The Cost of Building Green

(Source: AIA - American Institute of Architects, March 31, 2009)

When "Green Construction" is discussed the focus inevitably turns to cost. How much additional will the green project cost? Some organizations are opposed to any additional first costs while others have some tolerance for additional expenditures.

The most prominent standard for green buildings is the USGBC (US Green Building Council). The USGBC LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) program has four levels of green certification: Certified, Silver, Gold and Platinum. These levels represent increasing levels of sustainability. There have been numerous studies aimed at comparing the cost of a USGBC LEED certified building to traditional designs. The average additional cost quoted is in the range of 2% to 5%. Based upon commercial building costs of $150/sq.ft. to $250/sq.ft., this is equivalent to a $7.50 to $12.50/sq.ft. premium for building green. The majority of this cost is due to the increased architectural and engineering design time necessary to integrate sustainable building practices into the projects. Another additional cost is for commissioning. Commissioning is the process of ensuring that the systems are designed, installed, functionally tested and capable of being operated and maintained to conform to the design intent. According to Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory commissioning can save as much as 40% of the buildings utility bills for HVAC.

As more buildings are being designed to address the green initiatives the additional design as well as construction cost is decreasing.

Now let's examine the advantages of owning a "green" building. The obvious advantage is the reduced impact on the environment through waste recycling, reduced water and energy consumption, and better indoor air quality by reducing VOCs. In addition to these environmental advantages there are marketing and tenant retention benefits to owning a green building. Organizations want to locate and stay in a healthy building. Finally there is a productivity and health value associated with "green" buildings. Greg Kats of Capital E published an analysis that projects the 20 year NPV (net present value) savings of a Certified or Silver building. The cost savings are attributable to reduced water, energy, waste plus commissioning O&M and productivity and health value. Savings of $52.87/square foot for Certified or Silver buildings and $71.31/square foot for a Gold or Platinum buildings are projected. Of these amounts $36.89/square foot and $55.33 respectively are attributable to productivity and health value. Even if the productivity and health value is reduced or eliminated the 20 year NPV savings ($52.87 - $36.89 = $15.89) exceeds the cost premium stated above.

In light of the above who can afford not to build green?

Technorati Tags: AIA,green,construction,USGBC,LEED,sustainability,building,cost,design,HVAC,environment,recycling,consumption,health

Fountain of Youth

There is no doubt in anyone’s mind that science has come a long way, and still making significant discoveries and advances. One particular area I would like to discuss is the realm of human health and biology. Two hundred years ago, one was considered a senior citizen at the age of 35. In today’s standards, this is merely middle age. At best, humans today are living to be a little over a hundred years old. Recent scientific advances have proposed that humans have the possibility of doubling, even tripling this incredible life span. This arises certain questions, particularly, health, environmental and social impacts, psychology, and finances, to name a few. These issues will be reviewed in the context of this article.

Firstly, when one considers the idea of living to be, for example, 200 years old, in what physical condition will this person be? Wheelchair bound, in a nursing home, nearly deaf and blind, or full of life and energy, like a twenty year old? I suppose that as long as the important biological functions are in tact (heart, lungs, digestive and nervous systems), then one is technically alive. The definition of alive then becomes too subjective. That is to say, at what point is one living or thriving? I would prefer to thrive.

Secondly, a question of environmental impact is considered. A human consumes a lot in one lifetime. How much would a person consume in two or even three lifetimes worth? By humans living longer, there will also be a peak point as birth rate continues to rise while the death rate does not decrease. This phenomenon will push the earth over its carrying capacity for too long, and the results will be disastrous. At this point, I envision that human life will become a commodity, with marketable birth rights, and taxation for living past a certain age.

There will also be great social impacts with this. With the increased amount of senior citizens, welfare, social security, and healthcare programs will all need massive restructuring. The US will become one big “Sun City”. Golf carts and Rascals will have their own lane. The national curfew will be five p.m... These are extreme examples, but not entirely improbable.

Human psychology will also be affected. The longer living individuals will have to cope with the stresses of their age, mobility, roles in society, etc, that will all be affected by being older. One has to consider how aging affects an individuals psyche. Will there be such thing as a “post-natural mid-life crisis” at 125 years of age? This has never happened before on a large scale, so it will unfold a whole new area of psychological research.

Finally, as worldly as it sounds, finances must be considered. In today’s society, most are living paycheck to paycheck. Very few have enough to live on after retirement, and those who do, really only have about 20-30 years worth of retirement living funds. How does one plan to pay the bills for 250 years? Can a 150 year old person work to earn a living? Will social security last for two hundred years? Or, on the other hand, will anyone that invested in their thirties and forties be the richest in the world, due to their very long standing rates of return on their investments?

The idea that I could live to be 200-300 years old, if not more, is very appealing to me, given a few conditions. It would require financial stability, good strong health, and a supportive social system in place. Imagine how much intelligence one could acquire in 250 years. It would be nothing less than amazing to say the least. The technology exists to make all of this happen, but what it is worth is up to us.

Technorati Tags: biology,social,environment,consumption,psychology,fountain of youth,healthcare,health,resources,wealth,social security,welfare,birth rate,lifestyle,death rate,science,life span

The United States of Affluenza

Since its inception in the 1700’s, America has had the mindset that more is better. When the settlers exhausted the land in the east, they gradually moved west. For years, they thought they could move west perpetually, somehow forgetting that the earth is round, and eventually you come back to the starting line. Eventually, they ran into the Pacific Ocean, and were startled to realize that there was a limit to their expansion. Not satisfied, they built piers. Even this was not enough, so they began to move north and south, acquiring more land, resources, and wealth in their path. Wealth, by simple definition, is the amount of “stuff” you have. This idea has remained unchanged since the beginning of human civilization. Unfortunately, the US is a bleeding poster child for this state of greed. David Wann calls this Affluenza, as if it is a disease that causes one to consume more and more. If everyone lived like Americans do, we would need two whole more earths just to sustain that lifestyle. That is just the problem. Nearly everyone in the developing countries seeks this “buy now, pay later” lifestyle.

Consumption is not inherently a bad thing. It is a natural process that all organisms incur. The problem is that humans have broken the natural levels with intellectualism and marketing. If all organisms consume at a sustainable level, with no unnecessary waste, then the ecosystem is in balance. Humans come built in with hunger, joy, pain, rest, and pleasure satiety levels. When we push past these natural levels, or set points, we become over consumers. The question becomes two-fold: what are the set points and are they quantifiable? That is a hard thing to measure, but I believe the best way to quantify this with today’s science is through the concept of ecological footprints. An ecological footprint analysis determines the necessary amount of land to sustain one’s lifestyle. Certain things like eating red meat and petroleum fueled activities use proportionally more acreage than eating chicken and using solar power, for example. Americans, on average, are already using more than twice their share of land. This is what needs to be controlled.

I am not proposing that everyone sell their cars and become organic farmers (necessarily). If everyone reduces their consumption of things that require less land, that will be a huge first step to making the Earth’s resources more sustainable. Another important premise to this concept is to change both how much we consume as well as how we consume. By doing an ecological footprint analysis, one can pinpoint which areas of their life to minimize.

By taking these few steps, we can begin to quantify consumption. This works on a personal level because when an individual conserves one unit of x downstream, it saves an average of ten units of x upstream. Plus, it will save more money and time on an individual level. If we don’t buy as much, it is reasonable to assume that we won’t consume as much. If we can do things more efficiently, and with less energy, then it will most likely save time as well. This concept of reducing consumption on a personal level is essential to the health and welfare of our global community.

Technorati Tags: petroleum,consumption,greed,solar,ecosystem,marketing,David Wann,health,land,united states,organic,ecological footprint,resources,wealth,sustainability,affluenza. global,lifestyle,earth