« August 2008 | Main | October 2008 »
September 16, 2008
Oh Henry (Gifford)...
Did you really have to go and blow holes in the USGBC LEED programs? Yes, I suppose you did... and if what you say is true it's high time someone really started focusing on actual energy performance, instead of predicted.
If you read technical publications, you're bound to run into a recent study published by Henry Gifford that questions (with a reasonable premise) the accuracy of claims made by the programs about energy performance. Bottom line is that Gifford believes that the program's checklist structure rewards designers for predicted performance, but that no one actually checks to see if the buildings, as built, perform to their designers' claims. A colleague of mine (who shall remain nameless, though goodness knows he'd be perfectly happy to be quoted) reminded me this week that the programs are prescriptive - not performance-based. Meaning that although proven energy performance is critical to green building, the LEED programs don't mandate verifiable, measurable performance.
Can it be true? Such an excellent marketing concept and we're building buildings that aren't performing to the label? I truly hope not, or at least, I hope the folks at USGBC will act quickly to cinch up their program to ensure that the most critical factor in green - energy - is being ensured in their buildings. After all, it really doesn't matter what you say - nothing is green when everything is green (thank you, Joe) - it matters what you can measure and verify.
LEED has such an excellent concept, such an excellent organization backing them, and the eye of the media. Here's hoping they get it together soon and respond with vigor to Gifford's claims, or we're all going to have to do a lot of dancing to gain the trust of the public again, no matter how stalwart our green building programs.
Posted by Stacy Hunt at 12:37 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
September 8, 2008
Who will come to the rescue?
I tend not to dabble in politics too much. I find it hard to rinse the sentiment from my mind at the end of the day. But I have to admit that I've been listening for the words "new home construction" during the recent stumps, and the silence is deafening.
As an advocate for green building, I believe that the real work of creating a more energy efficient, durable, and sustainable abode begins with the home owner's ability to make informed choices. Close behind is the need for builders to have the knowledge, gumption, and incentive to produce a better product. Of course the trades also play a huge role in actually building the better home. But even at the local level, Washington can, and must, play a part in encouraging residential construction to go green.
How big a part is, of course, a debatable question.
But where is the debate?
We now are in the final weeks of this Presidential campaign, and I haven't heard either side really speak to the sluggishness of new construction. Mortgage companies are being shuffled like playing cards, but where are the bullet points and plans for builders? While both parties rattle sabers about energy policies, conservation (current and future) seems to be a back-burner issue.
It may be asking too much of McCain and Obama to dedicate any of their valuable air-time to topics like better insulation, offsetting the initial costs of tighter built homes, or touting the benefits of solar panels. Still, when the housing market took a tumble it captured headlines globally, and as far as I can tell, we aren't out of the slump yet.
This issue touches many of the hot-buttons in our society today like energy policy and natural resources, labor and immigration, financing and interest rates, health and the homeless.
Do they have a plan? If not, what would you do if you were the next President? Which party/candidate is in the best position to boost new home starts, and where should the focus be to help builders craft a greener home?
Posted by Andrew Hunt at 1:00 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
