Green Building & Environmental Trends : Green Building & Construction LEED AP Consulting : Rich Cartlidge : Environmental Trends, Urban Development

Image: Socketsite

Recently here at GBET we have been discussing green building and the economy and more specifically green building and ROI. As an advisory board member of Build2Sustain I am very hopeful that green building will continue to prosper through increased transparency. A recent article posted on Reuters and published by GreenBiz focuses on a report released by Rob Watson. The report makes several interesting findings which if accurate are truly exciting and emphasize the need for attorneys, contractors, and developers to begin participating in green projects before they are left behind. Among the key findings of the report:

The estimate of reduced vehicle miles traveled (VMT) has grown to 780 million VMT to date versus 400 million in 2008. By 2030, the annual gasoline savings are expected to equal current U.S. imports from the Middle East.

• Total water savings from LEED through 2009 is estimated at 15 billion gallons, comprising 0.5% of annual non-residential water use. By 2030, LEED results in nearly 1.3 trillion gallons of saved water, equivalent to 30% of current annual non-residential water use.

• Annual carbon dioxide savings from LEED buildings is approximately 2.9 million tons from energy efficiency and renewables, a figure that is expected to grow to 130 million tons per year by 2020 and almost 320 million tons annually by 2030.

• Based on average materials costs, green building materials represented approximately $7 billion in cumulative spending through 2009, which is expected to reach a cumulative $230 billion by 2030. Moreover, the embodied energy in buildings that are renovated instead of demolished is expected to save as much energy in 2030 as we import this year from Saudi Arabia. In addition, an average of over 60% of construction and demolition waste was diverted from LEED projects, totaling 25 million tons to date.

• An average of at least 580,000 employees are currently enjoying improved indoor environments in LEED buildings at present, and the "green building workforce" is expected to approach 29 million by 2020 and almost 64 million by 2030. The productivity benefits from LEED buildings to date range from $230 to $450 million.

 

As the United States continues to participate in climate change discussions and to contemplate implementing a carbon trading system through legislative efforts in Washington the estimated carbon dioxide savings from a green building could become even more important in the future. If you are not currently participating in green projects I encourage you to do so. Further, if you are afraid of participating in green projects I would love to hear your reasons.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Today Rob Watson, the father of LEED, replied to my post When LEED Falls Short regarding Dartmouth College's poorly performing LEED certified buildings on his site. Rob had some interesting comments regarding my post such as:

What is striking about this comment and about the (albeit pained) tenor of the blog piece is that LEED is to blame! Forget the architect, forget the engineers, forget the contractors . . . LEED is to blame. I guess it's sort of like, "My bank account can't be overdrawn, I still have checks left!"

The other area where LEED and ASHRAE didn't do very well in the early years was in plug loads, which were essentially excluded from the standards. We are now dealing with a modern campus that is totally wired with 17-inch plasma screens and energy-chewing high-def video games on top of the requisite ear-splitting stereo systems, etc. In all likelihood, none of this was taken into account in Dartmouth's energy modeling.

And let's be frank: Most (not all) energy modeling in the U.S. still sucks. The models themselves are not very good. No one has put much money into developing them or recalibrating the algorithms based on actual detailed building performance measurement.

As its founder I fully understand Mr. Watson's need to defend LEED and to shift the blame for poorly performing buildings to other causes such as poor energy modeling. However, I stand firm in my conviction that LEED is in some ways still to blame. Lets not forget that LEED has requirements for energy modeling! If these energy models are so failed as Mr. Watson claims they are then why isn't LEED and the USGBC doing something to develop a better modeling system? LEED is supposed to serve as a leader in making the buildings of tomorrow more sustainable (a goal which I fully support and the reason I became a LEED AP). I suggest LEED and the USGBC start investing in developing a energy model that accounts for the loads placed on buildings in today's high tech world.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (3)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link