jump to navigation

Does it cost more to NOT build green? August 7, 2008

Posted by bruce mcgranahan in energy, green building, waste reduction.
Tags: , ,
1 comment so far

From Green Building Elements
comes the “Costs of NOT Building Green“:

Despite the narrowing gap in cost between green building and traditional “to-code” building, most builders and home buyers still perceive the green option to be significantly more expensive.  The reality is that due to increased builder education and an influx of affordable green building products, a building can be built green within the same budget as a non-green building.  According to Clark Wilson, CEO of Austin based Green Builders, Inc., “It’s our job as builders to find those green products that don’t drive up the price of the home.”  For an informative breakdown on how green buildings cost from 0 to 2% more than non-green buildings, check out “The True Costs of Building Green” from the folks at Buildings.com.

Now that green building is an affordable option, it’s time to change the way we frame the affordability debate.  Too long have supporters of green building been on the defensive, forced to justify the costs of building more energy efficient, healthier, more sustainable homes.  Instead of focusing on the costs of making your building green, let’s talk about the costs of not building green.

Energy

With the help of the EPA’s ENERGY STAR program, advances in energy efficiency have resulted in savings of 40 to 60% over non-green buildings.  Add in the water savings from low-flow fixtures, tankless water heaters, very efficient appliances, greywater systems, water-friendly landscaping, and rainwater collection systems and it’s clear how wasteful a non-green building can be.

Health

Paints, adhesives, and caulks can all contain volatile organic compounds (VOCs,) the greatest causes of indoor air pollution in the home, which have been tied to increased asthma rates.  Wood products in the home can contain urea-formaldehyde, a known carcinogen that is banned in Canada and Europe and soon will be on its way out in California. The Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory studied indoor air pollution in homes and “found moderate to strong increases in respiratory and allergic health effects among children in homes with higher concentrations of selected VOCs.”The potential health risks of non-green buildings are reason enough for many to choose to build green.

Sustainability

Third in the green trinity is sustainability, the environmental cost of your building project.  Green builders start by significantly reducing waste on building sites.  While building materials that are not recycled or made from renewable materials might seem less expensive, the cost to the environment must be considered.  And it’s not just the sustainability of the product that should be considered, but the company’s manufacturing process as well.  Companies that have earned the Cradle to Cradle certification represent the height of sustainability.

Read More at the Source Page >>>

Zemanta Pixie

Now, Green Insurance July 12, 2008

Posted by bruce mcgranahan in green building.
Tags: , , , ,
add a comment

This according to The Next Green Thing: Green Insurance, a post written by Joel Bittle at Green Building Elements

U.S.Started in 2006 by Fireman’s Fund, a member of the United States Green Building Council, green insurance protects owners of green commercial or residential buildings.  In the case of a loss, Fireman’s Fund would bring in a LEED-AP to oversee reconstruction of the building to its original LEED certification level, making sure that the building systems operate at peak performance and in alignment with one another.  If this seems like a no-brainer, consider submitting rebuilding plans to an insurance company that has no experience with green building.  Would you have to explain why every component of the building was built that way, rather than a less expensive non-green alternative?

The potentially revolutionary aspect of green insurance is the option for owners of non-green commercial buildings and homes.  For a small cost of about $70 a year per $1 million insured, the owner of a non-green home can make sure that home is rebuilt to LEED Silver certification standards in the event of a total loss

Go to Source Page >>>

Jetson Green expands by adding this:

Homeowners with green homes will be offered a five percent discount on their insurance premium.  In addition, homeowners will be able to rebuild and replace as follows:

  • Energy Star®-rated appliances, lighting, electronic equipment and roofing / insulation
  • An Energy Star upgrade of heating, ventilation and air-conditioning systems
  • Forest Stewardship Council certified wood for millwork, ceilings, siding and framing, including bamboo flooring
  • Non-toxic, low odor paints and carpeting
  • Water-saving plumbing fixtures
  • Elimination of ozone-depleting refrigerants and fire extinguishing agents, replaced with environmentally friendly alternatives
  • Debris removed after damage to a home will be recycled and diverted from landfill

Read More at Jetson Green >>>

Zemanta Pixie