Myths & Misconceptions
Myths are the speed bumps in the green design autobahn.
In an ideal world, a world governed by the USGBC and which can be traversed by solar-powered transportation, a world where formaldehyde is Dr. Jekyll in his off-time and where Greenpeace boats are welcomed with flowers instead of harpoons, your project would always be a new build (because existing structures would stay relevant for generations), and your associates (architect, contractor, builder, plumber, electrician, etc.) would know no other way to operate than under the assumption of environmental practices.
Realistically, you’ll encounter more myth-based resistance to new technology, unusual products and the new set of constraints that building/remodeling environmentally will present. And for the unseasoned, some of these claims and concerns can look pretty real. It’s up to you to get educated and see through the greenwash. Let’s examine some misconceptions.
Myth: A large footprint makes sustainability impossible.
Okay, clearly, the bigger the footprint, the less green your project will be by definition, no matter how you position it. Big projects mean more resources—money, time, materials, labor, patience. But by paying attention to energy efficiency, indoor air quality and the origins of the materials selected and used in the process, you’re taking, as noted green designer Pat Gaylor advocates, the all-important first step. Not every client is going to want to utilize every sustainable practice you suggest (in-kitchen composting unit, anyone?), but introducing green design to a client is like throwing spaghetti at a wall: throw a bevy of suggestions at them and one of them is bound to stick.
What are some green walls you’re encountering on the job? Leave them in the comments section; I’m eager to hear what you’re seeing.
July 23rd, 2008 at 12:16 pm
A quick response to the statement about the ideal project - a “new build”:
One of the more telling factors quantifying the “greenness” of a project and its components is the embodied energy - and any new project is generally going to have a lot more than an existent re-do. And as remodels are a large part of the kitchen/bath market, this ability to green-up a pre-existing installation is a golden opportunity for sales and furthering sustainability.
July 23rd, 2008 at 1:26 pm
How is it an “ideal world” when eco-fascists like Greenpeace are “welcomed with flowers”? Let’s save some whales and have some nukes and not go too crazy. Carbon dioxide is not pollution however, mercury is. Can we simply agree that insulated windows are cheaper in the long run and probably not a bad idea? A little reasonableness and longer term thinking will go a long way to making our planet better without welcoming terrorists with flowers. While we are at it, those Greenpeace boats might make a nice artificial reef.
July 28th, 2008 at 5:51 pm
I definitely agree with you; new builds are energy drains. The point I was trying to make is that in an ideal world, you wouldn’t be cleaning up the inefficient nightmares of half a century past and would have the opportunity to create a lasting, sustainable structure.
Thanks for the comment!
Andrea
July 28th, 2008 at 5:52 pm
Oh come on, Whmccall. You know a little humorous overkill when you see it, don’t you?
Thanks for the comment.
Andrea
October 10th, 2009 at 3:32 pm
Yo-all u “green-wanabees”. Scientific fact gives us all little more than 1 decade to clean our act up - OR …it’s “Cioa bella/o” for EVERYTHING.
Think about cleaning up,not too long though ’cause
WE AIN’T GOT TIME!
I was laid off but still did $100 K remodle w/ solar panels,low voc paint,cork flooring,plantation mahogany,plyboo,& energy efficient appliances. I’m still unemployed 5 years later,but at least my electric bill is only $5 / mo!
Don’t “think green”… “Be,Breathe-GREEN” Don’t try,DO-NOW.