How Green is Green?
Our story on the recent awarding of LEED Platinum certification to Tacoma’s Center for Urban Waters building stirred up a little conversation, which raised a few valid questions.
Does anyone stop and think about where the money for the increased price tag came from? If money is a representation of goods and services exchanged than it took twice the effort, materials, pollution, etc to get the money to build this thing in the first place. I’d like to see an actual analysis of that.
So, is all the extra cost of so-called “green” materials really just externalizing the environmental impact to wherever that money comes from? Don’t we have to consider the extra expense of the “green” building’s construction when looking at long-term savings for energy, etc?
Valid questions. A recent Seattle Times article raises similar questions, and looks at a recent study published by the National Trust for Historic Preservation (perhaps not the most un-biased of sources). The study takes into account a range of factors including externalities such as run-off, fossil fuel use, and even questions of the costs of resource extraction, and asks whether an old building is ultimately more “green” than a new one, simply by virtue of not needing to be built from the ground up.
The conclusion was that even the most energy-efficient new buildings have to stand as long as 80 years before their energy savings offset the negative environmental impacts of constructing them.
The Seattle Times piece goes on to clarify that what makes the most environmental sense doesn’t necessarily make the most financial sense>
“From an environmental perspective it’s a no-brainer,” said Robert Watson, chairman and CEO of green-building consultant and operator EcoTech International.
Watson, who helped develop the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (“LEED”) green-building certification system, was quick to note that what’s good for the environment does not necessarily make good business sense. In most cases, the cost of rehabilitating an old building is nearly equal to building a new one.
So, given the choice between re-use and new construction, re-use is greener, but may not be cheaper. But what about the question of how green a “Green” building really is, and whether it’s worth the investment? There are a lot of factors that go into that question, and we won’t pretend to know the answer, but we did have a thought as we put aside our flutes for a minute to ponder the questions raised.
If we take yet another step back from the issue, is there perhaps an even bigger picture still to be considered? Does all the fervor for LEED and other green certifications generate something bigger than the buildings themselves? Is it possible that the attention, energy, and funding poured into each new green building will pay dividends further down the line if the practices, materials, technology, and expectations of those high-end buildings find their way into our everyday projects? Like the investments in the space program and the military that yielded such world-changing innovations as the Internet and Tang (okay, maybe not that last one), could investments in green tech yield innovations that we have yet to see, but that could pay off big in shrinking our carbon footprints?
Previously from Exit133: Leed Platinum for Tacoma’s Center for Urban Waters.
Read more from the Seattle Times.
Filed under: Green Tacoma, LEED
12 comments
F fredo May 10, 2012
Well, maybe the green technologies have some long term benefits to society but the LEED projects are being sold to the public on the basis of some illusion of thriftiness. This thrifty attribute seems to be more presumed than actually established.
J Jesse May 10, 2012
“The conclusion was that even the most energy-efficient new buildings have to stand as long as 80 years before their energy savings offset the negative environmental impacts of constructing them.” — E133
Yipes!
Thanks for looking into this one! I brought this idea up to a few city folks at the sustainability expo last year and they looked at me cross-eyed.
F fredo May 10, 2012
“Thanks for looking into this one! I brought this idea up to a few city folks at the sustainability expo last year and they looked at me cross-eyed” jesse
That sounds about right jesse. People involved in the sustainability movement should think like cost accountants but this might cause them to advocate against green practices.
T talus May 10, 2012
Sometimes you need to spend extra money on a demonstration project to show what can be done, and wait for the cost of that to come down before it becomes widespread. That’s what Urban Waters is doing, and it’s appropriate given that every agency and researcher in the building is devoted to clean water. Some of us don’t think like accountants, thank goodness.
F fredo May 11, 2012
“Sometimes you need to spend extra money on a demonstration project to show what can be done, and wait for the cost of that to come down before it becomes widespread” talus
Well then let’s be honest with the taxpayers. Don’t tell the taxpayers that the projects are going to pay huge economic dividends when the reality is that they are going to cost extra because of the experimental nature of the building techniques.”
G Gina May 11, 2012
The most cost-effective, environmentally-friendly and sustainable building is the one which already exhists and can be preserved/rennovated. There is no such thing as a “green” building using new materials (idea invented by developers needing new projects)… and modern buildings are deliberately built to NOT last 80 years (also contrived by developers).
Don’t buy into the hype. Preserve historic buildings which were built to last and used smart techniques such as window transoms and basement-to-attic air-flow for natural heating and cooling.
T That Girl May 11, 2012
I don’t feel like these projects have been “sold to the public on the basis of some illusion of thriftiness.” Yes, they are billed as energy-saving, but saying we’re going to conserve energy is not the same as saying we’re going to save money. Perhaps you hear “energy saving” as “money saving,” but the two aren’t the same.
F fredo May 11, 2012
“Yes, they are billed as energy-saving, but saying we’re going to conserve energy is not the same as saying we’re going to save money” That Girl
A building which costs MORE to build is going to result in more energy use in its construction phase than a building which costs LESS to build. Jesse mentioned this inconvenient truth in a previous posting.
Let’s look at an example. A building which costs an extra $100M to build because it’s supposed to conserve energy requires somebody to generate $100M extra funding. This generation only occurs when somebody uses energy and other consumables to create funding. The LEED buildings are not including this energy use in their proposals. If it were, we might learn that the LEED project actually doesn’t result in energy savings.
J Jesse May 11, 2012
@ David Boe: I am glad you’re on the council. Cheers!
J JJ May 11, 2012
I think that the money spent could have been used to purchase every resident of Tacoma expensive LED lighting which would have had a much longer lasting effect benefiting the environment and lowering electrical consumption (also lower monthly or bi monthly utility bills too).In addition how about micro hydro? Ever notice those storm drain (water run off) charges?
How about putting small electrical generator turbines to generate electricity from the storm drain water.I bet that could be a substantial amount of electricity generated collectively.Seems like a huge waste not to use that potential energy.
C Christine May 12, 2012
The fact that this LEED certified building is positioned to require a lot of fuel usage just to find it and that a perfectly good and gorgeous building exists downtown is bad enough. Factor in the cost per square foot difference of New v. Remodel and I get angry. The Urban Waters building looks like a drive-thru, and its clearly a fragile building which will likely be demolished in 20 years or so. What a waste.
How do we get good ideas, like the one presented by Mr. Boe, into practice? We could be so much better, but I swear that we are our own worst enemies.
T talus May 12, 2012
There is some context, context, and context that hasn’t been mentioned here. I think Boe’s Old City Hall idea was interesting, but it came too late in the process (Urban Waters was a sunk investment by then), and there are research and symbolic advantages for that building being right on the water. And once the Murray Morgan Bridge reopens, it won’t be all that isolated — it’s far from a suburban model.
More importantly, Urban Waters’ siting is/was part of a bigger vision for the east side of the Foss that was abandoned by the City Council when they voted several months ago to require an esplanade only south of the Murray Morgan Bridge instead of all the way to Urban Waters. Urban Waters could have been (and may eventually prove to be) a “camel’s nose under the tent” that helps change the land use on the northeast side of the Foss from inappropriately/anachronistically sited tank farms to light industry and even mixed use development. The economy, entrenched petroleum interests, and a shortsighted council vote got in the way of that vision for now, but if and when downtown Tacoma begins to reach its potential, that vision will almost inevitably reemerge.