Why do you pose this so negatively?

It might cost more upfront to build green, but in the long run it saves on energy and maintenance costs. It may require more than 2-3 years for ROI though. What's wrong with saving energy and money?
http://www.alternet.org/environment/49411

Green buildings are also more desirable.
"The business case for green buildings rests on five legs: economics, risk management, marketing, government relations and employee relations. Most people look only at the economic benefit of savings on energy costs, neglecting the mounting evidence that green buildings return higher rents, offer faster letting, secure greater occupancy and generate higher resale value. In an economic environment where quality is foremost, green buildings offer higher quality at modest additional cost. Green buildings also reduce a variety of risk factors, including marketing, financing and securing political authorization to develop. They also offer greater public relations and marketing benefits, assistance with stakeholder relations and, perhaps most importantly, provide a positive story to tell to employees of development firms, thereby aiding in recruiting and retaining key employees. While the economic slowdown and global financial crisis is likely to affect overall commercial construction significantly in 2009 and 2010, the green building movement is likely to continue to gain market share over the next five years."
http://www.greenbuildconsult.com/pdfs/PPA-Yudelson.pdf
Posted by David Gross

I think that Mr Bryant's point is that if green buildings are, in fact, economically viable from an operating and marketing standpoint as you indicate, there should be no need for a government mandate. That is where the auto industry got into trouble with fuel economy regulations that were forced on them when gas was only $1.50/gallon and no one wanted fuel efficiency but were wholy inadequete when gas went to $4.00/gallon. The industry got into a false sense of security (just follow the rules) rather that doing rigorous long term strategic planning.
Posted by Bob Emick

I think that this is part of a trend of which governments are followers. The fact that governments are coming on board is an indication that wider social expectations are now established.

The current economic turmoil is an indicator - proactive businesses are working hard to build stronger relationships with their customers. A big part of this is a demonstration of their efforts to move toward sustainability. In my work I have seen a significant upturn in activity despite the downturn in the economy. My prediction is that we will see those companies that did the hard work during the downturn coming back the fastest and strongest as the economy recovers.

If you do this just because the government mandates it, it will be a burden. If you do it because it will make your business stronger you will win.
Posted by James Sullivan

150 years ago, farmers built their homes and barns out of materials found on the properties they owned. They faced the buildings to maximize southern exposure. They built berms and planted windbreaks on the north side of the structures. The planted shade trees on the southern side. They pitched the roofs to maximize cross ventilation. They got their food from the land and water from a well. All this work was done by hand before gas powered equipment.

The industrial revolution made us lazy and fat. Its time to start that "diet" once and for all.
Posted by David Plechner

I think this could be a very positive step toward creating a much more conscientious American society. By using products that at the outset may cost a little more, down stream they will cost less in energy, waste and city services supporting commerce. We need to examine the life cycle not just the inital purchase. If it takes government to push a green agenda business has already embraced, I think that is what we want in a progressive foward thinking society.
Posted by Kathleen Lambert

There are 2 articles that came out today:
http://in.reuters.com/article/businessNews/idINIndia-45403420100114
http://www.nasdaq.com/aspx/stock-market-news-story.aspx?storyid=201001141429dowjonesdjonline000594&title=major-investor-groups-urge-tougher-action-on-climate-change

Companies that go green are performing better than their peers.
Same goes for builidngs.
Posted by David Gross

This conversation brings to mind my work in the new construction industry during the housing boom. Thousands of homes built without regard to sustainability and the ramifications will effect both the land and the owner for generations. It is beyond me why none of the major national homebuilders emphasized better building practices (solar roof tiles for ALL new homes California)? Now addressing this retroactively will be a monumental task and one which creates bad will for the all the people who are burdened by the "mandates". Uneducated and ignorant consumers were concerened only with the color of the carpet and cabinets. Meanwhile the builders are the only ones who walk away fat and happy making a 350% margin per square foot.
Posted by Brandt Dye

'm perplexed... Radzinski's article doesn't characterize new sustainabilty-oriented regulation as a hit... "From a corporate perspective, as sustainability moves from being an option to a mandate, sustainability will soon provide a key competitive advantage in the marketplace." Where, exactly, is the "hit"? Seems like a no brainer....
Posted by Erik de Kok

As much as I am also disturbed by Washington, sustainability is one area that must be mandated.
Posted by Peter Cholakis

A more useful way to look at it is IMHO: is action less expensive than Business As Usual? The consensus of economists is 'yes'. Provided the policies are right, of course.
Posted by Dan Staley

I've just read this blog. Unfortunately this is our fine government at work yet again. I believe in doing things green because we can leave the world a better place for the future. To really change things, they really need to stay the same, by that I mean the things in our life that we are going green with should be no different than the things we have now. But taking away our right to choose for ourselves little by little is not the way. The products that I sell in my business are great, they allow you to go green and change where they end up while not changing how you use them, or how well they work. But if someone does not want to use them it’s their choice, there view point. As a sales person and business man I can take “no” but what I can’t take is big brother telling me what to do.
Posted by Michael Rogers

Great....more big government "solutions" to non-existent problems.
Posted by Scott Ackert

Well, to begin with, it is a good, thoughtful set of blog posts. I struggle with definitions of sustainability that do not take into account changes in political administrations, and volatile fossil fuel prices, both of which fail to fit the definition of 'Black Swan' events. You know they will happen - they need to be part of any useable model. Keep in mind that many of the same arguments that are posited here regarding GHG and AGW are echoed in the first regulations in the 1880's regarding railroad safety devices, then mine worker safety in the 1930s, then OSHA standards in the 1960s. The poor argument is always that most people decide which side they are on first, THEN select metrics that support their POV. Shouldn't we look at the metrics, and then pick a course of action?
Posted by Donald Missey, PMP

thanks
Posted by Jill Schantz

Very interesting articles.
I guess there will be more job opportunities for SD professionals? For sure the cost would be shared and individuals will suffer more, especially small business operator.
Posted by Sophie Hagan

Actually Grant it's not just about the money that is being wasted, global warming fanatics and their lies will kill people - they already are!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6958093/Climate-change-the-true-price-of-the-warmists-folly-is-becoming-clear.html

"At last, in all directions, we are beginning to see the terrifying cost of that obsession with “global warming” and “green energy” which for nearly 20 years has had all our main political parties in its grip. For years governments, including the EU, have been shovelling millions of pounds into the coffers of “green” lobby groups, such as Friends of the Earth and the WWF, allowing them in return virtually to dictate our energy policy."

Anthropogenic Global Warming is the greatest SCAM in world history. Spread the word and stop these people before it is too late.
Posted by Leigh Haugen

Very intersting article by Ted Radzinski.

As for the idea that "you will NOT DO IT BY CHOICE" - well that applies to so many limitations on business activity, such as having a safe working environment, no child labor, anti-monopoly laws, and the list could go on and on.

At core however is the fact that we simply do not account for the real costs of doing business. Externalities are not included in any balance sheet and as such, reduction of externalities appears to be an additional cost. The best thing about the Executive Order, and the WalMart questions, is that they create a baseline that equally impacts all participants, and by doing does not negatively impact any individual business over another (or it shouldn't).

If anything, calls for mandated standards have increased simply because business wants to know the boundaries, and to feel that such boundaries are being equally and equitably imposed.
Posted by Daniel Roberts

Oh goodie! More psudo science from Christopher Booker: a man with zero scientific education. You might want to know that your source of information is from a man who previously campaigns include: asbestos is no more dangerous than baby powder; and evolution is a hoax perpetrated by atheists who refuse to accept the book of Genesis as a science textbook. If Christopher Booker is your star witness, you have already lost the debate.
Posted by Thomas Pape

I dislike being forced into doing much of anything, but how do you bring about a sweeping change that does not really want to be done by any others than those that care about sustainability/ green building/ eco-consciousness or what ever you may want to call it? I cringe when the government gets into things like healthcare or this because I wonder about the track record and performance to may this happen in a cost effective, less bureaucratic manner. And yes, watch out for your paycheck if the government is involved. Somehow their reality when it comes to money issues is to vote a pay increase or print more. Most of us don't share that viewpoint.
Posted by Glenn Keyes

http://www.kusi.com/home/78477082.html?video=pop&t=a
Posted by Ralph LePino

Scott...agreed. As you can see I work with NEPA and now the CEQ is going to expect us to include "climate change" in it's already too lengthy lists of "impacts". I want to save the world as much as anyone else does but...enough is enough.
Posted by Keith Hall

I completely agree Keith....my sentiments exactly...I have long thought that attempting to assess impacts to the global climate from a small, local project is not only ridiculous on its face, but exceeds the governments authority and leaves these NEPA documents open to serious litigation potential. How can one assess cumulative impacts with any degree of certainty when the science behind "global climate" is speculative at best. With the recent revelations about phony, "ginned-up" climate data coming out of England this is exactly the sort of problem I foresaw. So we have EIS conclusions based on data, which has now been proven to be erroneous and fraudulent...wonderful....
Posted by Scott Ackert

Green building and living doesn't require certified training. It's common sense that the bureaucrats can't put a global blueprint on. The system of building inspectors & permits is falling apart.
Posted by Delia Montgomery d/b/a Chic Eco

So this is to be implemented by our "sustainable government". The same one that has absolutely no idea how to live within the already given "sustainable (balanced) budget". This is to be devised by, implemented, monitored by the same government that designed the healthcare overhaul where they just decided that Cadillac healthcare plans would be taxed 40% over a certain amount but said "oh wait a minute this does not include any federal, state, or local employees". Just a couple of million people left out of their planned tax....This is the wrong way to go about creating a sustainable model. Anytime our concerned, government gets involved we always have to look at the true motivation.
Posted by Charles Howe