Las Vegas Findings: Kermit Has ItRight

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 belead to the same conclusions. Then second, I will listmany of the characteristics of the house. I then ask you to consider these characteristics and rate the propertyon 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? NO2. Does it increase natural capital, biodiversity, and ecosystem goods and services? NO3. Does it increase secure access to food and water? NO4. Does this house enhance urban space for both people and natural processes? NO5. Does it help to transform our infrastructure from fossil fuel-driven to solar/wind powered? YES6. Does it conserve open space, wilderness and natural resources? NO7. 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 reportthe 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 cooling100% 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 requirementsLow-e coating on windowsTightly sealed house envelopeEnergy Star labeled appliancesMaximized pre-manufactured systems to minimize on-site resourcesManufacturers and suppliers selected that could provide recycled building materials, or new materials manufactured from renewable resourcesConstruction recycling and waste management programLandscaping to limit water and energy demand with drought-resistant native speciesSuburban infill siteAsking 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.