# cost of building green - perception vs. reality



## mark handler (Jul 7, 2010)

The cost of building green - perception vs. reality

Posted: Jul 1, 2010 at 5:55 AM [Jul 1, 2010]

http://www.annarbor.com/business-review/the-cost-of-building-green---perception-vs-reality/

One of the hottest issues in the green building world is whether there is a significant premium to building “green” as opposed to the use of standard building products and practices. It is not uncommon for some members of the construction industry to say that the cost of building “green” can add 10 percent or more to the cost of construction even though there are studies that indicate that this is not the case.

The chasm between perception and reality was highlighted in a recent study conducted by the Northeast Ohio Chapter of the United States Green Building Council and Sustainable Rhythm, a consulting organization that works within the commercial, office, residential, green-space and senior-housing markets.

The 24-page study titled “Opening the Door to Green Building” was issued June 18 and is based on the responses of 200 participations (90 percent in Ohio) to an online survey given in March and April to four groups:

•Owners, facility managers and real estate executives, developers and tenant leasing agents (17 percent)

•Service firms including architects, engineers, interior designers, general contractors and trades, LEED consultants, commissioning agents, and legal/accounting and insurance professionals (59 percent)

Products companies including building materials and systems companies (17 percent)

•Government/advocacy including code officials, government agencies and nonprofit advocacy groups (7 percent)

The study focused on how the implementation of green building principles has transformed from a specialty market sector to one that is being considered across every building market. In doing so, participants were asked “if there is a significant cost difference between green building and standard building products and practices?” The results were:

•62 percent “Yes”

•26 percent “No”

•12 percent “Unsure”

However, according to the study, “those who have analyzed the market have found that in reality, there is a negligible premium or as low as a 1-2 percent premium dependent on level of green building design solutions and/or the LEED certification level pursued (see the Cost of Green Revisited, 2007, Davis Langdon and The Cost of Green, 2009, Urban Green Council).” According to the study, the perception of a high premium predominates at the highest level with participants identified as owners, facility managers, corporate real estate and real estate developers, and those involved in tenant leasing and finance.

Regardless whether based in fact, it is noteworthy that when asked about perceptions relating to the cost premium for “green” building, participants provided the following responses:

•1-2 percent more cost, 5 percent of participants

•3-5 percent more cost, 19 percent of participants

•5-10 percent more cost, 24 percent of participants

•10-25 percent more cost, 37 percent of participants

•More than 25 percent more cost, 9 percent of participants

Views on the cost of building “green” are also reflected in the responses of participants regarding factors motivating the industry to build green. According to the study, reducing overhead costs of energy and increasing energy efficiency seem to be “the strongest resonating arguments in the market.” When asked “what kind of information would you like to see more of on green building from your vendors,” the study states that 75 percent of respondents identified “return-on-investment” as the most desirable content information for enabling decision-making.

Interestingly, the issue of climate change is perceived by a fair number of participants as a negative to promoting green building, which may reflect controversy in the industry as to whether the alleged environmental and climate change impacts are currently a widely accepted basis for building green and motivating others to do so.

Harvey Berman, a LEED® Accredited Professional, is a partner at the law firm of Bodman LLP practicing in its Ann Arbor office. He is chair of the firm's Construction Practice Group and represents clients in construction, real estate, and business matters. Contact him at (734) 930-2493 or at hberman@bodmanllp.com.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Jul 7, 2010)

Perception is Reality

Interesting study which pretty much summed up why I am hesitant about embracing it. To many organizations jumping on the band wagon. I would prefer the "energy efficient" term with documentation that the product is just that. A ROI should be based on dollars back to the investor/owner and nothing more. If they want to feel good because they reduced green house gases or a carbon footprint thats fine include it as the reason to go "LEED" not "Green".


----------



## FredK (Jul 7, 2010)

If I may comment.  The head planner here came from a kali city that took 80 or so older mobile homes out and replaced them with about the same number "green buildings" with approximately 800-1300 sq ft.  Total cost was something approaching some stupid number of 700K per unit with solar installed.  I asked why they didn't do module buildings with an energy efficient requirement and with solar for about 100-125K each.   Stupid look on his face since this was his pet project.

Oh the bottom line: government housing and rent was lisited at 700-900 per unit.  No way will that ever pencil out.  But he said the tax and grants and etc.....  The BS just never stops IMHO.


----------



## conarb (Jul 7, 2010)

The first question we have to ask is whether that building codes should have anything to do with political agenda like green and energy codes, the code mandate is to protest the health and safety of occupants of buildings, not to advance left-wing political agenda. Much of the impetus for both green and energy codes comes from the now much discredited global warming hoax and the Gaian "save the earth" fanatics.  Building departments have no business adopting and enforcing political/religious codes.

So far green codes have been a disaster here, we have a few cities and at least one county with green codes.



> The Built It Green website tells us that GreenPoint Rating “reassures  home buyers that a home is truly healthy”. Don’t believe it!We found formaldehyde concentrations in  GreenPoint Rated homes to be higher, on average, than in conventional  homes. The three GreenPoint Rated developments we tested had indoor  formaldehyde above 77 ppb, the average for the Katrina FEMA trailers  that are in the news for making families ill. A salesperson at one of  the developments told us she gets headaches in the sales office.A development that is in review for  GreenPoint Rating had nearly 300 ppb in one area of the home. A Built It  Green representative told us that 300 ppb would not prevent those homes  from receiving GreenPoint Rating.¹


We are now calling the "green codes" the "toxic green codes".Another problem is that greed codes and energy codes should be separated, LEED buildings have been shown to consume 29% more energy than non-LEED buildings, Henry Gifford performed the initial studies, and has been joined by the eminent building scientist Joe Lstiburek.



> Is the USGBC peddling in greenwash?   The charge, that LEED certified buildings are not, in fact, energy  efficient at all, was raised by Henry Gifford, owner of Gifford Fuel  Saving.  He is a man who has decades of hands on experience  (particularly with boilers) managing, owning, renovating and residential  properties and buildings in New York City.  Mr. Gifford has apparently  spent his entire career focusing on what saves energy, while earning  money by saving people money on fuel.
> 
> In March 2008, Mr. Gifford blew the whistle on what he perceives as a  smoke and mirrors approach to sustainability by the USGBC, the creators  of the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design green building  rating system, better known as "LEED" stemming from a 2007 report  commissioned by the organization to actually measure the energy  performance of the buildings they are certifying as "green".  Central to  Mr. Gifford's position is the USGBC's apples to oranges approach of  comparing the median energy performance of one group of buildings to the  mean performance of another.
> 
> ...


If anyone is interested here is the Gifford report.¹ http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-5101-San-Jose-Environmental-Health-Examiner~y2009m7d1-GreenPoint-Rated-homes-have-more-formaldehyde-than-FEMA-trailers

² http://www.green-buildings.com/content/78357-henry-gifford


----------



## mark handler (Jul 8, 2010)

Once again Dick you are looking at the short term costs.

No one, that I have seen or read,  that green and leed are cheaper to build as a mater of fact the following is from the Leed Council

Average additional construction cost:

• LEED “Certified”: less than 1%

• LEED “Silver”: 1‐2%

• LEED “Gold”: 3‐4%

• LEED “Platinum”: 4‐8%

It is long term costs.

Savings of Energy, savings of water, saving of filling up our landfills through recycling if construction material.

You obviously don't care about the future or your grandchildren's future.

Ya know the same BS came out in '78 when the CA energy code came out.

I didn't agree with the '78 CA energy code

So all the people that made money from replacing windows to meet the CA energy code should give it back


----------



## mtlogcabin (Jul 8, 2010)

Which one sounds like it does not belong within a building departments regulatory authority.

2006 IBC 101.3 Intent.

The purpose of this code is to establish the minimum requirements to safeguard the public health, safety and general welfare through structural strength, means of egress facilities, stability, sanitation, adequate light and ventilation, energy conservation, and safety to life and property from fire and other hazards attributed to the built environment and to provide safety to fire fighters and emergency responders during emergency operations.

20006 IECC 101.3 Intent.

This code shall regulate the design and construction of buildings for the effective use of energy. This code is intended to provide flexibility to permit the use of innovative approaches and techniques to achieve the effective use of energy. This code is not intended to abridge safety, health or environmental requirements contained in other applicable codes or ordinances.

IGCC Public Version 1.0 March 2010 101.3 Intent.

The purpose of this code is to safeguard the enviroment, public health, safety and general welfare through the establishment of requirements to reduce the negative potential impacts and increase the positive potential impacts of the built enviroment on the natural enviroment and building occupants, by means of minimum requirements related to: conservation of natural resources, materials and energy: the employment of renewable energy technologiess, indooor and outdoor air quality: and building operations and maintenance.

The "Green and LEED" should be design guidelines that if someone wants to build too to feel good about the enviroment that is their business. The energy code is all that a building department should be concerned with. During my plan review and inspection process I don't care if federal stimulis grant money requires American made products be used and Davis Bacon wages be paid, although they may be positive requirements for creating jobs and stimulating the economy it is not the building departments responsibility to assure compliance. Same thing with "Green & Leed" designs it should not be the resposibility of a building department to assure compliance.


----------



## mark handler (Jul 8, 2010)

I do not buy the underlying assumption that the intent of all laws and codes should to safeguard the public.

We all need to aware of, and take a hand in, stopping the destruction and waste, we in the construction industry cause. It is time to step up and do whats right.

It is a good thing that some of us dinosaurs are retiring, and/or dying off.


----------



## ewenme (Jul 8, 2010)

mtlogcabin:

You left out "affordability," which comes right after "through" and before "structural strength". Think FredK's example of 700K per replacement puts that outside the code purpose. But, in my latest project for the boss, I've shown that our average builders in this area can build to meet ICC/ANSI 700 Green Building Standards without any more expense than they already have. When you live/work in a town full of 'granolas' you have to find ways to encourage reduction, reuse and recycling...and green building. I do that by one-on-one education of the contractors. Next, the mayor wants to 'require' every new home to be at least a bronze-level green home. Wish me luck!


----------



## peach (Jul 8, 2010)

LEED makes the building owner bleed green..

It's not cheap...  and points are awarded on such things as recycling and BUILDING MAINTENANCE...

It's a good marketing tool to get a LEED rating.. check out those building stats in 2 years..


----------



## conarb (Jul 8, 2010)

We have a LEED Platinum home in the Oakland Hills, the owner/builder is a contractor with a physician wife, they are buried in it and currently trying to get out from under it, they are trying to sell it for $1,000 a foot when comparable homes in that area seldom reach $500 a foot.  The home is a real energy hog from what I hear, I don't wonder, the windows are poor efficiency aluminum oriented for view rather than energy efficiency.

From the rumors I've heard he needs to get close to his asking price to break even, he'll never get it, his costs were apparently somewhere between double and triple what a conventional home could have been built for.

From what I've heard the ICC has rented headquarters in Washington DC, apparently they pay over double the rent for comparable office space for the bragging rights, but apparently they can recoup their higher costs by selling books and training building inspectors.

Both Green and Energy efficiency are very expensive, I read yesterday on a real estate appraisers' forum that Fannie and Freddie have deemed that solar panels do not increase value, so not to give any additional value when appraising them, I've looked and haven't been able to confirm that but will post if I can.


----------



## mark handler (Jul 8, 2010)

I think we know someone that can fix the windows.......


----------



## conarb (Jul 9, 2010)

I could, but with that exposure it would requires some drastic shading on the west elevation blocking the bay views.  The home I have in design now in Silicon Valley I'm estimating the glass package now, but my Canadian fabricator has "gone on Holiday" for a month, because of the redwood trees my glass packages are going to be the same around the entire home, *LoE-366(#2)/laminated clear/i81(#6), *specified in consultation with Cardinal Glass and the Lawrence Laboratories' Daylighting Institute*, *I'm guessing it will come in somewhere north of $300,000, about 10% of the cost of construction so not that bad to build a home that doesn't require heat or air conditioning.

There is also the case of our San Francisco Federal Building, designed by Southern Calfiornia architect Thom  Mayne, it's nicknamed Hugh G Rection by the employees.



			
				\ said:
			
		

> San Francisco requires at least minimum LEED certification, the problem  is that LEED certification isn't granted until after the building is  completed.  The Federal government built a new Federal Building in the  city, it is suppose to be the "greenest" building in the country, yet it  has been denied any kind of LEED certification.  What does the city do  now that the building is up and completed?  Albeit, two years behind  schedule because of the innovative systems, and we know behind schedule  is time, and time is money, so we know who's pocket that money is coming  out of.  Here is an article on the building.


 Now I read this in the paper:



> Originally Posted by *S. F. Chronicle* _And finally: First, the big new  Federal Building in San Francisco was late and over budget. Then workers  complained about needing sunglasses and umbrellas indoors to shield  them from the glaring sun._
> 
> _Now comes word about another bit of embarrassment at the $144 million  "green" behemoth at Seventh and Mission streets._
> 
> ...


* http://www.sfgate.com/columnists/matierandross/


----------



## mark handler (Jul 9, 2010)

The problems, in the "article on the building" do not cite the problems on leed.

In the "article on the building" not one word on Leed.

So now every project that is overbudget will be blamed on Leed. What scapegoat did we use prior to Leed.


----------



## conarb (Jul 9, 2010)

Mark:

They haven't been publicizing the reasons for the cost overruns, they seem to focus of the problems the inmates are having with all the glare, apparently the shading doesn't work, they work under umbrellas in the building. When looking at the reasons for cost overruns I don't think you can isolate it to the green requirements, they are usually caused by design deficiencies, leaving things out because of unfamiliarity with what they are used to doing allowing the contractors to invoice extras.

I do know that a developer was trying to get the City of San Francisco to waive their historic building code to tear down a building and build a new one several stories higher than their height limit. One of his main arguments was that he was going to be building a LEED Platinum building which was going to cost triple conventional construction costs, so he had to have the prime location and the added stories for the square footage necessary to make the project economically feasible.  An attorney representing the groups fighting the applications retained me to provide evidence that LEED was a fraud, it never went anywhere when the economy put everything on hold.

If you had bothered to read the Gifford report that I linked you would have read Henry Gifford's words:



> Part of the problem may reside in the system’s roots. The USGBC, which created the LEED system, was founded in 1993 byDavid Gottfried, a real estate developer, and Rick Fedrizzi, who was a marketing executive for an air conditioning company¹


And Mark, maniac that you are, I am fully aware that you put the words in quotes twice because the old link I footnoted was to a column that updates daily, but a little research shows that the  article was cited in another publication.  I do resent the implication.

¹ http://869789182725854870-a-energysavingscience-com-s-sites.googlegroups.com/a/energysavingscience.com/www/articles/henrysarticles/BuildingRatingSystems.pdf?attachauth=ANoY7cqsBFo4CU-iwuQOJ-HCNu0YN65hdx4onvCH8c_KdzrX7zzrp4drGSqb58FsazQqHr35QAPn-F0KZxrDz8hv5VFszcouf7tSSd7oOcusqBDHXWm7LVZV4Dqthchyj0PAcrj0IID_YoSLC_oGmGOVtMIAJCQ7DQ9Trl8u1MRA4s2Q6gWzDPbJ08raus-79CanqoZqVdn6IxOHUWCzOHAcbAcBlrt6rD7DG8k3VTa9O6TkquCz-ia4UwjqrgXrXa4H7eXroeoB&attredirects=0


----------



## mark handler (Jul 9, 2010)

So between 21:14 and 21:23, Yesterday, the SF newspaper changed the context in the link?

How come when you post something, its gospel, but when other point out errors in the post or in your logic, it's heresy?

I have read the "Gifford report".


----------



## Yankee (Jul 9, 2010)

Design, design, design. Design your way into energy effieciency.

Once you've f*** up the design, you cannot cannot cannot build your way back into efficiency, no matter what product you use.


----------



## Coug Dad (Jul 9, 2010)

Before anyone celebrates the death or retirement of the dinosaurs it would be best to learn some history dating back to the OPEC oil embargo and real energy shortages in the 1970’s.  Firms I worked at developed real energy saving approaches during the design of new or renovated buildings.  However, since there were no codes or pretty crystal plaques to force compliance, they had to convince developers of real world cost savings.  The good engineers did, and the proof was in the energy bills.  Real, documentable paybacks and happy clients where achieved.  So much of what passes as “green” today has absolutely no basis in real economics.  The real “green” crisis today is money, or has no one looked at recent federal, state and local budgets.  A private developer can add whatever features they want, it is their money.  However, when it comes to being stewards of public funds, it should be expected that government buildings require and document some level of payback.


----------



## mark handler (Jul 9, 2010)

Energy Strategies of LEED

•Reduce demand

•Harvest free energy

•Increase efficiency

•Recover waste energy

So some want to eliminate these?


----------



## ewenme (Jul 9, 2010)

Mark:

You pose a good question, but it raises questions. If the cost to harvest 'free' energy exceeds the value of the free energy, is there not a 'waste of monetary energy'?  Also, in order to reduce demand and increase efficiency, there will need to be changes in life-style and education of the general public as to what those changes need to be. The American general public doesn't take kindly to being asked to change what they have become accustomed to. At what cost will the required changes in life-style and the demands for continuing education be feasible? Throwing money down a rat hole is a waste of energy, time, and money. Until people really want something, it will be an uphill battle.


----------



## conarb (Jul 9, 2010)

Mark:

Since you are inferring that I was being less than honest in my post #10, I will explain.  I posted two San Francisco Chronicle columns, the first by John King on February 25, 2007 which is still available by the link, and the second Hugh G. Rection column by Matier & Ross, two San Francisco reporters who do a daily column on San Francisco politics and local fraud.  The link to the Matire and Ross column changes daily and the original column is no longer available in archive, but it occurred on or before October 9, 2008 when  when I first linked it on October 9, 2008.



			
				\ said:
			
		

> Energy Strategies of LEED•Reduce demand
> 
> •Harvest free energy
> 
> ...


 •Reduce demand

In a free society that is a function of supply and demand, when the price goes up the demand goes down, in a socialist totalitarian society it is a function of law. laws written by those who think they know what's best for others, many coming out of our educational brainwashing institutions, in Eisenhower's words from his Farewell Address:     *"....we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.*"

•Harvest free energy

Sure, but do it in an economically viable manner, all solar panel production available today in not economically today unless subsidized by the productive taxpayers in society. Silicon Valley today already is working with transistorized light capture, buying today's solar technology would be like buying an IBM mainframe computer in 1981 when a desktop computer could do the same job in 1982. Bill Joy, who some call 'The Thomas Edison of the Internet" said:



> Semiconductors (the foundation of Silicon Valley) can be used to convert  light to solar electricity and for other applications to the green  revolution. The Web was envisioned a long time before it was invented,  and the same will be true now in green technology.
> Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/02/13/BUBA15SUQT.DTL#ixzz0tClyjvna
> 
> 
> ​


•Increase efficiency Sure, but do it wisely, don't build buildings with cheap plastics, styrofoam, and toxic wood products, don't seal up buildings so they rot out in a few years and have to be replaced while they poison the occupants, build buildings to last a thousand years. In 1982 an Italian contractor came over to try to get me to invest in importing his concrete building technology, I took him on a tour of the buildings I was building, he commented through our interpreter: "You build out of matchsticks, how long are these houses going to last, 40 to 50 years? My house is 400 years old, and it's been in my family for all of those years, it should last another 400 years and remain in my family. Later I took a trip to Modena Italy when he invited me to have dinner at his house with Luciano Pavarotti,  the home is beautiful setting on over an acre of landscaped grounds.

•Recover waste energy

And just how is that economically done?  Every attempt at ERV and HRV systems cost more to operate than they save, the danger of Legionnaires' Disease is great, in our AHJs with green ordinances there are mosquitoes breeding in the cisterns, are people really going to separate items from their gray water wash, like baby diapers?

Many of those who promote environmentalism are profiteering off of a gullible public, they are just as guilty of green profiteering as the war profiteers during World War II, haven't you ever seen or read Arthur Miller's play All My Sons,  Greenwashing, Green profiteering, should be a criminal act.


----------



## conarb (Jul 9, 2010)

I read this in the financial news today:



			
				\ said:
			
		

> Whether it is their residence, a second home or a house bought as an  investment, the rich have stopped paying the mortgage at a rate that  greatly exceeds the rest of the population.
> 
> More than one in seven homeowners with loans in excess of a million  dollars are seriously delinquent, according to data compiled for The New  York Times by the real estate analytics firm CoreLogic.
> 
> ...


What this article doesn't say is that Los Altos is at the center of the Green Building Code toxic home syndrome problem, I know of several homes that people have walked away from becasue of illness and fear of formaldehyde.



> Of homes with more than 100 ppb formaldehyde, nine out of eleven were  in Los Altos. Of homes with more than 120 ppb formaldehyde, three out  of four were in Los Altos. Over half of the homes tested in Los Altos  had more formaldehyde than the 77 ppb average in the Katrina FEMA  trailers.
> 
> Initially, we could not understand why homes in Los  Altos were different from homes in nearby communities. Construction  practices and construction materials should be similar throughout the  county.
> 
> ...


I am trying to get approval to build in the next city over from Los Altos, the unincorporated area of Santa Clara County that also has  green ordinance, I am trying ever trick I know to avoid the green ordinance, even at that I have retained Linda Kinkaid to test every suspect material before it goes into the new home.  My owner's first request was that no chemicals, plastics, or engineered lumber is used in his home, I am leaving a portion of the old home to qualify as a remodel, then erecting a steel frame around everything so shear walls are not necessary, even plywood offgasses formaldehyde, and seals the building up so it can't breathe. I figure why not?  Our structural engineers require so much steel anyway now we might just as well take all shear loading in the steel.  Palo Alto has a green ordinance, the green rater had several pages of "G" sheets in the plans, with all the steel required they still made them put OSB in and on the home, the owner didn't want it, the inspectors hated it so much that they went around trying to push business cards between it and the studs making the contractor hand nail it becasue it's so "stiff" that it doesn't pull up tight to the studs when gun nailed, if they turn up the pressure too much it will break the surface of the OSB and then they will still have to renail it. It's one thing to put poor people in toxic boxes but forcing people who can afford to live in multimillion dollar homes to live with toxic junk is absurd¹ http://www.examiner.com/x-5101-San-Jose-Environmental-Health-Examiner~y2009m9d8-Elevated-formaldehyde-in-new-Los-Altos-homes


----------



## mark handler (Jul 9, 2010)

Green and LEED does not require the use of OSB

Is someone trying to Hijack the thread?

You can build with concrete, steel and other low formaldehyde products.

How can I avoid being exposed to formaldehyde?

· Choose building materials that are low in formaldehyde for home remodeling and construction projects. Choose furniture or cabinetry made of solid wood or softwood plywood can help reduce exposure.

· Use building products such as solid lumber or metal instead of particleboard.

· Increase ventilation when new sources of formaldehyde are brought into your home.

· Maintain moderate temperature and humidity levels when you have new building materials in your home.

· Consider washing permanent-press clothes and fabrics before you use them if you are sensitive to formaldehyde.

· Prohibit the use of tobacco products (e.g. cigarettes and cigars) indoors.


----------



## mark handler (Jul 9, 2010)

There was formaldehyde in products long before Green and LEED.

So now we are blaming Green and LEED, for all the evils in the constructed environment.

Cost overages, poor design, formaldehyde , hey lets blame  Unemployment on Green and LEED too.


----------



## conarb (Jul 9, 2010)

Mark:

Energy efficiency is mandating sealing up buildings, sealing them with toxic sealants and insulating them with toxic insulation and toxic foams, green raters are mandating "cleaning up the forest floor" by installing engineered wood laden with toxic products, mainly formaldehyde. Lstiburek's mantra is "Build it tight but ventilate it right", the problem is that by the time you turn up the ACH to 1.0 or even 3.0 you are expending more energy running fans and constantly conditioning exterior air than a normally built building consumes.  We had the sick building office building syndrome back in the 80s, now we are making the same mistake all over again, this time in homes, how soon people forget.

That's okay, Green Building law is the next big thing for the legal industry, they'll make a fortune like they did with asbestos law. In the last couple of months I've been contacted by two large law firms asking about setting up green building law departments. Suing architects and builders who build buildings that make people sick is a good thing, the bad thing is that many are just trying to comply with codes.


----------



## mark handler (Jul 9, 2010)

Hope all goes well for you.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Jul 9, 2010)

Coug Dad said it best if it is truly more efficient then market, sell it and prove it with historical data. Mandating bicycle parking area and prefered parking for hybrid vehicles and car pooling, Requiring meters on all systems and equipment that use potable makeup water are the things that irk me and should not be part of a building departments codes.

Some things do not work on a national level one code fits all. LEEd is a perfect example of that. Take a Gold or Platnium project in So Ca and see if it will even qualify here in northwest Mt and look at the cost difference.

We have a 1.3 million dollar grant to install a second floor over the existing truck bays in the Fire House. The grant requires it meet LEED Silver Certification. The only way to install a floor between the existing  floor and roof system and maintain the free span needed in the truck bays was to use a hollow core precast floor system. This one item alone having to be trucked in from Spokane Wa killed the LEED certifications and almost lost the grant. Fourtunatly the LEED certification requirement was dropped and the project is now out to bid.

So Mark yes LEED could have resulted in 1.3 million dollars of construction not happening in my area of 14% unemployment


----------



## mark handler (Jul 9, 2010)

Sick building syndrome Has been around for years, long long before Leed, so let's blame it on Leed

A 1984 World Health Organization Committee report suggested that up to 30 percent of new and remodeled buildings worldwide may be the subject of excessive complaints related to indoor air quality (IAQ).

And mtlogcabin, I do not belive the underlying assumption that LEED could have resulted in your 14 percent unemployment


----------



## conarb (Jul 9, 2010)

Of course it's become national joke, the hit of the superbowl this year. I gave a talk at a Stanford Alumni Association meeting recently on "Toxic Green" homes and building codes, they liked it so much that one of the attendees who is also a member of the Harvard Alumni Association asked me to make a presentation to them, which I have agreed to do.


----------



## ewenme (Jul 9, 2010)

Conarb:

I've been to the Tuscany and Cinque Terre regions of Italy. I'd move there in an instant. Different life-style, different philosophy of life, and we have to admit it, the structures have mostly been there for many generations and will be there for many more. Community has a different meaning there, as does life-work. Most of the Italians [working-class people] did not feel oppressed by their system. I spent two days in Rome and that was more than enough for me. Give me the rural country, and leave the urban world for those disconnected from nature.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Jul 9, 2010)

Mark there was never an assumption that LEED led to the 14% unemployment rate here. I clearly stated it would have resulted in the loss of a 1.3 million dollar construction project if it was required to meet LEED Silver requirements. We where fortunate that those that are overseeing our grant recgonized a problem and where willing to work with us to keep the project alive.

As your signature states "When two people agree about everything, only one of 'em's thinking." I think some of this has been hastily cobbled together by many different orginizations for a number of reasons be it to make money, save energy, print code books, save the planet, change the way we live or a number other things.

A consensus does not make something true or correct just as a perception doesn't, at one time there was a consensus the world was flat, We all evolved from slime and Global Warming is a fact resulting from mans actions. One was proven wrong one will probably never be a proven scientific fact and the jury is still out on the last one. We need more open ended discussions and that is what this board is about. Finding answers and solutions to code issues and heading off potential problems.

Have you read the IGCC version 1.0?


----------



## conarb (Jul 10, 2010)

\ said:
			
		

> Average additional construction cost:• LEED “Certified”: less than 1%
> 
> • LEED “Silver”: 1‐2%
> 
> ...


Mark:

Those numbers appear to be grossly underestimated from what developers are claiming, one in San Francisco claimed 300% more to get height limits and historic designation waived, he was probably overestimating to get what he wanted, do you have a source for those numbers?

Percentages can also be a misleading indicator, if I am forced to go BuiklItGreen in my Saratoga home I'm done a rough estimate of $100,000 more, that's only 3% in the context of the entire construction costs, but it's somebody else's $100,000, somebody who doesn't believe in environmental hysteria and might prefer to spend his $100,000 on wine, women and song, or maybe upgrade from a  BMW to a Bentley, or maybe put it toward his daughters' college educations.

Also, if I lose the fight to eliminate the Green Code requirement I also lose the battle against fire sprinklers, if I lose that fight it's estimated to cost $300,000 more, or 10%.  BTW, I am not fighting the Wildfire-Urban Interface code, that is costing around $100,000 more, with which both he and I are gladly willing to comply. We are also voluntarily building with a steel frame for a variety of reasons, including earthquake protection. It's easy to see why construction costs for a custom home are soaring over $1,000 a foot in this area. Click through this new home under construction, this sits in Woodside near where Steve Jobs has spent 30 years trying to get approval to tear down an old home and build a new one, if you factor in the costs of the approval, attorneys, permit expediters, and the permit process a $1,000 a foot will soon sound like the good old days.

Some people play fast and loose with other people's money in order to further their own political/religions beliefs, like Gaians and assorted other "save-the-earth types.


----------



## mark handler (Jul 10, 2010)

So it's not about Sick building syndrome, It's about money.


----------



## conarb (Jul 10, 2010)

\ said:
			
		

> So it's not about Sick building syndrome, It's about money


No it's about both, it's also about the freedom to do what you want and not have to do what commercial, political, and religious "stakeholders" think you should want. It's also about building a healthy home in line with the Healthy Building Standards of the Global Health and Safety Initiative. It's not about what the world's most renowned scientist calls  "a secular religion" .  It's also about rebelling against a totalitarian state and their Green Police.


----------



## mark handler (Jul 10, 2010)

Boy, the next thing you are going to tell me "The World Is Flat"....


----------



## conarb (Jul 10, 2010)

I guess we are lucky to have someone here smarter than Freeman Dyson.



> "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years.Great nations rise and fall. The people go from bondage to spiritual truth, to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependence, from dependence back again to bondage."
> 
> -Source Unknown (Most people believe it's Alexander Tytler)


And:





> "You Americans are so gullible. No, you won't accept Communism outright; but we'll keep feeding you small doses of Socialism until you will finally wake up and find that you already have Communism. We won't have to fight you; we'll so weaken your economy, until you fall like overripe fruit into our hands."  Nikita Sergeyevich Khrushchev  (April 17, 1894 – September 11, 1971)


----------



## mark handler (Jul 10, 2010)

No civilization can exist without social stability. The need for stability is why we create government. We are a county of laws. If you want to eliminate laws, you get Anarchy. No enforced authority.

If LEED Is Broken; Let's Fix It.

Addressing LEED elements is like solving a Rubik’s Cube. It takes the right combination of elements to complete a building.


----------



## conarb (Jul 10, 2010)

Well a somewhat positive respond, I'll respond in kind.



> No civilization can exist without social stability. The need for  stability is why we create government. We are a county of laws. If you  want to eliminate laws, you get Anarchy. No enforced authority.


The world is  Darwinian world, full of winners and losers, we can't change that, we should remain a meritocracy and not seek a Utopian egalitarian society and destroy what Abraham Lincoln described as "The last best hope on earth" for freedom, social engineering should be ended as public policy, we need fewer laws limiting freedom not more, the Audi Superbowl commercial shows the public perception of "Green", and I'm sure that the creators of the commercial didn't even know that the word had come to be synonymous with "toxic".  





> If LEED Is Broken; Let's Fix It.Addressing LEED elements is like solving a Rubik’s Cube. It takes the  right combination of elements to complete a building.


To start with dump the USGBC and it's LEED program, it was born of a fraudulent scheme and continues to be nothing but profiteering, it's been a failure on all counts at this point, the ICC and California have come up with their own green codes, ironically Big Eco is suing to block California's program because it doesn't go far enough, but the lawsuit is an opportunity to redesign the entire scheme, even through _Amicus Curiae_ pleadings in support of the Sierra Club, as much as I despise that Socialist organization.  In a positive vein, I like what has been done in the Portola Valley Town Center, Portola Valley was my old college drinking grounds at Rossotti's Beer Garden, it was horse farms and ranches in my day, now it is the home of billionaires who can well afford "Green" in this video





, the former owner of Sunset Magazine, the green center cost thousands of dollars per square foot, money donated by the local billionaires, but they built a sustainable building built to last thousands of years according to Lane.  Sustainable should mean built to last forever with the best of materials, not continuing to build with cheap junk and replace it every few years, we should end this disposable society and the primary focus of green codes should be "built to last forever".You know Mark I was a NAHB member for several years, I dropped out in the late 70s when a guy from the national headquarters gave a speech one night, he said that we builders should take a page from the car manufacturers' book, and build homes that continuously have to be replaced, that we built homes that last too long and don't have repeat customers, that goal has been achieved with the combination of green and energy codes.


----------



## mark handler (Jul 11, 2010)

So Conarb you are againt the California's Energy Efficiency Standards not Just Leed. The  California's Energy Efficiency Standards is what creates the "tight" buildings not Leed,  perception vs. reality.


----------



## conarb (Jul 11, 2010)

Mark:

I do not believe that either energy consumption or green building practices are within the code mandates, the codes should confine themselves with public health and safety as they were originally implemented to do, saving money, saving the earth, saving trees, or a host of other savings should be personal decisions and should have  nothing to do with with codes.  Once we get into enforcing personal beliefs, even beliefs held by the majority, we get onto the slippery slope of religion and/or totalitarianism.  Interestingly the first code books stated in their prefaces that the intent of the codes was to protect the health, safety, and increase the tax base, somehow increasing the tax base seems to have dropped out, but we all know that it's there.

I particularly abhor the implementation of the Gain religion into the codes, I think it's a violation of the separation of church and state.



> *Gaianism* is a the environmentalist religion described by late  author Michael Crichton. It is rooted in an effort to scam taxpayers and  quartz crystal buyers out of billions of dollars by pretending to hold  intuitive knowledge of humanity's intrinsic connection with our Home  World, the Earth, also known as Gaia and then  claiming "global warming". Gaia was originally a minor Greek goddess of  little importance. Approaching our Home World as Gaia, a name derived  from ancient Greek Polytheism, offers us a modern Earth-centered and  mostly Pantheist spirituality based  on a belief in the intrinsic personality of the Earth as a Living  Organism that has passed through billions of years of Evolutionary expression. The modern emergence of  this Earth-centered  philosophy stems out of the accepted Gaia Theory which conveys the science behind the  Earth as an ancient, living and self-regulating system within systems. *Gaians* are individuals who use the Gaia Theory of debunked global warming hoaxer James Lovelock spiritually. These people hold a strong  belief that the Earth is, in its ancient legacy and self-regulating  expression of life, an entity that we are defined through as a species  of the planet. It is a Gaian's endeavor to maintain a close relationship  with the planet in order to strive toward world  peace, maintain global homeostasis  and find inner fulfillment.
> 
> Often referred to as Gaianism, or the Gaian Religion, this spiritual  aspect of the philosophy is very broad and inclusive, making it  adaptable to other religions: Humanism,  Taoism,  Neo-Paganism, Pantheism,  Judeo-Christian Religions, and others.
> 
> ...


¹ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaianism


----------



## mark handler (Jul 11, 2010)

Have you thought about trying, thorazine.


----------



## conarb (Jul 11, 2010)

No, prefer fighting the imposition of religion by code, the Gaia Hypothesis is the greatest threat to the Untied States, our economy, our money, and our liberty today.


----------



## mark handler (Jul 11, 2010)

OK. thanks for sharing.....

No man is happy without a delusion of some kind. Delusions are as necessary to our happiness as realities.


----------



## packsaddle (Jul 11, 2010)

In case you have been living under a rock since Obama was elected, the current administration has clearly stated the real ambition of green technologies:  SOCIAL JUSTICE AND REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH.

This whole hippie movement has nothing to do with energy efficiency or sustainability....these are just code words for REPARATIONS.

Deny or ignore it at your own peril.


----------



## mark handler (Jul 11, 2010)

.... send in the clowns.

Don't bother - they're here.....


----------



## vegas paul (Jul 12, 2010)

Getting back to something REAL and CODE RELATED here, let me ask:

How can the formaldehyde-ridden products make a tight building sick, when they don't make a loose building sick? I know, I know, the chemicals can't escape, HOWEVER, with code-required 15 cfm per (calculated) occupant OUTDOOR VENTILATION air, or 0.35 air changes/hour... isn't that LOOSE enough for you?

The whole issue of tightness is rediculous when the very same code requires outside air at these quantities. Venilate the D#%* house in compliance with the code and voila, the house isn't any sicker than a house built in 2000 with the same materials.

Rant complete...


----------



## mark handler (Jul 12, 2010)

Paul

formaldehyde-ridden products are but one source of SBS

Benzene, Trichloroethylene, radon, Carbon Monoxide, Nitrogen dioxide, Asbestos, Mold, VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (VOCs) and Sulfur dioxide


----------



## vegas paul (Jul 12, 2010)

Mark - OK, but my question still stands... Why does a tight house (with required outside ventilation providing required air changes) get any "sicker" than a non-tight house regardless what chemicals are introduced?  Don't these compounds get ventilated out just like they have for years in homes built to older codes?

And a better question... if the ventilation is required, why tighten up the house, just to loosen it with required outside air requirements?


----------



## mark handler (Jul 12, 2010)

The required outside ventilation is not sufficient in "new or remodeled" buildings. They need to be aired out prior to occupancy. Most building occupants do not want to wait until the chemicals have “leached” out. This can take months to years. That "new" building or car smell.


----------



## vegas paul (Jul 12, 2010)

Mark - I don't believe you were getting 0.35 air changes per hour leaking (air infiltration) through the homes constructed with the old codes.  If the new homes need to be aired out (I agree, they do!), then the older homes did also, if they used similar products inside.

Again the unanswered question is:  Even once the chemicals have leached out, how is a tight home beneficial if 15 cfm of outside air per occupant is being introduced into the home (and subsequently, 15 cfm of conditioned air is being purged out of the home as a result).


----------



## mark handler (Jul 12, 2010)

I have no clue. If the building occupants are still getting sick then the ventilation is not sufficent.


----------



## TJacobs (Jul 12, 2010)

packsaddle said:
			
		

> In case you have been living under a rock since Obama was elected, the current administration has clearly stated the real ambition of green technologies: SOCIAL JUSTICE AND REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH.This whole hippie movement has nothing to do with energy efficiency or sustainability....these are just code words for REPARATIONS.
> 
> Deny or ignore it at your own peril.


100% correct.


----------



## Coug Dad (Jul 12, 2010)

We don't really need all that evil air conditioning anyway!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/09/AR2010070902341_pf.html


----------



## Yankee (Jul 12, 2010)

mark handler said:
			
		

> I have no clue. If the building occupants are still getting sick then the ventilation is not sufficent.


The ventilation is not sufficient because it is not being supplied. When " a window capable of opening" is counted toward ventilation requirements, then we need to install occupants that know when the window needs to be opened. Ridiculous.


----------



## ewenme (Jul 12, 2010)

One of the biggest problems with requiring tight construction is lack of training the home owner on how to live in the house. There were many home owners who disconnected the whole house fans [which were designed to exhaust and intake fresh air for the required ACH of .35] and then complained about stale air or mold. In the days of the Northwest Energy Code, the best solution was installing 'FreshAire 80s' which were dampers that were almost owner-proof. I say almost, because sometimes they were actually painted shut. Houses do have to breathe, and in tight construction, that should be a part of the plan, not left up to homeowners who don't understand the mechanics. Education of the masses is the only hope. Unfortunately, the masses are not listening.


----------



## Yankee (Jul 12, 2010)

Coug Dad said:
			
		

> We don't really need all that evil air conditioning anyway!http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/09/AR2010070902341_pf.html


That is a wonderful article!


----------



## mtlogcabin (Jul 12, 2010)

> We don't really need all that evil air conditioning anyway!http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...902341_pf.html


 It is a good article. I lived 43 years in South Florida and never had AC in any home I lived in or car that I drove. It is not a neccessity like heat


----------



## mark handler (Jul 16, 2010)

Drumming up trouble Dick?



> conarb - 07-08-2010 I think a comment from you would be valuable since you are an architect in the green building thread, I'm sure "Mark" is the old "Maniac" from the old bulletin board, and he's an architect.  Dick


----------



## rogerpa (Jul 16, 2010)

> The ventilation is not sufficient because it is not being supplied. When  " a window capable of opening" is counted toward ventilation  requirements, then we need to install occupants that know when the  window needs to be opened. Ridiculous.





> One of the biggest problems with requiring tight construction is lack of  training the home owner on how to live in the house.


One of the early draft versions of ASHRAE 62.2 actually required occupants to open the bedroom windows. I guess they couldn't find enough bedroom police to enforce this so they dropped the requirement from the final draft.


----------



## mark handler (Jul 16, 2010)

So because people don't open their windows, green codes are bad. That is the logic of some "self proclained Experts".


----------



## conarb (Jul 16, 2010)

Why not start by banning all chemicals listed on California's Prop 65? That should get rid of all the foams and sealants that they use to seal up buildings.


----------



## mark handler (Jul 16, 2010)

conarb said:
			
		

> Why not start by banning all chemicals listed on California's Prop 65? That should get rid of all the foams and sealants that they use to seal up buildings.


Good Start


----------



## conarb (Jul 16, 2010)

That will get rid of PEX and OSB. And not just reducing the toxic chemicals, get rid of them.


----------



## mark handler (Jul 16, 2010)

conarb said:
			
		

> That will get rid of PEX and OSB. And not just reducing the toxic chemicals, get rid of them.


And Vinyl windows, their production causes pollution, and their use causes Sick Building Syndrome, then we need to go after all the people that install them….


----------



## conarb (Jul 16, 2010)

\ said:
			
		

> And Vinyl windows, their production causes pollution, and their use  causes Sick Building Syndrome, then we need to go after all the people  that install them….


I agree, but first give us wood windows that are U-0.18 like we can get from Canada and Germany in PVC, fiberglass won't make the toxic cut in manufacturing, aluminum and steel won't make the U-0.18 cut.  In fact let's ban all PVC in homes, siding, wiring, and plumbing like Greenpeace is doing in Europe.

Let's train and arm building inspectors with formaldehyde and mold testing equipment to clear homes before issuing final inspections, and none of this 14-day air-flushing period, these toxics are embedded to come out later.  In fact eliminate the 14-day air-flushing period altogether, just let inspectors clear the buildings before any fans are turned on.


----------



## mark handler (Jul 16, 2010)

conarb said:
			
		

> I agree, but first give us wood windows that are U-0.18 like we can get from Canada and Germany in PVC, fiberglass won't make the toxic cut in manufacturing, aluminum and steel won't make the U-0.18 cut.  In fact let's ban all PVC in homes, siding, wiring, and plumbing like Greenpeace is doing in Europe. Let's train and arm building inspectors with formaldehyde and mold testing equipment to clear homes before issuing final inspections, and none of this 14-day air-flushing period, these toxics are embedded to come out later.  In fact eliminate the 14-day air-flushing period altogether, just let inspectors clear the buildings before any fans are turned on.


Finally we agree


----------



## mark handler (Jul 19, 2010)

Even with the new green codes National home price average remains flat in June

July 8, 2010 – Highlights from Altos Research’s June 10-City Composite Price Index include the following:

The Altos Research 10-City Composite Price Index was flat in June and up just 0.2% during the second quarter of 2010.

The Composite - which had shown sequential monthly declines for the past nine months - posted a positive reading during May but was unable to sustain the monthly increase in June.

Asking prices rose in 13 of 26 major markets. San Francisco experienced the sharpest increase in June with prices rising 2.0%.

Listed property inventory jumped in 25 of 26 markets tracked. Inventory increased at the fastest rate in San Francisco and Washington, D.C., up 7.6% and 7.1% respectively during June. During the second quarter, inventory increased by a relatively restrained 5.4% across the Altos Research 10-City Index markets. As of mid-July housing inventory levels are rising significantly, where last year at this time inventory was contracting.

Housing demand has declined as a result of the end of the federal government’s tax credit, inventory is climbing and the effect on prices appears to just begun.

June Home Price Trends

The 10-City Composite Index was flat during the month of June and up just 0.2% during the second quarter of 2010. The Composite Index effectively bottomed out in January 2009 at $470,017, climbed throughout the first half of 2009 to $509,030 in July before returning to a gradual downward trend. The Index stood at $477,937 as of June 2010 reflecting a decline of 6.1% from its 2009 summer high.


----------



## vegas paul (Jul 19, 2010)

Don't confuse flat prices with zero cost increase due to greening... The foreclosures have dragged down the prices such that the "averages" remain flat, and comps (for real estate lending) are based on short sales and foreclosures.


----------



## mark handler (Jul 19, 2010)

Paul

If you read the entire thread you know that

This was previously posted:

Average additional construction cost:

• LEED “Certified”: less than 1%

• LEED “Silver”: 1‐2%

• LEED “Gold”: 3‐4%

• LEED “Platinum”: 4‐8%


----------



## mark handler (Jul 19, 2010)

Can New Green Building Codes Clear Up the Confusion?

Tal Pinchevsky on March 13, 2010, 12:05 PM

 With billions of dollars already invested in clean-energy jobs and manufacturing, the green revolution remains a work-in-progress. But while plenty of tax credits appear to be going to the right place, the lack of cohesive green regulations is making the whole concept a little elusive. But a new series of green building codes could finally be ushering in the kind of change many people have been waiting for.

The international green building codes just announced by the International Code Council, ASHRAE, the U.S. Green Building Council, and Illuminating Engineering Society of North America are an interesting precedent regarding the LEED standard of green building. The major inclusion in the regulations is Standard 189.1, which involves criteria including water-use efficiency, indoor environmental quality, energy efficiency, material and resource use, and the building’s impact on the community. These types of regulations have been building for some time, in some cases creating problems as well as solutions.

Almost two years ago, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom signed into law what he called the nation’s strictest green building codes. At that time, eight states had already adopted green building codes. By last year, cities like Santa Fe were enforcing residential green building codes and New York had assembled a green codes task force. In 2010, the city of Portland, state of California, and even the emirate of Dubai have enacted specific green building guidelines. But with these regulations have come criticisms, including environmentalists’ claims that California’s statewide regulations don’t meet the standard set by other state jurisdictions, including San Francisco and Los Angeles. The USGBC Northern California chapter even brought up the possibility that conflicting regulations could cause market confusion.

This type of conflict isn’t unprecedented. In 2008, a federal judge stalled Albuquerque’s green building codes after a lawsuit was filed by contractors citing federal statutes. Meanwhile, Boulder County in Colorado is considering changes to their green building codes.  On the heels of Wyoming’s governor deciding that his state didn’t require green building codes and with an emerging series of conflicts in regulation, the hope is that these new universal guidelines could provide some much-needed clarity in the industry.

With the new regulations still so fresh, there hasn’t been any real verdict passed by advocates yet. But considering the money is already being invested in green, we may finally have some good sense to govern all these good intentions.

http://bigthink.com/ideas/19064


----------



## mtlogcabin (Jul 20, 2010)

LEED and GREEN may not be the same cost


*Greening Costs*

Besides soft costs, the main incremental cost component of LEED certified buildings is the cost

to “green” the building. This cost represents the premium over traditional construction that a

green building would have imbedded in its construction costs. The elements of these costs vary

as widely as the LEED certification criteria. They may include additional site work and

structures; additional infrastructure costs related to transportation; different heating, cooling, and

ventilation systems; roofing; lighting; water use; recycling services at the site; and sourcing

specific construction materials (from regional sources, recycled content, or certified forests).

While this is potentially the larger area of incremental costs (sources we consulted variously

estimated these additional costs at up to 30 percent of construction costs), many of the available

examples do not isolate these costs and for those that do the data vary across a large range. We

believe a reasonable estimate is that greening adds between three and eight percent to the cost of

a “typically” constructed building.

Greening is one area where it is particularly difficult to isolate the true incremental costs of

LEED _versus _other practices and guidelines followed by designers and contractors. Compliance

with local codes may lead builders to exactly the same specifications and practices that the

LEED guidelines do, so in that case we should not attribute any incremental cost to the LEED

process.
​
We lacked adequate data to develop a statistically based value for greening costs. Based on our

judgment of the information we reviewed, we believe that an appropriate range for greening

costs is three to eight percent of construction costs. These costs are particularly susceptible to
​increases if the LEED criteria become more stringent in future versions of the program.

http://www.cleanair-coolplanet.org/for_communities/LEED_links/AnalyzingtheCostofLEED.pdf


----------



## Coug Dad (Jul 20, 2010)

A percent here for this pet social project (dare I say 1% for art) and a percent there for someone else's pet concern du jour.  Pretty soon it adds up to some real money.


----------



## mark handler (Jul 20, 2010)

mtlogcabin

I am glad you posted that.

Some need to start to differenciate "LEED" and "GREEN" they are not the same, Nor are they always the same cost.


----------



## gbhammer (Apr 3, 2012)

conarb said:
			
		

> No, prefer fighting the imposition of religion by code, the Gaia Hypothesis is the greatest threat to the Untied States, our economy, our money, and our liberty today.


This thread is my new favorite.

Just love it.

"The Gaia Hypothesis"   AWESOME

and this little nugget of Bodaciousness



			
				packsaddle said:
			
		

> In case you have been living under a rock since Obama was elected, the current administration has clearly stated the real ambition of green technologies:  SOCIAL JUSTICE AND REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH.This whole hippie movement has nothing to do with energy efficiency or sustainability....these are just code words for REPARATIONS.
> 
> Deny or ignore it at your own peril.


----------

