$20 a Gallon

April 18, 2010 · Posted in Opinion · Comment 

I just finished reading $20 a Gallon: How the Inevitable Rise in the Price of Gasoline Will Change Our Lives for the Better by Christopher Steiner. It discusses the changes that will occur in the economy and society as energy (not just petroleum) gets more expensive. The end of SUVs, Mcmansions and air travel seems obvious. Expensive energy also means greater population density, healthier people and more small farms. Some remote towns will die, but others will surge with life. Americans will manufacture products again. We’ll create less garbage, and when we do buy stuff, it will be made of bio-based materials. We’ll wear natural fibers from nearby sources. Exurbs will wither, while dense urban communities will thrive. Many of these developments are poised for rapid growth. The technology is ready. The main obstacle is artificially cheap energy. While none of these are earth-shattering revelations to us greenies, Christopher tells a good story and weaves in many interesting facts to support the theme. If he’s right, we’re on the right track, folks!

Tags: , ,

Time to support Energy Performance Score

March 2, 2010 · Posted in Opinion, Real Estate · 1 Comment 

Every car has one. Every appliance has one. Why don’t houses have one? I’m talking about an energy rating. For decades, the biggest energy consuming products have been required to meet energy standards and to display some form of energy use in plain sight.

Consumers need the skinny to make informed choices. Ignorance is the enemy of a free market.

I wrote about one such rating system several weeks ago, called Energy Performance Score (EPS). Energy nerds across the nation are buzzing with the possibilities. Professional conferences, such as RESNET, have dedicated a large portion of their agendas to the topic. The State of Oregon recently passed legislation (SB 79) that established a working group to figure out how to implement the idea. The City of Seattle is running a pilot program that will assign EPSs to about 5,000 homes. Cities and states across the nation are jumping on the bandwagon.

The idea recently made it through the first round of a competition on Change.org and has now moved to the final phase. The winning idea gets an audience with the White House. This kind of exposure is just what the concept needs to make a real difference. If you would like to see energy ratings for houses, please vote for We Must Change Energy Behavior – An MPG Rating for Your Home.

Tags: no tags

Building hypocrisy in the Malibu hills

February 24, 2010 · Posted in Construction, Opinion, Real Estate · 2 Comments 

Less is more for green building. It must be defined only in terms of using less energy, less water, less material and causing less harm to the ecological processes that support life. I’m appalled that yet another mega-rich celebrity is using “green” to wash away the grime of over consumption.

David Evans, also called The Edge and guitarist for U2 hopes to develop 156 acres overlooking the Pacific coast near Malibu, California. I respect the work that celebrities do for good causes, and I suppose that Mr. Evans has done his share of good deeds. Let’s take nothing away from other accomplishments. Instead, let’s focus on how this particular project reeks of excess.

Mr. Evans’ plans to build five homes on a bluff overlooking the ocean using “every imaginable green building technique”, according a New York Times story. The homes would range in size from 7,000 to 12,000 square feet. Whoa!

I can’t disparage his motives. Let’s assume that Mr Evans’ simply needs some help understanding that “green” isn’t about shiny stuff. Mr. Evans can demonstrate his sincerity by focusing his attention on the outcome not the technology. All five of his houses should meet a few simple goals: net zero energy, net zero water, completely healthy, beneficial to local habitat and certified by an independent third party. I could add more requirements, but I think those five elements should keep him busy enough.

Let’s assume that Mr. Evans is able to meet all four goals and get the house certified. That leaves only a fundamental hypocrisy. He claims he wants to “inspire” others to create a “benchmark of sustainability.” I get it.  A world of eager green acolytes will gaze on this accomplishment and dedicate themselves to building their own multi-million dollar monuments to conspicuous consumption. Let’s see, the land alone cost $9 million, which is more than I would make in… 12 LIFETIMES. And they haven’t even started pushing dirt.

To assert that anyone, but rock stars, investment bankers and mega-millionaires will be able to follow this example is absurd and insulting. It’s bad enough to salve one’s own conscience with green consumption, but it’s contemptuous to say it somehow serves society. I’m sick of rich people claiming that the only reason they build monstrous green houses is to show the rest of us how to do it. If these folks really want to be examples for the huddled masses (who made them rich to begin with), then they should use their money and all their talent to create a truly sustainable home with no more than 500 square feet for each permanent resident. If they need help, I’m happy to offer my thoughts on how to accomplish green development with true elegance.

No matter how many shiny gadgets Mr Evans puts in these small houses, there will be lots of money left over. With that, they could build thousands of truly green houses in Haiti or Africa or New Orleans. David Evans is only the current poster child for this behavior. It happens in every town and to varying degrees. Generally speaking, this kind of greenwashing is unintentional. These folks just don’t get it. Even if Marie Antoinette didn’t really say it, the sentiment applies: “If they don’t have bread, let them eat cake!”

Tags: no tags