Perhaps I should start by claiming that the notion, somewhat widely promulgated, that some people want to save the earth while others want to destroy it, is ridiculous.  The occasional madman is not germane to my point.

 

So what actions shall we take to properly care for our planet?  What is the right course and who says so?

 

 

What was new in my lifetime was the rapid growth of the environmental movement.  About 100 years after its coining, the word “ecology” became a household word.  The 1960’s were an era of experimentation with solar energy, mostly for space heating and water heating.  Ecologically sensitive design found its way into the curricula of architecture and land use planning in the universities.  Pollution control laws were enacted and they have had a measurable effect in reducing air and water pollution in the U.S..

 

There was no second guessing the sight of brown skies and burning rivers.  It was disgusting, but not dire.  The problems were discrete, well defined and manageable.  It wasn’t hard being green.  Who established the Environmental Protection Agency?  It was President Richard Nixon.

 

My need is to make thoughtful choices in the design of buildings so that nature is properly taken into account.  Supposedly, all I have to do is embrace and employ “green building principles.”  Here are a few things that make that difficult.

 

First, I’m having trouble separating the science from the emotion.  Although I accept that we may be affecting the climate, and those effects may be adverse for many people, I find the rhetoric so forceful and politically charged, that it makes me wonder if the science can really stand on its own.  One of the loudest messages seems to be, “there are no grounds for dissent.”

 

But many things do not yet make sense to me.  For example, climate change, or changing climate, is the natural state of our earth.  I’ve not heard any scientist claim that climate is or ever has been a constant, unchanging state.  Do we know enough to say how it should change and how it should not change?  Do we know it should be hotter or colder and by how much?  The history of climate extends millions upon millions of years beyond the 50 years of detailed instrumented, real time measurements we have to work with.  You would think if it was really understood, it would be possible to say what the weather will be in 10 days.   If the day should come when the climate is fully understood, I expect people will try and change it, to improve it, of course.

 

The second difficulty is that “green” has become salable.  The good news is that with greater demand will come a greater assortment of products at lower prices.  The other news is that in addition to sorting through the scientific claims, I now must also wade through Madison Avenue messages.

 

The third difficulty, it seems to me, is that the further into the depths of green you peer, the murkier things look.  For example, if I am trying to compare two products, say a concrete roofing tile and an asphalt shingle, and I want to know which is more green, what do I look at?  One thing? 100 things?  How do I give proper weight to each factor?  Would the result be the same in Los Angeles and Sacramento?  Do I consider the power source for the factory which might be nuclear in Sacramento, fuel oil in Los Angeles and wind in Wyoming?  Do I consider whether the limestone mine pollutes local waterways?  How do I value the future cost of asphalt since the shingles will wear out before the concrete?  Do I consider the whole system of roofing and underlayment (perhaps a membrane in the case of concrete?  How do I factor in the impact of additional wood in the roof structure to support the concrete tile?

 

There are rating schemes which attempt to measure greenness.  The Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Green Building Rating System by the U.S. Green Building Council is the best known.  It is elaborate, expensive, and not practical at this time for use on the kinds of projects we do and there are no guidelines as yet for residential projects.  The LEED system is a collaborative and political product and it remains a work in progress.

 

So even though really knowing how green, green is, is a bit of an art, there are beyond some environmental benefits, prizes to be had for being green, especially if you are more green than someone else.  There are certificates, awards, rebates (!), bragging rights, political points and marketing opportunities.  And increasingly builders and architects find green can be marketed.

 

So all right.  It’s not easy being (truly) green.  But good design, in my opinion, finds a functional and rewarding balance between the temporary and the long lasting, between our nature and nature.  Somewhere in here there lies a sweet spot where green principles and smart design overlap.

 

I look for that.