Green building is dead. Its time has passed. We lie to ourselves when we think we can build any number of new buildings in a green, environmentally sustainable way. We need to acknowledge that every building is an unnatural act. We want a building to be warm when it’s cold outside, cool when it’s warm outside, dry when it’s wet outside, and light when it’s dark outside. Although rot and decay is the essential refueling mechanism in nature, in a building, rot and decay is the surest sign that something has gone seriously wrong. Looked at this way, every building is an environmental mugging.
Don’t get me wrong. I live in a building, I work in a building, and my whole livelihood depends on there being buildings. I’m generally in favor of buildings. I just don’t think we should delude ourselves into thinking that they can possibly be “green” in any meaningful way. The best we can do is to make the mugging that each building represents as gentle as possible. The USGBC should re-name itself the US Gentle Mugging Council, in my opinion.
Why do such semantics matter? They matter because if you understand that each building is an act of environmental violence (gentle or not), then you look at our building needs very differently. “Green building” becomes the belief that our buildings should be as few, as small, and as efficient as possible. This in turn means that any new construction becomes an absolute last resort. The 4000-square-foot seasonal vacation home becomes an impossibility. An addition becomes necessary only if absolutely everything else has failed. The first choice always will be making the best use of what we already have—and making what we already have as efficient and adaptable as possible becomes the most important endeavor we can undertake.
Deep energy reductions to existing structures pose serious challenges—both technical and economic. As one who tries to sell and implement such retrofits at market rates, I am more keenly aware than anyone of both the short- and the long-term challenges. In future posts I will outlines these challenges, as well as possible ways to confont them successfully.
About Paul Eldrenkamp
Green building is neither dead nor impossible, but you’re quite right that what we pretend to call “green” is anything but.
Indigenous shelter is minimalist, functional, made from locally-available materials and skills, and designed to decompose back into the web of life.
Those of us using renewable, recyclable, earth materials to create shelter are the closest to building green. The problem is not shelter, it is sheer numbers, unsustainable and inequitable affluence, and (as you point out) our passion to isolate ourselves from the environment.
What we call “efficient” building, is the epitome of environmental isolation – hermetically sealing ourselves into boxes that drain our souls as much as they suck the life from the biosphere.
We have become vampires, parasites, and cancers on the earth. But that has been a choice, however unacknowledged. Once acknowledged, we can make another choice – a difficult but satisfying choice to live in harmony with the web of life.
If we do not so choose, then we will be recycled back into the humus which birthed us. It is that stark and that simple.
I have to agree with Robert. “Green building is neither dead nor impossible, but you’re quite right that what we pretend to call “green” is anything but.”
To many have a misunderstanding of green and it is used to generic. Many of the features of green are energy efficient. As a society we need to be more energy efficient and stop wasting resources. I see people building vacation homes that are 10,000 square feet and want it to be green. Sorta missing the point but I have to give them a thataboy for trying. Smaller homes, more energy efficient and using solar or wind power gets us closer to the mark.
To say that all construction is basically an act of violence is going a bit far. I do agree that much building, especially over the past 150 years, has been destructive, but I also believe that we are learning from our mistakes. If your definition of “green” does not allow for building, you have a right to that opinion. For the rest of us, I believe, building green is a choice that we can make; that we need to make. It is in our nature to shape our environement. It is in our best interest to shape that environement is such a way that the negative impact is minimized in both the short and long term.
Isn’t the logical end of your suggestion a return to the agrarian paradise of our ancestors? Many animal species modify their environment to suit their needs. That’s what our species does with making buildings. But obviously we don’t need monster homes to live. I like the “living beneath our means” paradigm in preference to living beyond our means.
Hi, thanks for the thought-provoking post, here is my response:
http://www.greenmodernkits.com/2009/03/green-building-is-dead.html
Maybe we should look at our industry more like crop tree release…
Paul,
Enjoyed your presentation at NESEA last week and got a good laugh then from your “gentle mugging” concept. The key point, which either you or Marc Rosenbaum made in that workshop (and I hope I’m getting my stats right), is that even if all projected new construction from now til 2030 was zero energy, we’d only reduce residential building energy use by 8% overall. The installed base of ~138 million US and Canadian residential units is the challenge, and the opportunity.
It is hard to refute someone with as much time in basements and attics as you, so I acknowledge your point about the challenges, but I came away from NESEA more hopeful than ever that we’re on the cusp of igniting a retrofit renaissance.
Thanks for provoking the discussion.
“Each building is an act of environmental violence” I had to read that twice. I disagree strongly, mostly because I value humans more than environment, though both are important. Green building is an expression of the idea that our buildings could be better, a step in the right direction. There is no need to discount the effort the industry is making toward a better relationship between man and nature.
While it’s obvious that building changes the environment, it’s not enough to simply call that bad. Bad for whom? Certainly the hospital built with exacting air-filtration and high-energy HVAC systems that saves human lives isn’t “bad” to the patient whose life it saves.
The clean room which is used to build the chips which power the computers which run the supercomputers that analyze the climate and predict its future also has a use for us humans.
Every living thing alters its environment. Humans are quite good at doing so. As long as human life is sustained in the way that humans want it to, their building is far from a ‘mugging’ – it’s more like a beaver’s dam.
The crazy philosophy is the one which says no human activity is good, and that’s where this discussion leads. It’s illogical and insane to purport such, it invalidates reasoned discussions like the one we’re needing to have, and it is paradoxical on its face. If humans can do no good, then we can do no good by going “green” either.
No, human life is a value unto itself — to humans, which we all are. We need to consider what is going to make our life on earth the best it can be, and not get upset about impacting ‘the environment’ – again except inasmuch as that impact diminishes our quality of life.
Many thanks to all those who have responded—this is a great conversation. A few responses:
To Robert Riversong: I have a hard time imagining that a shelter “designed to compose back into the web of life” would be all that much fun to live in. What do you have in mind?
To Steve: Give me a clear, concise definition of “green building” and I’ll tell you whether I think it’s possible–or whether it’s even a way to move us where I think we need to head.
To Joel: I wish I had your confidence that we were learning from our mistakes. We’re not even keeping score in any meaningful way, really—so how can we know whether we’re learning or not? What is our goal, in your opinion? How much closer are we to that goal than we were 10 years ago? If you can give me good answers to those two questions, I may start to believe that we’re learning from our mistakes.
To David: I have no interest in returning to an agrarian society (though I did grow up in Iowa, and love going back to visit). I think towns and cities can be much more resource-efficient than an agrarian society.
To Copeland: Applying the idea of crop-tree release to buildings is fascinating. The question it begs, though, is how to decide which ones are disposable?
To Peter: Retrofits are a huge, hairy challenge. As my friend Michael Blasnik points out, in a lot of cases it would be cheaper to install a whole bunch of PV and a heat pump than to do a super-insulated retrofit. More on that in a later post, though.
To JC: I agree that “green building” is an expression that buildings could be better. Where we differ is: how much better? If just a tiny little bit better is good enough, then the green building movement, as currently manifest, is doing just fine.
To Jason: Acknowledging that buildings are an irrevocably unnatural act is different from calling them bad, in my opinion. As I said in my post, I live in a building, work in a building, and have based my career on the continuing reality of buildings. Let me be as clear as I can: We need buildings; we could not live without buildings; let there always be buildings. Let’s just not pretend we can make them something they can never be, because that self-delusion leads to poor choices.
It sounds like the definition of ‘green building’ is ‘building in a way that doesn’t use materials or disturb the environment, and that uses less energy in its creation and use than it produces.’
By that definition, it would be impossible.
To me, the argument that “green building” is in fact impossible is like listening to first year philosophy students getting their head around solipsism – but the fact that just because we can’t “prove” the world exists doesn’t stop us from acting like it does anyways.
To call ‘green building’ something else invites the conclusion “why bother – its impossible anyways.” That would be a great crime and is counter productive to the efforts that any reasonably environmentally conscious builder and home owner makes.
This isn’t a black and white, one or zero, yes or no subject. Some building can be “more green” than others. Ideally, we’d make every building as “green” as possible given the choices available.
If seen as a process of making choices rather than an end result, every effort to reduce the impact of our choices while still creating a comfortable space for our use is a worthy goal.
“Green building is dead”? Most people I know don’t know what green building is, much less that it’s dead.
the essence of the issue is building green from now on. Building codes need to be changed to emphasize utilizing sustainable materials and alternative practices (cob, cordwood, papercrete, strawbale, etc.). Schools need to train architects and engineers in sustainable design. The government, schools and building associations as a group, need to promote the “idea” of sustainability and give prizes (X-prixe), diplomas, and anything else they can think of to educate the public. A change needs to happen in our society. From, primarily a consumer society, to a conserver society. I’m not saying that people shouldn’t have choices. They have to know that there are GOOD choices that can be made.
I live in a mobile home. I’m retrofitting/renovating by utilizing found objects, salvaged materials, earth (plaster), cordwood (exterior walls), earthbags (foundation), sawdust/clay (insulation), tires, and salvaged brick (floor). Most of this is not in the CODE books. I have to live in rural Georgia to be able to do this.
I think part of President Obama’s recovery proposal covers jobs for making homes more energy efficient. This money should be tripled and a “Roosevelt” style works program implemented to get the job done in record time. That’s what makes us American. Pulling together in difficult times to change our world.
I can’t wait….
(OOPS THAT LAST POST WAS SUPPOSED TO READ… somehow last line got juxtaposed- p.s. please get on twitter! : ) Post below:)
Just fyi wanted to let you know Jetson Green linked to your article! : )
http://www.jetsongreen.com/2009/03/third-green-week-in-review.html
Regarding crop tree release and my consideration of buildings it’s simple-
- Does the building have historical value?
- Functional value?
- Would it be replaced to be more energy efficient, community minded (smart growth vs. cul-de-sacs or golf course planning)?
- And of course materials should be salvaged & reused…
That’s just what I have off the top of my head- for myself, as a caretaker of land, once I was educated in forestry and land management for wildlife my choices and decisions in which tree to release (and yes we reuse those felled trees for other things) was easy.
You guys are the architects and industry experts- so…
You can do it! (cheering)
; )
Happy weekend!
-Copeland Casati
Buildings may not be natural but there’s a lot of animals in nature that don’t like natural all the time either. I have two cats who can go outside anytime they want through a catdoor, and they do love to go outside and hunt squirrels, birds etc. However, they also love to live inside during winter, rainy weather, or weather that is too hot. Any creature that has a consciousness independent of nature is going to disagree with nature on occasion and quite often most of the time. We are a product of natural evolution on this planet, but that doesn’t mean we are in complete harmony with it … and this applies to other species as well.
I am confused…?
You are critical of Green building, yet it appears this is your livelyhood, passion, focus.
I don’t believe it is dead….it is in it’s infancy.
Like so many other industries where we are breaking paradigms…as in Recylcing, Solar Energy Applications, Landfills, Product manufacturing & packaging….an idea begins and evolves…unfortunate or not “Green” is hear to stay. The idea is a good one, but in today’s applications and how it is executed is horrific…no consistancies, no major gov’t subsidies, scattered educational materials….As Solar Energy was 25 years ago, it feels as if we have 10,000 people all selling what they believe to be green from their garage….reinventing the wheel!
As a fellow contractor and architectural designer for the past 35 years, I understand the frustrations of seeing people, clients and the general public run blindly & rampant through old, and what should be obsolete design & construction methods & practices.
Going Green will take decades in its’ refinement….and one day when my childrens’ children break ground on their new home….or dispose of the cracker box their Grand Dad lived in, the new structures will be innovative and have all the comforts you mention, as well as new amenities that few have even begun to think about. It is natures way!
Sorry to rant.
Ron
The cave man had a better understanding of home than we do today. You won’t see an entrance to a cave on the north side of any hillside or rock, he will invariably build it to the south, to take advantage of sunshine. He knew nothing of solar gain other than it felt good and made is life much simpler.
I don’t understand what you propose to do….give up on Green….or perhaps call it Blue/Yellow..? What features are you offering your clients? Is this not hypocritical
Paul’s post was neither thought provoking or imaginative…..it was just plan stupid. If he really cares to help with the problems at hand, then try proposing solutions that can make a difference. Some of us are trying very hard to limit the impacts of building as best as possible. We educate our clients, choose the best materials, limit the structures foot print and size, etc. I also have issues with the USGBC and NAHB, but for now, there the only publicly know promoters of “green” building that are getting attention. Their solutions are not perfect….but as one responder noted, green is still in it’s infancy.
A recent cover story on a national trade magazine (no names mentioned): “Big AND Green”. I mean, are you serious? Now, that’s exactly what we are talking about… A corollary to that mindset is the commonly tossed-about truism that “we need to have a growing economy”. An economist’s notion of growth falls far away from the tree’s actual embodiment of that principle. It begins, it draws only what it requires from the environment, it returns manyfold: Conservation of energy in a nutshell.
Paul has put out a worthy perspective on this subject (thank you) and I think, given his background, his tongue is in his cheek and his feet are firmly planted in the right direction. Neil’s response (#10), among others, has only affirmed and refined that outlook, and this conversation will continue to move in a positive direction. The green greed so rampant lately in the market is dismaying but we can only hope that the good guys win. Keep doing your part…
What a crock. We finally get the manistream, especially the government, moving toward more energy efficient homes and you post a negative tirade about how disinenuous we all are. You and your half empty glass should wake up. This is a modern soceiety. Did oyu stop and think about why we live longer and healthier? Why operations no longer have double digit risks of death? it is called progress chief. Bithc and moan all you want, but society is making adjustments and we do not need more negativity in our lives. We already have plety of that.
The green building movement needs to rethink its focus on fitting ever more energy-saving devices into increasingly goofy buildings.
I developed a filter for an electric clothes dryer which allows the user to return the hot, humid air back into the home. This filters out 99.5% of all contaminants including smell. With the extra heat added to the home, the furnace doesn’t have to work as much, the moisture added to the environment gets rid of static electricity and in many cases, this filter shortens the time required to dry the clothes. So, this little filter saves energy for the furnace, saves electricity from the dryer and makes the home environment much better to live in. Please check out dryernet.com
I have a very small company in Washington, MO, just my wife and myself but we both see this as a great energy saving device. We tested it last winter and saved about $20.00 a month on our energy bill. Do you think this warrants a little exposure? Thank you, Jim Atkinson, 636-388-2808