Short Version: The next generation of builders and designers will be the renovation generation. Our existing building stock is in desperate need of retooling for a reduction of energy consumption and overall sustainability.

I liked your comment about environmental education. I run an online sustainability advocacy organization www.regainparadise.org and our current project is to develop educational material on sustainability industries targetted at senior business folks.

"Grant, I agree that the buildingindustry will move when it becomes financially attractive to become sustainable. Prices of oil and raw materials will play a big role. Although I believe that it is the government that should be leading us with foresight (and nog hindsight) and therefore make it financially attractive for the market to move in the direction of sustainability before we lose all our recources and everything collapses (like the Roman empire). I also think that it is important and possible to influence this process by the right communication. If the consumer/voter wants, it gets....Not just government should influence this proces but other bodies also. We did with our (grassroot) campains and I am quite sure we did have influence. 75 % of the buildingindustry in the Netherlands is now aware of Cradle to Cradle. And large companies like Royal Has, Tebodin, and DHV ( to name only a few) are offering Cradle to Cradle as part of their package. And more will follow."
Posted by Saskia Cox-Steenbergh

"The future of sustainable development rests on how efficiently we meet the following requirements: (a) Minimise the pollution of surroundigs i.e. land, water and air, caused by the industrial and the anthropogenic activities (b) Total recycling of wastes (c) Generate energy from the renewable sources, such as wind, solar and tidal power sources (d) Minimise the generation of green house gases (GHG), such as CO2, methane, responsible for the global warming (e) Conserve nature's resources, such as water, minerals, fossil fuels and so on Dr J D Bapat: [http://jdbapat-sustainableliving.blogspot.com|leo://plh/http%3A*3*3jdbapat-sustainableliving%2Eblogspot%2Ecom/-Yqp?_t=tracking_disc]"
Posted by J.D. Bapat

"I agree with Sergio. One of the problems, however, is that society is bombarded with the word "green" and I have yet to encounter a client that really knows what is involved. Yes, we as architects should be the leaders and educators, but telling a client just what is involved is overwhelming to the client. Many of the requirements of LEED are costly and when clients hear what they have to do, they then begin to have an understanding of just what "green" means. As an example, I just finished building my own house. I wanted to use solar and had it designed and the installation cost would have been around $20,000. This would have provided 50% of the electricity needs. My monthly electric bill is around $125. A 22 year payback is just not cost effective. We try to incorporate green principals in all our designs whenever we can, providing it is cost effective. We do this without making a big fanfare about it to the client. I truly believe it is our social responsibility and I am grateful that a number of material suppliers are looking toward the green movement. Now if we can just get the cost down."
Posted by David Wulff, AIA, NCARB

"I see a lot of companies/industries positioning themselves to profit from the green movement. Revit, bim, bci commisioning, aoutodesk etc... While some of these efforts are good it is overcomplicating the overall efforts and ultimate goals of green."
Posted by Chris Cowie

"Developers have to have an incentive to go green, or have the requirements dictated by governing agencies."
Posted by Daniel Donohue

"Investing in sustainability is "right." It just makes sense, but the price tag is still high. Designers and builders have experienced "at-front premium costs" for green development. While today's industry has recognized sustainability as a proactive approach, there are other social and cultural constraints unresolved. Professional integrity, ethics, and environmental responsibility are the only weight to hold. R.E. Development is a matter of pure economics for investors, and professional services do need to be adjusted. Design professionals must integrate sustainable solutions in their practices in order to survive, in terms of common business practice as well as marketing survival. Sustainable Development definitively will continue its rise. It's just the right thing to do to protect our natural resources, social values, and the right to exist in the Universe. we can not destroy the earth. Any alternative is unacceptable. Leaders, architects and engineers have a fee re-structuring challenge ahead. More services with less fee, and last but not least, a timely narrow project schedule ... faster, faster! Welcome to the 21st Century!"
Posted by Sergio A. Gaddar, AIA, LEED AP

"The future is sustainable development! "Sustainable" understood as development that is focused in bettering living conditions, for all, and not simply as increasing economic indicators without regard to protecting the environment, our home and only source of livelihood, and providing real opportunity for life enrichment of those most vulnerable."
Posted by Christel Steinvorth

"From the conflicts over resources, hovering between concepts as ecology and economy, the sustainable buildings should try to involve analysis about more conflicts seen at the sustainability. They must involve social equity in order to become a truly sustainable construction. If the LEED rating system includes an additional focus on equity, it will be able to face conflict over resources, property and development, becoming closer of sustainable buildings instead only green ones."

"As soon as the ground rules (both regulatory and business wise) have been established and the pot of gold can be seen at the end of the tunnel, watch out!"

"I think sustainability, and at a minimum, the notion of "being sustainable" has picked up steam especially over the past 5 years with developers, owners, corporations, and company operations departments. Throw in the current administration's initiatives for sustainable research and development...and funding (agreed or disagreed) for green development and retro-fits, and we are seeing the emergence of a culture and society that, from all apparent indicators, supports the accountability to live and work within more sustainable infrastructure. However, even if the relative emotional desire to live and operate sustainably is emerging, I feel it will still be some time until the full embrace of shelling out the needed funds to acheive "green" or "sustainable" development is acheived, or at least hard-money results and enhanced quality of life can be consistently proven and showcased from these developments. Good time to train and recruit!"

GMG publishes an annual Garden Trends Report. The 2009 report spotted a trend in Europe called "Eco-Boosting - Going Beyond Sustainable". Sustainable is only the baseline. We want to go beyond sustainable and go the extra mile, do something good for the environment. We all want to be part of the solution. We want to go natural. Use less chemicals. Use less water. Conserve. Be better stewards of the earth. So we see this not as a trend but an "eco-shift of consciousness." You can read the 2009 Report on our blog -- [www.gardenplot.blogspot.com]."

"Sergio is right; there is no alternative. We have this one spaceship (at least for the foreseeable future) and we must nurture and preserve it or die. Sustainable design has to become the way we build, not an alternative. And the cost must simply be figured in because otherwise, we'll get to the place and time when we'll be unable to continue."

Sustainable Development will be standard practice just as accessibility standards are now typical in building design and development. That's easy to predict, because everything we do must become sustainable. In the broadest view, the survival of our way of life depends on our success at stopping and reversing climate change, which must become the paramount goal of our civilization. I believe the only way that is possible is to integrate sustainability (defined by science, per The Natural Step, and others) into ALL sectors of society as a commonly shared basis for planning and doing everything. Nothing less. In the short term, CO2 emission caps will help to drive the transition to sustainable development becoming standard practice. It's common knowledge that 49% of US electrical power is generated by coal-fired plants. Construction and buildings use 72% of that electricity and generate 38% of US carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions (source USGBC). The more rapidly the energy sources for our buildings, industry and transportation are changed to those that emit NO GHG's, the better.

"The biggest failure of the Sustainability Movement to this point has been allowing the public's perception to develop that it is all about 'green' materials and finishes and applying technology like solar panels. On the individual building side, sustainability must be much more about passive design strategies to create inherently more efficient buildings. On the planning side, sustainability must focus on a relocalization of where people live, work, and play. A LEED platinum glass box in the suburban fringe where all employees must drive 30 minutes each way does no good.

Grant- It is my opinion that you are asking the exact question(s) that we should all be raising. Let's define "Green" as Sustainable/Sustainability- with measures, benchmarks and varifiable requirements.

The many contours of the sustainability debate, which offer space to diverse opinions, understandings, and policy and implementation implications, will self-sustain the idea of sustainable development.

Agree with Craig. We need to define "GREEN" of which there are lots of shades. Too many companies use the "Light" version for their Greenwashing while the dark version is too serious for them. These are some of the definitions I can live with: "Sustainability is taking care of the present without endangering the future". The STERN REVIEUW defines the 4 pillars of sustainability: Environment, Economy, Education and Health. I often see that they replace Education and Health by "Social" to make it a tripod. Without "Economy" the color Green(environment) will fade away unfortunatly, even though carbon footprint will do something to the conscious buyer. Also Life Cycle Costing has to become a part of a, to be developed per product, verifyable SUSTAINABILITY index/label. We all need the globally best available tools, especially public procurement that should be the driver out of our crisis (point 1 in Grants list). I agree with most point out of this list, but would organize them differently because I not only speak with an accent, I think with an accent! (difference between Chinese and Western medicine?). My point of departure is the economical sector, in my case construction (buildings and infra). Here we have the present common non sustainable and the state of the art sustainable practice. In the latter we have existing (Best Practice) technologies poorly implied and new developments were R&D gets involved. Legally we should be able to give "Ambulance Priority" to Best Sustainable Practice, prevailing over local burocratic codes which is especially bogging down improvements in European construction economy. With the number 1 construction product, concrete, we could save globally 600 million tons of CO2 a year if we can change practice and mindset. Untill real cost (of a building) that includes what we have to pay for climate change adatation is not known, the majority will buy price. I am afraid that "Green" is a new state of mind that could be fashionable while "Sustainability" should become a fact of life, an 11th commandment.

The root metaphor of the revolutionary paradigm shift overtaking us can be stated as a change from "the universe is a mechanical clockworks" to "the universe is a living intelligence." So our language is increasingly taking on the color of green, organic, and ecological terms and concepts. The deep structure of the shift will bring out a new integration of culture and nature, as is already evident in the emergence of ecological economics. But what hardly anyone has perceived yet is just how brilliant and rich our potential for conceiving, gestating, midwifing, and nurturing living meaning is. Only by biting anew from the apple of knowledge will we find our way back to the garden.

I am a huge proponent of the LEED sustainability requirements because it helps create jobs for architects and designers nationwide. We have a backlog of older buildings that create a huge carbon footprint, and we as professionals in the architecture industry need to brainstorm and come up with fresh, new ideas. Although it can be costly, but what is more important; our planet or money?

The future of sustainable development is more local, state and federal regulations requiring that projects incorporate sustainable features, regardless of costs. As more companies join the band-wagon, cost of products used in construction should come down due to competition, mass production techniques, and new inovations. Also driving the development will be cost of energy - just look at the sales of hybrids and nosedive of SUVs and trucks when gasoline prices rose. A large market will be for the retrofitting of our existing stock of houses and buildings with energy saving and generation systems. Architects should educate themselves about the various forms of alternative energy and energy saving designs, and costs to be able to take advantage of the shift towards sustainable development. As a side note, search the net for "The Great Pacific Garbage Patch". This is an area in the Pacific Ocean northeast of Hawaii, about twice the size of Texas, and growing, that is filled with floating garbage (mostly discarded plastic), that is killing sea life and birds. As responsible professionals, we should be advocates for reducing waste materials and promoting recycling as much as possible.

My prediction -- Our overall values are changing from materialism to increased quality of life and I expect that more people will turn to greening their existing building stock to save money. Last night, I attended the San Francisco Green Building Guild and the owners of a recent GreenPoint rated existing home spoke. The owners are among the growing middle to upper class that see sustainability as a statement of their values. When they faced financial difficulty, the owners made an important decision to cut the scope rather than the green features. In other words they chose quality over quantity. This was refreshing to hear. Of course, this is San Francisco and I would love to hear if other regions are experiencing the same. On the commercial & nationwide side, as I watch real estate news, many are talking and implementing greening their current building stock to cut operating costs. I think this is an positive development from our current economy.

the current problem with the economics of sustainability is that we're not paying the real price for our current practices. we look at costs as short term, first time costs. but the added costs of infrastucture, maintenance, pollution, health, etc. etc. don't get added into the equation. they're often long term; sometimes undefinable. until these long term costs are added into the short term, we will struggle.

there are people who are willing to "do the right thing." but most businesses and individuals will be driven by the economics.

why should i buy green power and pay more? i'd be doing the right thing, i would be helping reduce carbon, reduce environmental impact. i would be helping save the environment. but if i don't care, if i produce more carbon, do more harm, then i pay less. this simply does not make sense!

so we need to develop the method for leveling the playing field. carbon tax, impact fees.? such negative terms for paying for what one does. then those that minimize their footprint, minimize the impact can get incentives that have real meaning. then the economics will make sense and we'll see a major shift in the way things are done.