LIVE image
By the end of Greenbuild, I was exhausted/troubled/elated with all sorts of conundrums swirling around in my head — not to mention a few partly written blogs, abandoned in favor of the next conversation... ... I had wanted to write about the 'executive roundtable' that happened that Wednesday — and responses to the twitter-submitted question "what single thing would have to change to make buildings actually regenerative?" (as in, way past 'less damaging' — past neutrality, even). I was encouraged to hear the execs express what I see as core issues (summarized and/or quoted below — no, I didn't record who said what):
  • Waste and consumption is ridiculously cheap. If energy costs go up to the tune of $150/barrel for oil (or on-site renewables became radically cheaper), and/or if a cost is attached to emissions (not just air — also sewer and solid waste), we could get there.
  • Our financial accounting systematically discounts the future. "We're trapped in a paradigm of net present value (NPV) — one of the worst tools known to man.... We need a new tool — 'Net Future Value'... and to start to reconceptualize buildings to see them as multigenerational assets."
  • Corporations have to focus on shareholder's financial return above all else. Yes, the technology is there to do zero energy buildings but "for a profit making business with shareholders expecting a return they cannot generally be duplicated over and over."
On the last point, the phrasing I found interesting — because later they were asked how to tell green from greenwash — and one of them said "you'll know a business has credibility when they stop talking about one-off projects and demonstrate [that performance] across the board." I put these two quotes together, out of context, because what I think it points to is that if we're really going to take green to the scale that is needed, we can't kid ourselves that we can do it all within the current economic rules-of-the-game that stack the deck against stewardship and the future. (Don't get me wrong, the Green Building movement is doing an incredible job within this context, but that doesn't mean the system works — rather, it's a testament to the smarts, creativity, passion, and perseverance of folks making change despite an imperfect market designed to thwart their best efforts). At another session, the speaker reminded us that our economic system is a social construct — it's a story we've created, and we can revise that story. Let's not forget that, because ultimately if we don't find a way to align individual and corporate financial success with the wellbeing of future generations and the environment, we'll find ourselves without either.

If you enjoyed this article, sign up for BuildingGreen email updates

*

Comments

1 This commentary gets to the h posted by HalLevin on 11/30/2009 at 11:18 pm

This commentary gets to the heart of the matter. But beyond economic(monetary) accounting, there is also a need to assess the non-economic qualities of a building - is it aesthetically pleasing, user friendly, and easily maintainable to ensure a long life? Does it enhance the local environment or, at least, avoid unnecessary and excessive harm? Is it safe for the intended occupants? These and all sorts of other characteristics of "green" buildings are considered in LEED and other building design and/or performance rating systems, and the certification is an effort to recognize and reward some of these features. But the trade-offs between the qualities rewarded by green building ratings and certifications and the economic (monetary) values, whether "net present value" or "net future value" still wants us to reduce everything to economic (monetary) terms. I keep putting "monetary" in parentheses after "economic" because economy in the most basic sense is far broader than the monetary accounting system. Creating "net future value" accounting is a good idea but is also falling into the monetary accounting trap. To illustrate, the value of commuting convenience, for example, of a walk or short public transit ride to work rather than a long, single-occupancy vehicle commute on polluted, congested roads is more than the monetary cost of the alternative trips. It is fundamentally about time, health, pleasure, and comfort, none of which are accounted for adequately in monetary systems. Similarly, a building that works well now for the occupants and the operators and that everyone likes enough to want to take good care of and continue to use indefinitely most likely will have qualities that will not be adequately evaluated by a monetary accounting system.

2 Nice and concise reporting an posted by Chris Moline, LEED AP on 01/02/2010 at 06:40 am

Nice and concise reporting and rumination. Thanks for the info.


— Share This Posting!

Recent Discussions

posted by ccnyIP
on May 20, 2015

I Have been in construction for many years and am now finishing my degree in mechanical engineering. I am truly amazed at reviews of many things...

posted by pmelton
on Apr 30, 2015

Here's a quick explanation of what a hygrothermal...

posted by pmelton
on Apr 29, 2015

John, I'm sorry to hear about your troubles. Based on my conversation with Peter Yost, our resident building scientist, it sounds like you've...

Recent Comments


The Building Envelope: Our Third Skin

Robert Riversong says, "I helped mix and install wood-chip clay-slip in a double-wall envelope, and it was done thoughtfully with a mixture of aggregate sizes, including..." More...

steven case says, "Hi Tristan I was wondering if you new or now of anyone that is living in a house of clay chip. I would be interested in speaking with them...." More...

Tristan Roberts says, "Hi Steven, the material you are referring to is usually called light clay, or sometimes Leichtlehm, from the German. It can be made with straw or..." More...

steven case says, "I just finished a class about clay and wood chip infill for walls have you ever done any testing or an article about them. All the oldest homes still..." More...


What Is a Hygrothermal Building Assessment?

Robert Riversong says, "As all water transport mechanisms and driving forces other than gravity are bi-directional (water is indifferent to which way it moves), there are..." More...