Las Vegas Findings: Kermit Has It Right
Saturday, May 30, 2009 at 7:13PM 
At a minimum, first listen to Kermit's words of wisdom regarding being "green."
Go to this YouTube link and listen to Kermit.
PREFACE: As the President of the Institute of Green Professionals, I am bound by IGP's Neutrality Policy that does not allow IGP to take a position on a "values controversy" or differences in opinion on values-based decision-making about the environment. When I first wrote the "Hog-wash . . ." blog before going to Las Vegas, I was, in fact, taking a values position by adopting Janis Birkeland's sustainability characteristics as being unbiased, valid, and appropriate measures of what is "sustainable" for a Las Vegas house.
COMMENTS: Since first posting the "Hog-wash" blog only a few days have passed. But, through the Linkedin groups and mostly emails directly to me, I have received over 200 comments, all of which were based upon a values position.
Here are a few to give you a flavor: "how can a 6,500 sf home be sustainable," "unless they are flushing(the toilets) into the pool to compensate for evaporative losses I can't see it being very sustainable," "at 6,500 square feet it certainly used an inordinate amount of natural resources," "unless there are 16 people living in that house.....hog-wash," "I am sure it is as sustainable as Al Gore's mansion in Tennessee," "what amazes me is the hubris of people preaching "green" while being among the most polluting people," "basically, if it meets most of the requirements of LEED For Homes, they can make any claim that they want." And many of you commented on the business reality as expressed by this one professional: "we can't turn our back on all business that impacts the environment. . . so it becomes a question of where on a scale we fall, not whether we can build totally green."
And here lies the heart of the controversy. The controversy is between what is really "sustainable" (á la Janis's value-laden list) versus what many would like to call "green," or saving energy, or saving resources, or really anything that amounts to being somewhat better for our community and the environment than we were a few years ago.
So here is how I am going to get myself out of this pickle, and yet not disappoint. First, I will provide a Yes or No answer to each of Janis Birkeland's seven (7) issues. In each of the seven points it is not a close call and I believe that any rational person would be lead to the same conclusions. Then second, I will list many of the characteristics of the house. I then ask you to consider these characteristics and rate the property on the "Hogwash to Reality" scale. Your responses will be collected and reported here in the upcoming days. This way it is you and not me that makes the values-based decision, but the collective you.
Now read Janis Birkeland's "sustainability" issues, followed, without explanation, by a Yes or No for this Las Vegas house:
1. Does this house improve human and ecological health, resilience, and viability? NO
2. Does it increase natural capital, biodiversity, and ecosystem goods and services? NO
3. Does it increase secure access to food and water? NO
4. Does this house enhance urban space for both people and natural processes? NO
5. Does it help to transform our infrastructure from fossil fuel-driven to solar/wind powered? YES
6. Does it conserve open space, wilderness and natural resources? NO
7. Does it increase life quality and substantive life choices for present and future generations? NO
For your consideration, the major characteristics of the house are listed. Then you can weigh in - if you came from a Linkedin group please comment here on this blog since it makes it much easier for us to report the findings.
House characteristics:
Insulated concrete form walls (R. 21.7)
Open-cell spray foam insulation under roof (R-20)
Natural gas tankless water heaters (EF=0.82)
Multiple-zone gas-engine driven heat pump for heating and cooling
100% of interior lamps are light-emitting diode (LED)
10.64 kW photovoltaic system, consisting of 56 solar panels for swimming pool
heating and most electrical requirements
Low-e coating on windows
Tightly sealed house envelope
Energy Star labeled appliances
Maximized pre-manufactured systems to minimize on-site resources
Manufacturers and suppliers selected that could provide recycled building materials,
or new materials manufactured from renewable resources
Construction recycling and waste management program
Landscaping to limit water and energy demand with drought-resistant native species
Suburban infill site
Asking price: $3,900,000.
Estimated annual real estate tax: $39,000.
Annual Community HOA: $14,000.
Est. electric and natural gas costs: $2,000 (est. 70% savings vs. conventional)
Now it's your turn to rate this single family residence.
Remember, the builder claims that this house is "sustainable," "the ultimate green home," "saves energy," "saves natural resources," and even "helps to save the planet."
Based upon these house characteristics, the builder's claims, and your value-laden assessment, is the their marketing of this house "Hog-wash" or "Green-wash," or "Reality"? Please post your comments on this blog site.
Reader Comments (56)
I am not a fan of 6,500 square foot houses. Especially since we bought a large house a few years ago. (3600 square foot living space, 400 square feet unconditioned) We have found every aspect of home ownership to be more complex, costly and involved than in our former 1100 square foot residence. Projects we used to DIY now require professionals - including wiring, house painting, plumbing, etc. There is an ongoing carbon footprint to this.
Will the 6700 square foot house have daily maid service or biweekly? Will the new homeowner bring in a "designer" and buy all new furniture? Window treatments? Will it be repainted inside every 5 to 10 years? All of this has significant environmental impact which will continue for the life of the property.
I am also concerned about the "gas engine driven" heat pump - natural gas I am guessing. A smaller house could have been made "net zero" with the 10.64KW of solar panels. This house will use hundreds or thousands of therms of natural gas per year because of its size. And only R-20 insulation under the roof? If that the best you can do for millions of dollars?
In the current market, I am wondering how this one will sell. Especially in Las Vegas. Please keep us updated!
Green-wash at best, hog-wash at worst. This is a great step in the right direction for the 3,000+ sqft home owners, but it has a ways to go.
You mentioned R-20 open cell insulation under the roof... Unless this is in addition to ceiling insulation, this wouldn't be anywhere near high enough. I'd also be curious at what % to square footage is devoted to glass windors. Even if they are low-e, it looks like more than 15%.
Agreed that this is a step in the right direction but this is how all the home builders should be building (with the possible exception of the generous PV array)
Instead of heat pumps, how about natural gas electricity generators that co-generate heat? How about a geo-thermal system that doesn't require any imput? And why are swimming pools allowed in Las Vegas private homes anyways?
At a minimum, a house needs to be net-zero before you can even think of calling it "the ultimate green home."
Green-wash
A 6,500 square foot single family home is a joke. It's large enough for a family of 15. Not discounting the gas driven heat pump and natural gas fired hot water, this house is basically "Hogwash" It is pretentious and ill considered to try to pass it off as green just because it has solar electric panels and is highly insulated. LAS VEGAS-where the sun always shines- where is the solar hot water? 6500 square feet of space is about 4,500 more than is needed by a single family. And six bathrooms? How big is the family? A swimming pool in this part of the country that meausures evaporative losses in tens or hundreds of gallons per day-green? More like indulgent. This is not "green" ,it is brown. It is nice to see people trying, but this just doesn't work. I guess the citizens of Las Vegas actually think they have a viable supply of fresh water. Someone should tell them the Colorado River is disappearing.
Grant, thanks for the additional panel information. The Sanyo HIT Double, while interesting, is still 100% photovoltaic. Using the electricity from PV panels to run an electric pool heater seems to be gratuitous use of the power. I suppose that might have avoided storing excess power, but that's getting "solar" points for doing the wrong thing with the solar-generated electricity.
I'm confused why you answer "YES" to the question about infrastructure. Is this house within walking distance of workplaces, shops, medical centers, libraries, etc?
Carol,
The "Yes" was in response to: Does it help to transform our infrastructure from fossil fuel-driven to solar/wind powered? Key words that guided my response towards a "yes" were "does it help." The factors that were relevant in the "yes" answer were that this house relies significantly less on the grid, utilizes solar, and that it is a community/city model for others to emulate and better. In all your other measures, it fails terribly.
Grant
Well it seems as though there was an effort. This house will certainly not use the energy that it would have if no "green" steps had been taken. However it seems a pretty week effort. This is hogwash . there could have been much more done to conserve.
Posted by JAMES MCERLEAN
Hi Grant, statistics are a wonderful thing!
Large house, looks to have its own grounds. Where are the shops? How far to work? and all the other questions listed on the blog. Does anyone in Vegas walk? I heard not.
I very much doubt that this is 'green' in any meaningful way and we must drive to achieve that. I look forward to people stop building these one off things and get around to reconstructing inner cities, where there is so much underutilized space.
regards
Posted by martin hogan
Do you really need to heat a pool in Vegas? Can ANY pool heating in Vegas be considered green?
Posted by William Lull
Check out Michigan's First LEED Platinum Gut-Rehab for a good comparison.
Posted by Jonathan Backos, LEED AP
I think, starting from an "AS IS" every house can grow to become sustainable. Start measuring the "AS-IS" Carbon Footprint. Define the targets to lower the Footprint. Find the low hanging fruits and start picking them. From there on: disclose structurally where you are and structurally lower your Footprint. Aiming for Cimate Neutral, or even producing Carbon Neutral energy for others. So even a "very unsustainable house can start getting sustainable. It is about doing, discipline AND techniques. And let's help each other by communicating the best practices. Huub
if a 6500sf commercial building can be sustainable, why not a house?
Posted by Peter Kubilus
From a planning/development point of view, the word "infrastructure" applies not only to the electrical grid, but also water/sewer, roads, etc. So perhaps the answer should be "Not Really" instead of "Yes".
Honestly, looking at the project....I'd have to say that yes, this house incorporates green principles and materials, but is it sustainable? No.
Posted by Carol Ott
I must admit I'm a bit torn on this one. My first reaction is that this is a case of resource wastefulness and wretched excess. However, there is obviously a market for wretchedly excessive housing in this country, and if such housing is to be built, reducing the carbon footprint of this housing should be viewed as a positive. On the other hand, building and heavily publicizing houses such as this as "GREEN" gives the wrong message and supports the "more is better" mantra that encourages such monstrosities in the first place.
So, overall HOGWASH!! This project should be showcased only as an example of wrong-minded consumerism!! A reasonably sized home with fantastic sustainable features (and whatever level of custom designed outrageously expensive go-gaws rich folks find necessary) would have been a much better way to go!
Change. Its at the heart of the whole green movement.
Years from now people will laugh at the PRIUS as a green car. But it was a step. A huge step. A catalyst. There are so many shades of green.
Not every project can be 'off the grid' or LEED Platinum, but the fact that this string of comments is taking place, and we conversing about it is a change for the better. The change is on.
If we compare that house to 1,000 other 6,500 sq.ft. houses in the area. That will be the most sustainable one.
But if we compare it to other LEED Platinum homes built its "Hog-wash".
I think there is some corny marketing going on with the house, but again in terms of the overall green movement its one of the good homes that will be built this year.
The steps taken are basic minimums that should be adopted for all new builds. This is clearly not groundbreaking or revolutionary as the builder would lead us to believe, he's just trying to sell the thing.
It's definitely hog wash.
Just a quick give me a heads up…. I spend a fair portion on time in the Las Vegas market as a manufacturer’s rep. My in-laws live in Summerville and the pool is heated by recirculation of water through solar tubes. The energy required for this is generated by solar electricity and directly powers the motor for the pump. This was designed and installed over 20 years ago (before the USGBC and LEED) and has worked well with little maintenance. The purpose of doing this, at the time, was energy efficacies but the application, in current time, should be considered as a green design.
Posted by Bill Harris
One could make the argument that ANY single family home over about 2,000 sf goes against the basic tenets of green building no matter how eco-friendly you try to make it.
Posted by Scott Adams
What I have seen, and it is more efficient, is solar thermal heaters for pools, to extend the swim season in the chilly spring and later fall. A backup natural gas pool heater seems to be needed, especially if there is a spa involved. Were you going to describe quantitatively what you discovered at the site?
Posted by John Turner
This energy-efficient mansion is a prime example of the ever-expanding trend in green-washing. Could everyone on the planet live in one of these for the next 200 years (7 generations)? Sorry to bring class issues into green livability, but "green" is not a product rating. This kind of reveling in one cherry-picked factor goes beyond green-washing to outright hog-wash.
At a recent Living Green Expo in Minnesota, there were competing legions of Green employees from Target and Walmart handing out free eco-bags. I didn't take either--like I already have 2 dozen reusable bags at home, and none of them are branded by a big box store shipping cheap goods from other continents. All factors of sustainability need to be considered to slow humanity down into a more green groove.
Um, sounds like Hogwash to me.
Posted by Dan Whigham
The issue is as Americans we do like our excess. So while I would say a 6500 sqft home is not exactly green, I'm encouraged that there was an effort to building it as green as possible.
Posted by Peter Romano
Good Morning Grant, I belong to the ASA group at Linked in and, despite having no background in the real estate industry (but interested in green / sustainable issues and ideas) I followed your link - what a great web site, and thanks for noting it. Steve