how much additional maintenance is involved with a “green” roof as opposed to a regular roof. On the other hand, the cost of taking care of a “graywater” irrigation system is probably little more than the cost of keeping a regular irrigation system operational as long as the water supply remains enough for operation. In that case, the up-front costs are the greatest portion of the investment because there’s additional piping and storage required.

Naturally, those who have a vested interest in the continued success of the movement believe that all we’ve done is simply a good first step. On the Greenbiz website I came across this staff report that claims the sum total of green building savings has equaled the impact of burning 1.3 million fewer tons of coal for electricity, using 9.5 billion fewer gallons of water, and 400 million fewer miles driven by green building occupants, as examples. But they still aren’t satisfied:

“LEED buildings’ relatively exemplary performance is not helping to make enough of a dent in contraining the growth of the building sector’s CO2 emissions,” (GreenerBuildings.com Executive Editor Rob) Watson said. “We need much more — and much more quickly — to reduce total emissions.”

To me, that is code language for more mandates on buildings and restrictions on the types of materials and systems allowed. After all, a large part of their business to date has come about simply because of existing mandates for LEED-certified buildings, and something tells me these folks were smiling broadly on election night when Democrats were ceded further control of the levers of the federal government.

I happen to believe that these systems need to stand or fall on their own merits and not be placed because a lobbyist for some environmental group whispered into a Congressman’s ear after his industry PAC dumped big bucks into his or her campaign, or because that same lobbyist befriended some hapless middle manager at a Fedzilla department, agency, or bureau and sweettalked him or her into writing up some nice helpful regulations that assured their industry a piece of the building pie it might not have otherwise deserved. We’ve gotten a long way toward energy efficiency simply by customer demand (hey, energy’s not getting any cheaper as a whole) so I see no need to goose the process even more by dictating standards.

Unfortunately, those in charge haven’t quite gotten that lesson down – perhaps they should skip the next LEED seminar and instead take a course in free market economics.

Author: Michael

It's me from my laptop computer.

One thought on “How much green does “green” really save?”

Comments are closed.