Freedom or Responsibility: Greening the Built Environment

“Freedom Day” as our state euphemistically calls the Martin Luther King Holiday, is an opportunity to reflect on the many types of freedom enjoyed by mankind. Democratic nations enjoy free will and liberty to make choices in life concerning education, speech, and self-determination.

These same freedoms apply to all of your neighbors. In principle, this would mean that your son’s rock band can practice whenever they want. But we all recognize the mayhem this would create, and recognize that freedom is not a wholesale lack of restrictions. It comes with a responsibility towards other humans. However, because we don’t all have the same understanding of noise, per the example, then an arrangement need to be made for a common solution, Hopefully, this can come about through some means of representation, but in general, we recognize the need for some common ground rules, for example a noise ordinance. All groupings of people create some sort of governing body, to watch out for the welfare of the greater good.

From an environmental perspective, we recognize the need to protect humanity. For example, laws are passed to prevent toxins from polluting waterways, or harming manufacturing workers. History has shown us that mankind, and it’s representation as “industry” has more often than not acted out of economic interest, without consideration to environmental harm. It often takes a third party to research and recognize the environmental considerations, which is then presented to a government to safeguard the public.

And so it is with energy and green building. Our guest blog on the GreenBuilding Advisor has generated considerable discussion regarding the possible paths towards a greener built environment. And while some express hope that human nature will rise to the occasion, Mike Collignan has so clearly pointed out that the voluntary market efforts have resulted in a mere 4.45% – 5.39% penetration over the last two decades. So the pseudo democratic, quasi capitalistic economy is clearly not the most effective in catalyzing the change which is needed.

In fact, industry and the building trades have a heavy hand of influence through their trade organizations in the commercializing and weakening of many of the voluntary green building rating systems and standards. (ENERGY Star excepted, Sam Rashkin & colleagues rely on solid building science in the development of their benchmark and trainings). It is about short term economics.

As part of my research, I have found two sets of Emotional Intelligence testing data which indicates that people in the construction industry has strong skills in independence and assertiveness, but much lower skills related to empathy and social responsibility. Perhaps this is a good place to start, with entering freshman, new hires, and whenever the discussion of a green building product arises. Are we seeing our businesses only within the narrow confines of our short-term results, and the freedoms to build as we please? Or do we understand the opportunity to contribute to the greater good? And yes, there are sufficient exemplary companies who have successfully combined the goals, so it can be done.

Today we think about freedom. The freedom to make the right choices for our fellow man, and for future generations.