As an old 70’s passive solar gal, I cast a bit of an cautious eye to the “greenwash” which has swept the nation and question the underlying intent. Just yesterday, I read a parallel opinion of veganism, which noted that the ethical argument about “inhumane” treatment of the animals in the food processing is a bit misplaced empathy in view of the fact that slaughterhouses have among the highest on-the-job injury rates of any profession. Are we likewise applying our “green building” efforts selectively?
Take Walmart, for example. Frequently praised for building more energy-efficient stores, using alternative fuel in its trucks and reducing packaging, Walmart is now urging suppliers to reduce 20 million metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions by 2015. Would these be the Chinese suppliers? I seem to remember that Sam Walton built his business on promises of American-made product, and I also remember the companies, towns, and PEOPLE whose lives were decimated when Walmart pulled the plug to move the business to China.
While their energy efficient measures are commendable, they also contribute positively to the bottom line. But how about some of the tougher decisions – like retrofitting existing big boxes to improve an existing community? And how do you account for the local businesses which are displaced when Walmart moves in, or the resulting low wages, part-time work, or low return investment to community. Is this green? Now Walmart is donating food. Why not just provide for their own employees?
On the other hand, look at the examples of Ben and Jerry’s, Patagonia, IceBreaker. Their mission statements include: linked prosperity, culture as energy, ethical manufacturing, transparent supply chain, cause the least harm to the environment. These are very economically viable, global companies who are helping the make the future livable, safe and just for everyone. They embody the vision of the CERES group, who introduced the vision of a world in which business and capital markets promote the well being of human society and the protection of the earth’s biological systems and resources.
I see the CERES version of green as the circular ripple when a drop hits the surface of a pool of water. The effort starts in-house, implementing measures which reduce waste, improve employee lives, and lessen the environmental footprint of the product. The next ripple is the interaction of this company with its surrounding, the neighborhood, the community. And so the impact of the company improves the surrounding spheres, not skipping over any, but recognizing their interconnectivity. Advancing Sustainable Prosperity.
Readers - I need your help. Who are the Ben& Jerry’s of the construction world? I am specifically interested in learning the stories of residential builders who have embraced the ripple effect of green. My PhD topic will be building on the lessons learned from these folks, with this blog as an opportunity to share knowledge. So - let me hear from you. Send me your own story, or links to other builders, websites, blogs. Let’s learn together.
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
4 comments:
I wish I knew some Ben& Jerry's - I know they must be out there, but they do a good job of hiding! I do know that Skanska has a green job trailer that is housed on the VT campus...not sure if that is more greenwash, but I do believe they are committed to more sustainable building.
I think Skanska is a good example. Years ago their San Francisco office was designated as the "green office", to develop the processes and methods to achieve the environmental triple bottom line. Their approach has since been adopted company wide. Of course, it may take years to train all the workers... which leads me to a great idea for my next blog - THANKS
There is a builder I have installed ICF's for a number of times who may come close to this. Adam Bearup of Hybrid Homes. You might look into that.
www.wmhybrid.com
There is purposeful attempt to market "green" when it doesn't exist, and I think the motives are complicated. Sometimes it's a deliberate snow job, and sometimes it's just because folks don't know any better even though the motives are pure.
In some cases, there is a "greenwashing" like you described with large corporations whereby marketers spin the facts to appear green when the overall bigger picture is still the same unsustainable liner manufacturing.
This sort of blatant duplicitous attempt is sad, but it's not the biggest problem facing genuinely sustainable cradle to cradle building.
What we really need to worry about is a fundamental lack of understanding of building science on the part of designers and contractors coupled with lack of basic knowledge of simple physics.
We've got architects and contractors with too little or simply inaccurate, knowledge plying their trades, and the best way to solve this problem is a sound education followed by mandatory continuing education to keep up with emerging technologies.
I'm also excited to see increased emphasis on inter-disciplinary studies. It's important for specialists to see the whole picture while they are doing their part because this makes the best design and best build. One of the by-products of specializing in your field is the unique language used. This is a great shorthand among colleagues, but this becomes a liability when working with others. One common example is the specialists who have trouble talking with clients. I think most of us have come across a doctor, for example that uses technical speak instead of lay terms, but an often unaddressed problem is how "tech speak" can break down good communication between specialists working on the same project. A prime example is the typical green roof retro-fit: this requires an architect (to design the roof), an engineer (to assess and possibly improve the structure to support the extra 30 lbs. to sq. ft. load), a landscape architect, a horticulturist, and most importantly, staff to maintain the structure once it's in place. All these folks have to come together, and sometimes even when they really want to come together, it's hard to find common language. I see inter-disciplinary studies as part of the solution to this problem.
So, pseudo-green comes in a lot of flavors and I am not as bothered by the marketing types peddling crap as I am by the real people who are trying and failing due to a lack of understanding the science, applying the technology, and communicating it among team.
The only way we're going to get away form a linear manufacturing system a genuinely circular manufacturing system that uses waste as food is to re-design everything. To accomplish this, we need smart capable communicative people working together towards the common goal.
Post a Comment