The Future is Green

Green Remodeling Tips: Does Going Green Add Value to Your Home?

 

First of all, a big thank you to everyone who has bought a copy of my book, Practical Green Remodeling. As of a moment ago, Amazon.com's sales ranking show that it is

• #1 in Home & Garden > Sustainable Living>Energy Efficiency,
• and #2 in Home & Garden > How-to & Home Improvements > Remodeling & Renovation 

Here is another excerpt from the book (with a few new edits):

What’s my motivation for going green?

Funny you should ask. You have two choices, really. Do you want to be totally hard nosed and practical, and just do things that directly benefit your family? Or do you want to get all environmental and tree huggerish? Save the whales and so forth.

If you’re just in it for yourself, you can stick with things that make the house more comfortable and economical to run. Concentrate on cutting your monthly utility bills, and use more durable materials and construction methods so it will cost less to maintain.  And forget about the rest of the population; just worry about the people inside the house. Do things to reduce toxins and improve the indoor air quality - for purely selfish reasons.

Or, if you’re seriously determined to try and save the planet, you could go the other way entirely. Not be so selfish. Remodel in ways that cut energy use in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, reduce waste and conserve natural resources, and cut pollution. And vote with your wallet – refuse to buy materials and products that are environmentally harmful, or contain toxic compounds – which will drive down the price of those materials, to the benefit of everyone. In other words, you would make the house easier on the planet, more comfortable, more economical to operate, less expensive to maintain, better for your health, - for purely altruistic reasons.

What’s that you say? They both sound like exactly the same thing? Well, um, now that you mention it, yes, actually, they are. I have to admit, you’ve got a point there.

But what’s the payoff?

To answer that you have to ask yourself, what creates value? One of the first things homeowners want to know about any improvement is, will I it be a good investment? Will the added value justify the expense? But what is our standard for judging value? Is it just about how much the home will sell for?

Most home improvements do not add as much value to the house as they initially cost. A new kitchen that costs $50,000 typically adds less than $40,000 to the home’s resale value. On average, most renovations add anywhere from 65% to 85% of their cost to the home’s value.

So why do we do it? The answer for most people is that part of the value comes from the added enjoyment or functionality they get from the newly improved home. You might, for example, select a particularly attractive ceramic tile for your bathroom just because you like it, even though it costs more than a cheaper option that doesn’t turn you on. When you eventually sell the house, it is unlikely that your choice of tile will alter the price a buyer is willing to pay. But every day, when you walked into the bathroom it gave you pleasure. That’s worth something.

Adding a deck to the back of your house typically adds about 75% of its cost to the home’s value. But over the years you’ll spend many summer evenings relaxing on that deck, barbecuing, entertaining friends and family. The pleasure you get from having that deck means that, for you, it was money well spent.

But what about less tangible – or at least, less visible – improvements? If you install better ventilation and choose non-toxic materials that don’t endanger your family’s health, isn’t that worth something, even if the cost is slightly higher? What is the return on an investment that provides improved indoor air quality, reducing the likelihood that your children will suffer with allergies or asthma?

What if you have strong convictions about the environment? You might happily donate money to the World Wildlife Fund to help them fight deforestation in tropical rain forests. You don’t expect any return other than the knowledge that you helped a little bit. But you know that if enough people do the same, it will have a meaningful impact.

But what about spending a little more for sustainably harvested lumber? It won’t have any direct impact on your daily life. But as more people make that choice, it grows the market for sustainable lumber, which drives down the price. As the price goes down, illegal harvesting in rain forests, as well as other unsustainable forestry practices here and abroad, become less profitable, and a vital resource is preserved.

Weather any particular choice makes your home healthier to live in, or adds to your enjoyment of the house or your sense of pride in being a good citizen of Planet Earth, it is clear that not every decision you make is based on its value as an investment.

Still, in many ways, green remodeling is a sound financial investment. Investing in energy efficiency might cost a bit more up front, but you come out way ahead because the savings on your utility bills will be greater than the small increase in your mortgage payment. It is an investment that pays for itself – and then continues paying dividends as long as you own your home – and when you go to sell it. A growing body of evidence suggests that buyers are willing to pay more for energy-efficient green homes, and that such homes sell faster than nongreen homes.

As more people become aware of the benefits of living in healthy, energy-efficient homes, and as the cost of energy rises, it is very likely that those homes will sell at a significant premium, while energy hogs with poor indoor air quality will lose value.

 

 

Green Remodeling Tips: Checking for Air Leaks

 Over the next several weeks, I plan to offer a series of green remodeling tips drawn from my book, Practical Green Remodeling: Down-to-Earth Solutions for Everyday Homes.

Homes lose most of their heat through air movement. And most houses leak a lot of air. If you do nothing else to your home, the first and most important thing to do is to find air leaks and seal them with caulk, expanding foam or weather-stripping. This is the simplest, most cost-effective thing you can do to improve your home's energy efficiency.

Now that the weather is turning colder, you can find air leaks in your home with a simple test. On a day when it is 15 to 20 dregrees cooler outside than inside, close all doors and windows and turn on all exhaust fans (usually in bathrooms & kitchens). Then run a damp hand around your door and window frames. Any place you feel a draft, that's where you need to seal.

To pinpoint drafts more accurately, light a stick of incense and hold it close to a window or door. As you move it around, being careful not to set the drapes on fire, you will see from the movement of the smoke where you have drafts. You can also buy a non-toxic smoke-pen, a small device made especially for this purpose. Just Google "smoke pen" and you'll find several online sources.

If you see drafts around the outside of the frame, where the window trim meets the wall, you can easily seal that with a tube of caulk. (Use low-VOC caulk so that you’re not filling your house with potentially harmful fumes as you seal the leaks.

If you see air movement where the window sash meets the frame, you should consider replacing the jamb liners, or adding weather-stripping. This is a little more involved than caulking, but if you are patient and a little handy with tools you can probably do this yourself in an afternoon.

Other places to look for drafts are shown in the illustration below. For more detailed instructions visit the Energy Star web site here.

My new book, PRACTICAL GREEN REMODELING, (Taunton Press) is now in bookstores

I am pleased to announce that my new book, Practical Green Remodeling: Down-to-Earth Solutions for Everyday Homes, published by Taunton Press, is in bookstores nationwide as of today. You can also find it here on Amazon.com.

In the coming weeks I will be posting excerpts from the book, as well as tips for making any home healthier, more energy efficient, and easier on the environment - in short, greener.

Here is a brief excerpt from the introduction:

All across the country Americans are waking up to the realization that our planet is in trouble. Temperatures are rising, glaciers are melting, and changing weather patterns are starting to affect food production. Communities across the country and around the world are facing serious water shortages. Wildlife habitat and natural resources are being depleted at an alarming rate.

The scope of the problem seems so vast that we often wonder how anything we do as individuals can possibly make a difference. Yet single-family homes in the United States produce 21% of atmospheric carbon dioxide, the most prevalent greenhouse gas responsible for global warming. Our homes, at least, are something we, as individuals, do have the power to change.

Reducing energy consumption. Green remodeling offers an excellent opportunity to stop being part of the problem and to become part of the solution. Excessive energy consumption, and the negative environmental impacts associated with producing all that energy, can be dramatically reduced and you can save money on your utility bills into the bargain). Choices as simple and inexpensive as plugging air leaks or switching to more efficient light bulbs can have an enormous impact. And that’s just the beginning.

Reducing a home’s energy consumption by 25% to 40% or even more is not uncommon in green remodeling projects, and well within reach for most people. And today, the holy grail of net zero energy use is no longer a just dream but, for an increasing number of homeowners, a reality.

But there is more to green remodeling than just improving energy efficiency. Greener homes not only consume less fossil fuel, but they also make more efficient use of natural resources like water and lumber. They reduce waste, make innovative use of materials with recycled content, and extend the useful life of valuable resources that once would have ended up in a landfill.

Healthy homes. Going green also means making homes healthier. Americans spend, on average, 90% of their time indoors. For young children and senior citizens, the percentage is higher. But the air indoors is commonly two to five times as polluted as outdoor air--and much more than that in some homes. It is no coincidence that rates of asthma and allergies have skyrocketed in recent years.

Indoor pollutants are blamed for a vast array of symptoms including headaches, fatigue, dizziness, sore throats, eye irritation, nasal congestion, and rashes, among others. Exposure to toxins such as formaldehyde and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) that are contained in many kinds of building materials, furnishings, and finishes are among the prime culprits. In many homes, excessive moisture fosters the growth of mold and mildew, posing serious health risks. And even the cleaning products used every day in millions of homes can have negative impacts on health.

Finite resources. Unavoidably, the very act of building and remodeling homes uses up a lot of stuff: everything from lumber to steel to a wide range of building products derived from petroleum, such as paints, plastics, and floor and wall coverings. And lots of other things. But is there an infinite supply of these things? Obviously, there is not.

If the earth contains a finite amount of natural resources, which clearly it must, and each year we keep using up those resources faster than we did the year before, which we certainly are doing, that is not something that can be sustained indefinitely. So we are simply going to have to find ways to use less of things that cannot easily be replaced and to reuse as much that can’t as we can.

The scope of the problem seems so vast that we often wonder how anything we do as individuals can possibly make a difference. Yet single-family homes in the United States produce 21% of atmospheric carbon dioxide, the most prevalent greenhouse gas responsible for global warming. Our homes, at least, are something we, as individuals, do have the power to change.

 

Shedding light: New line of LEDs coming to Home Depot

As I have stated elsewhere, compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFLs for short), those spiral tubes that have become familiar, energy efficient substitutes for standard incandescent bulbs, represent a valuable, but transitory, step on the road to a cleaner, greener future.

CFLs will be around for years to come and, for many, offer substantial energy cost savings with quick payback periods. I still recommend them. But with a word of caution. CFLs contain small amounts of mercury, which means they must be recycled properly at the end of their useful life. But I have a hard time imagining that the majority of CFLs will actually find their way to appropriate recycling facilities, and worry that when large numbers of them start turning up in landfills mercury seeping into the ground will cause a major environmental headache.

The good news is that there is something better on the horizon. And that horizon is getting closer. Light emitting diodes, LEDs for short, are being used to produce a wide variety of lighting devices that many believe will come to dominate the lighting industry.

LEDs are more energy efficient that CFLs, contain no mercury, and last five times longer. They are also significantly more expensive. But even at current prices they offer a reasonable return on investment when you consider the energy cost savings and add up the number of standard replacement bulbs you would have had to buy over the course of an LED's 25,000 hour life span. (A typical incandescent bulb lasts about 1,000 hours; CFLs last 3 - 5,000 hours.)

Later this month, Home Depot will start selling the EcoSmart line of LED bulbs made by Lighting Science Group Corporation. The line includes devices designed to replace standard incandescent bulbs, as well as reflector floods - the type of bulb generally used in recessed lighting, and MR-16s - the tiny halogen bulbs used in many low-voltage lighting fixtures.

LEDs are an investment. If you are renting, or plan to move within two or three years, you are probably better off going with CFLs, which will pay for themselves in a matter of months. But if you plan to stay put for a while, LEDs have many advantages that may make the up front investment a wise choice.

Affordable Clean Energy Technology: China’s Sputnik

Dateline: 20,000 feet, somewhere over Michigan

At the outset, let me confess that I am, as I write this, doing just about the least green thing a person can do – flying. Yes, I did buy carbon offsets to ameliorate some of the environmental harm wrought by my round-trip flight to Denver. But it is increasingly hard to fly without anxiety over the outsize greenhouse gas emissions resulting from air travel. The fact that I am flying there to speak about energy efficiency at the Energy & Environmental Buildings Association conference does very little to relieve my sense of unease.

But that’s not really what I want to write about today.

Instead, I would direct your attention to Thomas Friedman’s Op-Ed piece in today’s NY Times. China, he argues in it, as he often has, is gearing up to make renewable energy technology the growth engine of its economy. In doing so, the Chinese will leapfrog America’s fledgling efforts in that field much as the Soviets left us in the dust (at least temporarily) by launching Sputnik in 1957. Unless we make massive investments in science, technology, education and infrastructure as we did upon entering the space race, he warns, we will find it difficult to catch up.

“China’s leaders, “Friedman writes, “mostly engineers, wasted little time debating global warming. They know the Tibetan glaciers that feed their major rivers are melting. But they also know that even if climate change were a hoax, the demand for clean, renewable power is going to soar as we add an estimated 2.5 billion people to the planet by 2050, many of whom will want to live high-energy lifestyles.”

Quoting Lester Brown, author of Plan B 4.0, (highly recommended, btw) he tells us that, while the US has been the world leader in wind generation to date, “by the end of this year China will bypass us on new wind generation so fast we won’t even see it go by.”

China’s embarkation on a path of clean power development and innovation, Friedman concludes, “is the Sputnik of our day. We ignore it at our peril.”

The full text of Friedman’s column can be found here. Definitely worth reading.

And please, next time you travel, buy carbon offsets. While being very far from the kind of investment in clean energy we need to make as a nation, it does help finance clean energy and carbon mitigation projects and it doesn't cost very much. CarbonFund.org and TerraPass.com are two excellent web sites that will help you calculate and offset your carbon footprint.

Consilience: The Blog and the Institute of Green Professionals

I would like to direct your attention to the newest addition to our list of blogs worth reading, Consilience: The Blog, published by the Institute of Green Professionals, who have kindly elected me to join the ranks of their members.

The IGP, in the words of its mission statement, ". . . is a transdisciplinary network of sustainable development professionals, academics and organizations that advance global sustainable development through education, credentialing, research, philanthropy and a Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct."

I feel privileged to be associated with this group of sustainability professionals and academics. Please visit their web site and check out Consillience: The Blog from time to time. You may even find the occasional post there by . . . well, modesty forbids.

Saving energy in your home: Payback periods for air sealing and insulation

I had a letter to the editor published in today's New York Times, commenting on a recent Op-Ed piece, "This Old Wasteful House," by Richard Moe, director of the National Trust for Historic Preservation.  In his article, Mr. Moe enumerated several compelling arguments for improving the energy efficiency of older homes.

"We need to reduce energy consumption and carbon emissions," he wrote. "We want to create jobs, and revitalize the neighborhoods where millions of Americans live. All of this could be accomplished by making older homes more energy-efficient."

My letter suggested another benefit of weatherizing older homes - namely that older homes are often located in traditional neighborhoods that are less automobile-dependent than newer subdivisions. It's brief, so I have reprinted it below.

As Richard Moe asserts, weatherization can greatly reduce energy consumption and carbon emissions.

Homes are responsible for 21 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States — and not only aging middle-class homes. I have observed energy audits of luxury homes built in the last 20 years that show serious deficiencies in thermal protection.

Air-sealing and insulation can pay for themselves in as little as two years, and continue to pay dividends in the form of lower fuel bills.

Another advantage of upgrading our aging housing stock is that unlike the vast tracts of suburban sprawl that characterize new residential construction, older homes are often located in compact, walkable communities.

Revitalizing such neighborhoods strengthens a pattern of development that is far less dependent on the automobile and is therefore more sustainable.

My assertion that weatherization can pay for itself in as little as two years prompted an email from a reader asking me to provide a URL that "explains/expands on/defends this comment." Here is my response.

Here are two. The calculations on the Dept. of Energy web site [the 2nd link] are for insulation only and do not take into account sealing air leaks. Insulation slows conductive heat loss. But more heat is lost through convection - air movement through numerous small gaps in a home's thermal envelope. The most effective method of saving energy is to first seal air leaks and then add insulation. Many homeowners can do the air sealing themselves at a very low cost, resulting in an even quicker payback.

Also, the Dept of Energy calculations, which show something like a 5.6 year payback, are based on a typical home built after the 1973 oil embargo, when insulation standards for new homes became more stringent. Richard Moe's article specifically addressed older homes, which are are more poorly insulated (if at all) and which are often extremely leaky. So the answer to the payback question will always depend on the age and condition of the home.

http://74.125.93.104/search?q=cache:dLLhzFcEo4kJ:www.homeworksenergy.com/Report1.doc+sealing+air+leaks+payback&cd=7&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

http://www.energysavers.gov/your_home/insulation_airsealing/index.cfm/mytopic=11360

Weatherizing older homes: a win-win-win stimulus that creates jobs, cuts carbon emissions, reduces energy consumption, and revitalizes neighborhoods

Richard Moe, president of the National Trust for Historic Preservation, in a piece titled, "This Old Wasteful House" (see below) on the Op-ed page of today's New York Times makes a strong case for the multiple benefits from weatherizing older homes: reducing energy consumption, cutting carbon emissions, revitalizing neighborhoods and creating jobs.

Homes are responsible for 21% of greenhouse gas emissions in the US.  And it's not only aging middle-class homes. I have observed energy audits of luxury homes built in the last 20 years that show serious deficiencies in thermal protection.  Air sealing and insulation can pay for themselves in as little as two years, and continue to pay dividends in the form of lower fuel bills, putting more cash in homeowners’ pockets.

There is yet another important advantage of upgrading our aging housing stock not addressed in Mr. Moe's Op-ed piece. Unlike the vast tracts of suburban sprawl that characterize much of new residential construction, older homes are often located in compact, walkable communities. Revitalizing such neighborhoods strengthens a pattern of development that is far less dependent on the automobile, and hence, more sustainable. It’s a win-win-win stimulus package.

This Old Wasteful House

by Richard Moe

NEVER before has America had so many compelling reasons to preserve the homes in its older residential neighborhoods. We need to reduce energy consumption and carbon emissions. We want to create jobs, and revitalize the neighborhoods where millions of Americans live. All of this could be accomplished by making older homes more energy-efficient.

Let’s begin with energy consumption and emissions. Forty-three percent of America’s carbon emissions come from heating, cooling, lighting and operating our buildings. Older homes are particularly wasteful: Homes built in 1939 or before use around 50 percent more energy per square foot than those constructed in 2000. But with significant improvements and retrofits, these structures could perform on a par with newer homes.

So how does a homeowner go green? The first step is an energy audit by a local utility. These audits can be obtained in many communities at little or no cost. They help identify the sources of heat loss, allowing homeowners to make informed decisions about how to reduce energy use in the most cost-effective way.

Homeowners are likely to discover that much of the energy loss comes down to a lack of insulation in attics and basements. Sealing other air leaks also helps. This can be done by installing dryer vent seals that open only when the dryer is in use, as well as fireplace draft stoppers and attic door covers.

Experience has shown that virtually any older or historic house can become more energy-efficient without losing its character. Restoring the original features of older houses — like porches, awnings and shutters — can maximize shade and insulation. Older wooden windows perform very well when properly weatherized — this includes caulking, insulation and weather stripping — and assisted by the addition of a good storm window. Weatherizing leaky windows in most cases is much cheaper than installing replacements.

The good news is that the administration is taking steps to help homes save energy with a program that will invest almost $8 billion in state and local weatherization and energy-efficiency efforts. The Weatherization Assistance Program, aimed at low-income families, will allow an average investment of up to $6,500 per home in energy efficiency upgrades.

My organization is also working with the Natural Resources Defense Council and members of Congress on legislation to help cover the costs of making all older homes more energy-efficient. Under this proposal, a homeowner would receive a $3,000 incentive for improving energy efficiency by 20 percent, and $150 for each additional percentage point of energy savings. If 3,000 homes could be retrofitted each year, we estimate that after 10 years we could see a reduction of 65 million metric tons of carbon emitted into the atmosphere, and the equivalent of 200 million barrels of oil saved.

The labor-intensive process of rehabilitating older buildings would also create jobs, and this labor can’t be shipped overseas. The wages would stay in the community, supporting local businesses and significantly increasing household incomes — just the kind of boost the American economy needs right now.

Before demolishing an old building to make way for a new one, consider the amount of energy required to manufacture, transport and assemble the pieces of that building. With the destruction of the building, all that energy is utterly wasted. Then think about the additional energy required for the demolition itself, not to mention for new construction. Preserving a building is the ultimate act of recycling.

Richard Moe is the president of the National Trust for Historic Preservation.

Green Cities in America: Guest blogger Daniel Pike, Mayor of Bellingham, WA

Photo: Paula Tullar

Bellingham, WA is one of the greenest cities in the United  States. Among numerous lists that have cited this city in northwest Washington as among the top five or ten green places to live, Forbes magazine has rated Bellingham the second greenest metropolitan area, and Country Home magazine rated it as the third greenest city. Whether it is first or third or twentieth, there is no question that this is a place where people take their responsibility for the environment seriously.

Today, I am pleased to welcome Bellingham's mayor, Daniel Pike as a guest blogger. I asked Dan to write about his city's green initiatives, its commitment to sustainability, and to what extent that has helped mitigate the current financial crisis. Here's what he had to say. Take it away, Dan. . . .

"Bellingham is a community of about 75,000 people tucked into the northwest corner of Washington State, itself tucked into the northwest corner of the continental United States. As a community, we share the challenges and joys common to most communities: tough finances, a rising unemployment rate, businesses struggling, but also a shared sense of place and connection with our neighbors. What makes us a little different from the mainstream, though, is our commitment to a triple bottom line, or TBL, approach to the issues before us. In Bellingham, the conversations are not about jobs versus the environment, rather the community talks about how to grow better. This is a community whose ethos receives notice from authors such as Bill McKibben and Paul Hawken, and that National Public Radio’s “Marketplace,” in its Nov. 15, 2008 broadcast, described Bellingham as “the epicenter of a new economic model for a post-consumerist economy: locally produced goods and services focused on what surrounding communities need and can sustain.”

Does this approach, does this ethos matter in an era where most economies, large and small, personal and communal, are deteriorating? I think so, though perhaps not for intuitive reasons. Bellingham is not being spared from economic pain because it strives to do right, as a community. However, we are working together well to deal with both the immediate crisis and longer term solutions.

We are, in fact, a community, not just a haphazard collection of souls sharing a living space.

Barry Katz on the Radio Friday March 20

This Friday, March 20, I will be a guest on the internet radio program, The Success Express to discuss Greening Your Business with hosts, Nancy & Lisa (editors of BigBlendMagazine) and special guest co-host Gerry Rose – President of Integrity Networking Solutions. 

The program airs from 3:00 PM to 4:30 PM. To listen, click here.

Other guests include, Daniel Sitarz – author of Greening Your Business: The Hands-On Guide to Creating a Successful & Sustainable Business; Leon Grundstein - GenCare Lifestyle in Seattle, WA; and Stephanie Dowling - The Westin Kierland Resort & Spa, Scottsdale, AZ.

If you can't listen at that time, you can listen to the archived program here.

Barry Katz speaking at Residential Design & Construction conference April 1

From the Department of Shameless Self-promotion: On April 1, 2009 yours truly will be speaking at Residential Design and Construction 2009, sponsored by the Boston Society of Architects.

My workshop, Residential High-performance Green Design and Construction (W-61) runs from 3:30 PM to 5:00 PM. I'll be talking about green design, materials, and construction methods for new and remodeled homes and will be showing photos of an award winning green home I built in Westport, CT, as well as images from my upcoming book, Practical Green Remodeling.

The conference, which takes place April 1 - 2 at Boston's Seaport World Trade Center, is a forum for nationally and internationally recognized industry leaders to share their knowledge and expertise in over 80 workshop and professional development opportunities. Anyone who wants to register can do so here.

Residential Design and Construction is a two-day convention and trade show featuring more than 220 product exhibits, 85 workshops, and special events focusing on New England’s residential design and construction industry. In the exhibit hall, attendees have the opportunity to examine the latest materials, pick up literature on new services and discover innovative technologies from more than 200 exhibitors.

Who Should Attend? 

RDC 2009 is for everyone in the residential-design community including:
architects | residential designers | engineers | interior designers | landscape architects | home builders | developers | subcontractors | specialty contractors | remodelers | renovators | specifiers | custom builders | marketing professionals |small-firm administrators | planners | public policy leaders | residential clients | urban designers | young professionals

AIA/CES Learning Units

Architects, interior designers, and other industry professionals may earn continuing-education credits by attending RDC 2009 workshops.

Department of Obfuscation: Misinformation on green building techniques in the NY Times

A recent article in The New York Times is a good example of how misinformation gets disseminated. Citing a report from NAIOP, the Commercial Real Estate Development Association, the article gives the impression that cost savings from green building are not as readily achievable as advocates maintain.

As pointed out by Edward Mazria of Architecture 2030, this report is part of a disinformation campaign meant to stall efforts by the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee on improving building energy code standards. According to Mazria, in a blog post entitled, A Hog in a Tuxedo is Still a Hog, “It is clear from a simple analysis of the study that NAIOP commissioned a building energy efficiency analysis to support predetermined results.” Mazria continues,

"They contracted with ConSol, an energy-modeling firm, and asked them to analyze five (yes, only five) efficiency measures for an imaginary, square-shaped, four-story office building with completely sealed windows and an equal amount of un-shaded glass on all four sides of the building. In other words, analyze an energy Hog.
 
“They did not study changing the shape of the building, its orientation or form, or redistributing windows or using different windows to take advantage of natural light for daylighting or sunlight for heating (office buildings are day-use facilities). They did not study shading the glass in summertime to reduce the need for air-conditioning, using operable windows for ventilation (not even in Newport Beach with its beautiful year-round climate), using landscaping to reduce micro-climatic impacts, employing cost-effective solar hot water heating systems, employing an energy management control system or even study the impact of using inexpensive energy-saving occupancy sensors in rooms to turn off lights.

“In other words, NAIOP intentionally kept out of the analysis all the readily available low-cost, no-cost and cost-saving options to reduce a building's energy consumption. This deliberate omission is glaringly apparent in their press release and in the NY Times article. In fact, they take so many inexpensive, energy-saving options off the table that it is impossible for the imaginary building to reach commonly achievable energy-consumption-reduction targets.

They then add an inflammatory headline to their press release, “Results show efficiencies unable to reach 30 percent mandates”, and state that, “The study provides an unbiased insight into the energy targets practical to commercial development today.”

Using this analysis as their baseline, NAIOP goes on to report, without any objective basis, that “reaching a 30 percent reduction above the ASHRAE standard (a commercial building energy code standard) is not feasible using common design approaches and would exceed a 10-year payback.” They conclude, “achieving a 50 percent reduction above the standard is not currently reachable.”

Clearly, this study is meant to confuse the public and stall meaningful legislation, insuring that America remains dependent on foreign oil, natural gas and dirty conventional coal.

NAIOP touts itself as advancing responsible commercial real estate development and advocating for effective public policy. This study and misleading campaign accomplishes none of these goals.

The American public deserves better.

How much less does it cost to build green? Part II

I am always frustrated when people ask me how much more it costs to build green. I tell them it's the wrong question to ask. The appropriate question is, how much less does it cost? 

It is a mistake to look only at first costs when considering the budget for a building or remodeling project, because operating costs, over the life-span of a building, can be two to three times the original cost of construction. So green upgrades that increase energy efficiency and reduce maintenance costs quickly pay for themselves and then continue to pay dividends for the life of the building. And that's not even taking into account the documented increases in productivity among workers in green buildings. That's a topic for another post.

I wrote about this last month in a piece called How much less does it cost to build green? Today I want to expand on that topic with some excerpts from an article entitled Valuing Green Buildings, by my friend, Constantine Valhouli, of the Hammersmith Group. It was originally published in Urban Land magazine, a publication of the Urban Land Institute. You can find the complete article here.

Do green buildings present a competitive advantage that can translate into lease premiums, reduced risk, and increased renewal rates? Given that buildings account for one-third of all energy and water consumed in the United States, there is increased interest in “going green” as energy prices continue to rise. The benefits of sustainable structures range from quantifiable energy and water savings—to the “brand” benefits brought about by actual stewardship of  environmental resources.

“There is a strong business case for high-performance buildings,” maintains Brenna S. Walraven, executive managing director of San Antonio, Texas–based USAA Real Estate and chair of the Building Owners and Managers Association International (BOMA). Previously, green features were considered primarily on the basis that ‘if it’s good for our image, it’s good for marketing.’ Now there is greater awareness—and better documentation—of the financial benefits of high performance buildings.”

Energy-efficient and water efficient features can increase a building’s value by lowering operating costs. High-performance buildings can generate a 7 to 12 percent increase in net operating income (NOI) by reducing operating costs, notes Dennis Fleming, managing director of Revival Funds, a Denver-based firm that funds sustainable real estate investments.

Green buildings use on average 30 percent less energy than conventional buildings, points out Greg Kats, managing director of Good Energies, a venture fund focused on renewable energies based in Manhattan. If energy costs run, say, $2 per square foot, this becomes a savings of $0.60 per square foot. For a 100,000-square-foot building, this represents energy and water savings of $60,000 annually. With a 20-year present value of expected energy savings at a 5 percent cap rate, this savings adds roughly $750,000 to the value of the building—all for a small additional investment in the initial costs. As interest rates and energy prices rise, these benefits become even more pronounced—and green buildings become even more valuable.

“Energy-efficiency has helped drive value for our portfolio,” says Walraven. By using Energy Star’s tools and ratings that normalize building efficiency for factors such as weather, occupancy, and building characteristics, Walraven explains that it was possible to identify low-cost opportunities to increase operating efficiencies for USAA Real Estate’s portfolio properties.

The result, she says, is that implementing the recommendations from the energy audit generated $10 million in savings on capital expenditures of $2 million.

That's not a bad rate of return in any economy.

It's time for NAHB to get serious about climate change

I have a love/hate relationship with the National Association of Home Builders. As a longtime member of NAHB I appreciate many of the services they provide, including their tireless advocacy in Washington. But I've occasionally felt some of their positions were wrong-headed - attempting to protect home builders from regulations that would benefit home buyers.

Case in point - about which I am quietly fuming: While the NAHB pays a great deal of lip service to improving energy efficiency in homes, at the 2008 hearings of the International Code Council in Minneapolis, NAHB successfully lobbied for the weakening of proposed new energy standards under the International Energy Conservation Code (IECC).

According to the blog, Green Building Advisor, the so-called the so-called Thirty Percent Solution — which would have required homes built in 2009 to be 30% more energy efficient that homes built in 2006 —  was defeated after vigorous opposition from representatives from the NAHB. The Thirty Percent Solution was supported by a wide coalition of organizations, including the U.S. Department of Energy, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the National Association of State Energy Officials and the Energy Efficient Codes Coalition.

The weakened regulations that were finally passed only require a 12.2% improvement in energy efficiency. The results will be still less effective becauseu the IECC codes are only sporadically enforced around the country.

I think it's an outrage. When are we going to get serious about fighting climate change?

How much less does it cost to build green?

The one question I am asked more often than any other on the subject of green building is, How much more does it cost? For a long time I cited various statistics indicating premiums in the range of 2.5% to 5% or so. But a while ago it dawned on me that this was actually misleading. My new response is that "how much more" is the wrong question. The appropriate question is, How much less does it cost?

Thinking only in terms of first costs is extremely short-sighted. What you really want to know about is the life-cycle cost. Over a building's useful life, the cost of operations and maintenance can easily equal or exceed the original construction cost. Building green, or carrying out green retrofits, nets substantial reductions in energy use, water use, waste water disposal, solid waste disposal, and maintenance, generally resulting in relatively short pay-back periods and high returns on investment.

An excellent case in point is the retrofit of Adobe System's headquarters in San Jose, CA. The cost of the retrofit was $1.4 million. Of that amount, $389,000 was offset by grants and rebates from the city, state, and local utilities. And while Adobe's staff grew by 35% since 2001, their electricity consumption is down 35%, natural gas use is down 41%, potable water consumption dropped 22% and their landscape irrigation consumes 75% less water than before. All this is netting Adobe an annual cost savings of $1.2 million and earned the project LEED-Platinum certification.

But this kind of financial return still only tells part of the story. Green workplaces have been shown to improve productivity and reduce absenteeism. For most businesses, savings on operating costs for office buildings pale in comparison to productivity increases because salaries typically run five to six times higher than all other costs combined, so even small increases in productivity have a big impact on the bottom line.

In a future post I will go into more detail about research documenting improved worker productivity in green offices. It's pretty interesting stuff. But for the moment, a few statistics will paint the picture in broad strokes.

A study published by Deloitte & Touche reports that in a survey of organizations that had carried out LEED-certified green retrofits,  87% saw an improvement in workforce productivity, 75% saw an improvement in employee health, and 73% reported that they had achieved cost reductions as a result of implementing green measures. Respondents also reported substantial reductions in energy costs and higher apprasial values.

Other recent studies of green buildings have documented higher occupancy rates, higher rents, and sales premiums as high as $171 per square foot as compared with comparable properties with standard construction. 

So, how much less does it cost to build green, anyway?

Expletives deleted

My new friends, Ryan Potvin and Matt Macko of Environmental Building Strategies in San Francisco have been getting some flack about an article entitled Top 100 ways to Continue Fucking the Future. that appeared in their excellent blog on January 5. The article was about their desire to write a book listing all the things we routinely do that have negative environmental impacts.

The flack was not about the concept or the content of the piece, but merely about the title's use of the dreaded F word. People, grow up, please.

The idea was to grab readers' attention with a provocative title, a subversive twist on the hundred or so books with titles like "101 Easy Ways to Go Green," or some such nonsense,  and then hold up a mirror wherein they'll catch the conscience of the king, so to speak. I often wonder what it will take to wake people up to the very real dangers bearing down on us. It a four-letter expletive helps, well then full speed ahead and damn the torpedoes, I say. When the book comes out I will be first in line to buy a copy so I hope they make good on their threat to actually write it.

Their blog is full of information and insight and I recommend checking it out. In their day job, Matt and Ryan are top-notch green building advisers with offices in San Francisco, LA and Aspen, CO. Anyone looking in their neck of the woods for green building advice, energy audits, project management, etc. should definitely look them up. All their contact information can be found on the Environmental Building Strategies web site along with all sorts of useful information. 

This New Old Green House

This New Old Green House is the title of the cover story I wrote for the January issue of Period Homes magazine. It tells the story of how I turned green, and of an award-winning high-performance green home I built in Westport, Connecticut.

You can read the story on my web site  or download a PDF of it here: Download Period Homes article - Jan. 2009

Biomimicry - self-cleaning paint, color without pigment, solar cells that mimic photosynthesis

On the last day of Green-Build 2008, in Boston last month, I attended a remarkable talk by Janine Benyus, author of the book, "Biomimicry." What fascinates Benyus is the ways nature accomplishes things that can only be duplicated by complicated industrial processes. Her web site, www.asknature.org provides numerous examples of how mimicking nature can solve various problems more simply and easily, and with a lot less effort, expense, and environmental harm. According to Benyus,

"Biomimicry (from bios, meaning life, and mimesis, meaning to imitate) is a design discipline that seeks sustainable solutions by emulating nature’s time-tested patterns and strategies, e.g., a solar cell inspired by a leaf.  The core idea is that Nature, imaginative by necessity, has already solved many of the problems we are grappling with: energy, food production, climate control, non-toxic chemistry, transportation, packaging, and a whole lot more."

Examples of practical applications of biomimicry include self-cleaning paints that mimic the way water rolls off a lotus leaf, solar cells that mimic photosynthesis, and fabrics that are colored by mimicking the way a butterfly's wing refracts light. Many more examples can be seen at www.asknature.org, which over and over again asks the question, "How would nature solve . . . ?" Some of the answers are truly amazing.

The talk Benyus gave (see below) at the 2007 TED conference (Technology, Entertainment, Design - always worth a look) is fascinating and beautiful to look at. Carve 18 minutes out of your day and enjoy. It will be time well spent.