Why Should We Build Green?

I was doing some “green” research like I do for way too many hours of the day. I spend more time on the internet than some people are awake. Ok maybe not that many but its close. But hey I always say you can learn more on the internet then you can in school.

Back to the topic, I came across some great info on building green on the Global Green USA website.

Did you know?

Typical building construction, use, and demolition, as well as the manufacturing of building materials, contribute significantly to environmental problems. In the United States, buildings account for:

• 36% of total energy use
• 65% of electricity consumption
• 30% of greenhouse gas emissions
• 30% of raw materials use
• 30% of waste output (equal to 136 million tons annually)
• 12% of potable water consumption

Try this one on for size:

A typical 1700 sq. ft wood frame home requires the equivalent of clear cutting one-acre of forest.

Despite all these intensive inputs, we are not constructing healthy buildings. More than 30% of buildings in the US have poor indoor air quality, a serious problem given that most people spend about 90% of their time indoors. A 1990 study by the American Medical Association and the U.S. Army found that indoor air quality problems cost U.S. businesses 150 million workdays and about $15 billion in productivity losses each year. The World Health Organization puts the losses at close to $60 billion.

By the year 2010, another 38 million buildings are expected to be constructed in the US, bringing our country’s total to over 100 million. The challenge is to build those new buildings, and renovate the older ones, in ways that reverse these unhealthy trends. Fortunately, there are ways we – as consumers, designers, builders and product manufacturers – can respond to this challenge. By building green, we can assist in preserving natural habitats, watersheds, and ecosystems, protect air and water quality, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and solid waste, all while conserving natural resources and creating healthier indoor and outdoor environments.

Green building also has tangible economic and public health benefits. These include lower operating costs via reduced energy and water utility bills, and reduced maintenance and replacement costs due to greater durability of materials. The use of non-toxic materials in residential construction is especially important in protecting children from respiratory and other diseases.

In commercial settings, green building results in improved occupant health and comfort (primarily due to indoor air quality measures and daylighting) which in turn leads to higher productivity, less absenteeism, and reduced insurance costs and liability risk.

On the hierarchy of human needs, shelter is second only to food. Everyone wants a place to live. One of the best and easiest ways to lessen the impact on the planet of fulfilling that need is to build environmentally-sound structures. Not only can we improve the global environment, building green can improve your local environment.

Via Global Green USA.

THE GGG VIEW

Green Building is one of my favorite parts of the “green movement”. If you recall we talked about Green Building in Spain and in California. I would love to see more states adopt stricter green building standards because the harder we push, the more results we are going to see.

So Why Should We Build Green?
Building Green not only helps the environment but it helps the home or business owners as well. Personally I would love seeing my electric bill around $25 a month and that is possible today. Whether you invest in solar, wind power or whatever, the bottom line is that it will pay off in the long run. The sun or wind isn’t going away anytime soon and if it does we are going to have much bigger problems than electricity bills.

Update: CA Entroduces Green Building Standards

In our last post regarding the new California Green building standards, we said…

Also this code is also just a minimum level meaning counties can require new buildings to be even more energy efficient.

We dug into this little a deeper and found this video on youtube. Looks like San Francisco is going to push the Green Building envelope even further in the next couple years. The goal of these codes is not hinder construction but to build “greener” in order to attract bussiness.

CA Entroduces Green Building Standards

This one is from my neck of the woods, Sacramento, California. Yesterday, California became the first state in the US to approve green building standards.

“The plan, adopted by the California Building Standards Commission, requires that all new construction – from commercial buildings to homes, schools and hospitals – reduce energy usage by 15 percent, water use by 20 percent and water for landscaping by 50 percent. A voluntary form of the code is scheduled to kick in on July 1, 2009.”

The code for right now is voluntary but the CBSC is working on making it mandatory by the end of 2010. There are no regulations on how builders can make these reductions so you know builders are going to get creative, in a good way I hope. This new code/law is another step towards California’s very ambitious goal (AB32) of reducing the state’s greenhouse gas emissions 30% within the next 12 years. For those unfamiliar with AB32, you can read up on it here.

Original news article via SF Gate.

THE GGG VIEW

I have a feeling that this code could swing construction either way. On one side the code could finally push construction companies to stop wasting materials and really pay attention to reducing energy usage. On the other side it could force construction companies to cut corners elsewhere in order to meet the green building standards. Due to the fact that “green” building materials costs more than non “green” materials. The same goes for Energy Star or energy efficient appliances, they will cost you more up front but will save you more over the long run. Though after doing a little research on the energystar website I found that if you purchase an Energy Star Qualified home that you qualify for special Energy Star Financing availble through special lendors. I do not know what the special financing entails but it is something to look into.

I would like to see this code push builders to create even more energy efficient homes/buildings then is required. Maybe California will be the next place you see one of these babies. Also this code is also just a minimum level meaning counties can require new buildings to be even more energy efficient.

There’s More Wind Than Rocks in Rock Port

Welcome to Rock Port, Missouri but don’t let the name fool you, they are known more for their wind than their rocks. On Wednesday, Rock Port announced that it is first 100% wind powered community in the United States.

What does 100% wind power actually mean?
It means all the power that the community of 1,300 residents uses comes from that wonderful natural resource you can,t see, the wind. The four huge, I mean these things are gigantic, wind turbines actually produce more electricity than the town uses. And there are plans in the future to send that excess electricity to other areas.

Not only do the turbines provide electricity for the residents but they can also make them money. Residents can make anywhere from $3,000 to $5,000 by leasing part of their property for wind turbines. For those of us in Northern California, when was the last time SMUD or PGE paid you for anything? Never last time I checked (Unless you are selling power back to them).

And to top it all off, the huge turbines are attracting visitors from all over providing some tourism revenue to the small town.

Original Post Via Science Daily

The GGG View

Lets list off some pros here:

• Town using 100% renewable energy
• Using excess energy to power other areas
• Residents making money by leasing land for wind turbines
• Turbines generating additional tourism revenue for town

Cons:

• None other than having to stare at those turbines everyday.

Windmills have been around since like the first century. It is kind of sad that it has taken like 2000 years for the first town in the US to be 100% wind powered. But hey better now than never so I give credit to Rock Port and the state of Missouri.

Now not every city in the US can be powered by wind because there are some places where is simply no wind at all. However I feel that we (the US) should take more advantage of wind power in places where it is possible. It seems that I am not the only one feeling that way as the US Department of Energy wants 20% of US electricity to be produced via wind by 2030. We have a long way to go as our current percentage stands at 0.5%. While other counties like Denmark and Spain have 20% and 9% of their electricity produced by wind respectively.