Telling it Like it Is... - Contractor Talk - Professional Construction and Remodeling Forum

orson · 02-01-2009, 10:58 PM

Quote:

Insight

Prioritizing
Green: It’s The

Energy Stupid

*

An edited version of this Insight first appeared in the ASHRAE Journal.

By Joseph W. Lstiburek, Ph.D., P.Eng., Fellow
ASHRAE

* Credit to architect Edward Mazria; I think he said this first, if he didn’t
say it first he sure says it well.

Many “green” buildings don’t save energy (

see “MISLEED-

ING

” sidebar). Why? They have too much

glass, they are over-ventilated, they are leaky to air, they
are fraught with thermal bridges and they rely on
gimmicks and fads rather than physics.
Basically, the current green and sustainability craze can
be summed up as architects and engineers behaving
badly. The good news is that most of this nonsense
can be easily remedied when adults finally get
involved. The bad news is that the failures are
beginning to bubble to the surface and we are in
danger of ruining the “green brand.”

1

Before you can have a “green” building you need a
building first. Presumably this building needs to be
able to stand up, not be blown away in a hurricane,
not fall down in an earthquake, not burn, not leak
rainwater, not be moldy, not rot, not corrode and
otherwise be able to meet applicable building codes
such as having a basic provision for ventilation like
that specified by Standard 62.1.
So what’s with all these “green” programs providing
“points” for “durability” and “indoor air quality”? I
mean it’s pretty pathetic if we have to reward
architects and engineers when they provide details and
specifications that should be basic to fundamental

1

“Michael Zatz, manager of the commercial building program for Energy

Star, an EPA program to promote energy-efficient products and practices
. . . says Energy Star has a user-support line that gets calls from greenbuilding
owners and managers who are disappointed in their building’s
energy performance.” (4)

practice. If you design and install a controlled
ventilation system that meets Standard 62 you get
points. You get more points if you keep the rain out
and design the building to dry if it gets wet. And you
get still more points if the occupants are actually
comfortable. Aren’t these code requirements?
Shouldn’t these be “the standard of care”?
Have we architects and engineers sunk so low that we
now get points if we meet basic building
requirements that all buildings should meet in order
to be called buildings?
Green programs waste a lot of time and money on
stuff that is obvious and more time and money on
stuff that is irrelevant or unimportant.
How about focusing on stuff that is important? It’s
become “all about the points” and the important stuff
gets ignored. Chasing “green points” doesn’t get you
good buildings that are truly green. You can get a
Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design
(LEED) rating and not save any energy compared to
traditional buildings. How can that possibly be

green?

To read the full article:

Article

MALCO.New.York · 02-01-2009, 11:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by orson

To read the full article:
Article

Have we not, in the past, Pissed upon each others shoes concerning this topic???????

Brickie · 02-01-2009, 11:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MALCO.New.York

Have we not, in the past, Pissed upon each others shoes concerning this topic???????

Maybe, but it's still fun to piss on someones shoes some more

orson · 02-01-2009, 11:25 PM

Not really. You've made it clear that you are at odds with the green movement because you see it as more of companies trying to capitalize on a marketing opportunity.

I on the other hand, market my company as a green company because I firmly and honestly believe that we must change the way we build and live to diminish the ill effects humanity is having on our planet.

I have benefitted exactly $0 from doing so, and may well have actually hurt my company by marketing it as green (I live in an EXTREMELY conservative area). However, I believe in "green" as I view it, and remain committed to it.

Did you read the article? I would have thought you would applaud the author's discordant voice with the powers of green that be.

MALCO.New.York · 02-01-2009, 11:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by orson

I on the other hand, market my company as a green company because I firmly and honestly believe that we must change the way we build and live to diminish the ill effects humanity is having on our planet.

One-Thousand-Million-Percent POSITIVE!!!

It is the "Media Marketing/Branding" (and "Green" has nearly become a "Brand"!!!) that I take issue with!!!

POST SCRIPT:

.How could I NOT LIKE a Guy who includes ME in his Signature!!!! (even if he is bustin my Cajones!!)

MALCO.New.York · 02-01-2009, 11:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by orson

Did you read the article? I would have thought you would applaud the author's discordant voice with the powers of green that be.

.That was MY POINT!.

orson · 02-01-2009, 11:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MALCO.New.York

.That was MY POINT!.

Point Taken!!

SLSTech · 02-01-2009, 11:42 PM

I love the article, the only problem I see is that it needed to be written a few years earlier. LEED is getting to well entrenched & I am not sure they will be changing, or it will be harder for them to change. People concentrate to much on the word or the points - not the systems all put together. The concept is wonderful & basically common sense, its the execution of said concept thats wacked

MALCO.New.York · 02-01-2009, 11:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SLSTech

I love the article, the only problem I see is that it needed to be written a few years earlier. LEED is getting to well entrenched & I am not sure they will be changing, or it will be harder for them to change. People concentrate to much on the word or the points - not the systems all put together. The concept is wonderful & basically common sense, its the execution of said concept thats wacked

Has ALWAYS been my "Nay-Saying point"!!!!