[Greenbuilding] reaching conclusions

[Jeannie]

Very well said. I think you could polish this into a little article.

Much applause,

Jeannie Babb Taylor
www.SafeCrete.com
706-965-4587

-----Original Message-----
From: greenbuilding-bounces at listserv.repp.org
[mailto:greenbuilding-bounces at listserv.repp.org] On Behalf Of Philip
Proefrock
Sent: Friday, August 04, 2006 3:03 PM
To: greenbuilding at listserv.repp.org
Subject: Re: [Greenbuilding] reaching conclusions

I absolutely believe that "Greenness" is fuzzy.

Diversity is as much a green concept as any.  To try to focus on some kind
of final, correct answer seems to me to be completely misguided.  You are
only going to get a specific answer if you ask a specific question, and
"Which is the greenest?" is a pretty broad question.  Diversity allows for
multiple answers, rather than insisting that everything conform to a single,
limited standard.

The statement "The issue of cost is of course a non issue as the building
even at twice the cost of any other building will of course if more energy
efficient recoup any expense eventually," is misguided.  One material may
cost twice as much as another, but have no bearing on the energy efficiency
of a building.  Whether a basement column is wood or steel has virtually no
energy cost to the building.  There are different production and delivery
energy and environmental costs for those two options.  Many of the materials
that go into a building are effectively energy neutral to the operation of
the building; the selection of one over another has a negligible effect on
the energy neds for the building.  Recycled gyp board costs a bit more than
standard gyp board, but it performs the same thermally.  The building owner
will never recoup the additional cost in energy savings.

What standard of greenness are we talking about?  To take one example, I
think many would agree that indoor air quality is one metric of green
construction.  But is it greener to provide every dwelling with a filtration
and ventillation system in order to provide the cleanest indoor air quality,
or is it greener to provide those only to the homes of allergy sufferers and
others who need the advanced filtration, and allow other homes to have open
windows.  Better indoor air quality is greener, but providing it in only
some homes is less taxing on resources than trying to provide it everywhere.
Being less green in some cases ends up being more green in the aggregate.

I don't think green building is ever going to be a single set of absolute
answers.  Construction is always going to involve disruption to the
environment in one manner or another.  So every decision that goes into a
building project is a compromise between what is needed to create a building
and causing disruption of the natural environment.  It's the balance of
choices you make, and that is inherently fuzzy and imprecise.

Philip Proefrock


_______________________________________________
Greenbuilding email list
List info:
http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/greenbuilding_listserv.repp.org
List email: Greenbuilding at listserv.repp.org
Managed by BuildingGreen, Inc. http://www.buildinggreen.com
      publisher of Environmental Building News and GreenSpec(r)
Hosted and archived by REPP / CREST http://www.crest.org