Green building often requires going the extra mile. But, it is critical that you’re heading the extra mile in the right direction.
I’m always asked, “What’s really green?” And my answer has always been prefaced with, “It depends...” Though many of the specific details have changed during the course of the past decade, sustainability and environmentally conscious design really does depend on the application. What makes more sense: installing a building product that is made from a renewable resource overseas, or a using a material that is sourced locally, longer-lasting in a particular application, and can be recycled after its lifecycle? I guess it depends.
“Point chasing” (for LEED points, for example) sometimes works. Sometimes it doesn’t, especially if an “add-on” feature that wasn’t part of an integrated design process from the start is tacked on simply for the sake of trying to garner extra attention or extra points. Potentially, a building owner may request a wind turbine or solar panel, even if it isn’t the best decision for the building. Tacking on a wind turbine in an area that generates little wind, or a solar panel in an area that receives little sun, isn’t the most cost-effective solution. Although, these “add ons” aren’t necessarily bad things. Consider if the costs outweigh the benefits. Maybe the costs could be allocated to a smarter, more effective (though less obvious) energy-generating technology.
And even though more buildings are considered green, we can’t sit back and continue to do things the way we have in the past...even if they worked. More impressive and innovative technologies are popping up. Then again, we shouldn’t just try something new for the sake of trying something new. Some of the tried-and-true smart building standards are often the best option. Should we automatically install bamboo flooring, hemp carpet or the latest-and-greatest new flooring product in a high-traffic commercial space? Maybe, maybe not. Should everyone invest in a hybrid car? Not if you walk to work.
Sometimes add-on actions are for demonstration purposes. Many of the top green buildings wear green credentials on their sleeves to make a statement and showcase what is possible. I’ve seen plenty of green homes that implement every possible strategy, but they cost an outrageous amount, and are unfortunately left unoccupied. This idea will work for show homes, but definitely not for an entire development in a middle-class suburb.
At ED+C, we have been battling the dilemma of doing what’s best for our readers, the environment and us. In March 2006, ED+C began printing our magazine on a 100 percent recycled-content paper with a minimum of 60 percent post-consumer recycled content from New Leaf. Prior to 2006, we used paper harvested from a certified forest that also contained recycled content and soy ink.
We’ve switched again as of this month. Not because the product we previously used was inferior — it was perfect for the past few years, though it had been manufactured overseas — but we have decided to move in a new direction and try something else that is more appropriate for us today.
With the help of our ingenious staff, we’ve finally found a high-quality paper made in the United States that contains 100 percent post-consumer fiber, is EcoLogo certified, processed chlorine-free and FSC Recycled. This product from Cascades is also manufactured using biogas energy. We will be downsizing the weight of these pages slightly, additionally saving on postage. Even our heavy-duty cover — the one you are holding in your hands — is also 100 percent recycled content. For more information on our choice, visit
www.environmentalbychoice.com/commercial_papers/enviro100print.php .
We have considered the alternatives (pre- and post-consumer waste, various certification systems, manufacturer locations, even “tree-free” paper, quality and color of paper, recyclability, costs, type of energy used to produce it, etc.). You will find a monthly eco-audit (see above) to show what we’re saving. However, we will continue to offer a paper-free digital edition and our updated website,
www.EDCmag.com . Additionally, our sister publication, Sustainable Facility, is printed on SFI-certified recycled content paper.
Like green buildings, products and processes (including rating systems), we are constantly refining our product to be as green as it can be. We learn from the past, weigh the options in the present and seek opportunities in the future. Things that are green today may not be the best choice tomorrow. I urge you to challenge the way we do things today and continue to raise the bar in every facet of your lives.
Keep moving,
Michelle
"Modern day technology can solve complex design problems but our approach is still fundamentally wrong. Nature can be challenged but not conquered — we will always lose when challenging the fundamental rules of physics and biology. Matter cannot be destroyed — we can bury it out off site but eventually we will have to confront it. We can burn it to make it disappear but it will only return in the air we breathe and the water we drink. The industrial revolution was a time of progress and experimentation but when are we going to step back and ask, ‘Is this an appropriate application — does this make sense?’”
- “Few children would try to air condition an oven so why do we build buildings today with large un-shaded west facing windows and then require our engineers to make them thermally comfortable? Why do we use the excuse ‘the client didn’t ask for it’? Did we miss the meeting where our clients listed poor air quality and inflated utility bills as a project goal? The industrial revolution allowed us all to overcome the impossible but at a price we are just beginning to understand. Design today should not be about blame, it requires a refocus of priorities. Ignorance has ended but negligence has begun.”
Peter Levasseur, LEED AP, and Jill Kowalski, LEED AP, co-directors of the Sustainable Design Leadership Initiative within Ewing Cole “Missing the Point… Can’t See The Forest for the Trees,” ED+C December 2004
