Kitchen & Bath Sustainable

In an ideal world, all buildings would be zero-energy.  They would have garden rooftops to clean rainwater and cool the city in which they are built.  Every lightbulb in the building would come with a lifetime warranty, each plank of wood used, ounce of concrete poured, metal metallurgized (probably not a real word) would have come from someplace else, some other less efficient building, torn down (sustainably) to provide parts for a better, cleaner, greener building.

In a less ideal world, the building would still exist.  It would have CFLs, a green air conditioning system, no-formaldehyde wood components, working windows.  Some of the materials would be recycled, but some would not.  The developer might have purchased some carbon offset credits to adjust for this, but probably not.  Still, there would be recycling/composting facilities and solar panels on the roof to offset the impact on the fossil fuel-run energy grid.

In our world, there are still forests which aren’t sustainably run, pH-destroying nitrogenous fertilizers, formaldehyde in our processes, high-VOC stains and paints being used, and buildings which, although there might be a wealth of CFLs and LEDS, aren’t using any solar or wind power, let alone a green garden on the roof.

But that’s why we’ve got green building programs, I hear you say.  Or, do we?  The New York Times is reporting this week that some buildings certified by the USGBC aren’t meeting the program’s standards once certified and in use.  The USGBC doesn’t deny it, either.

The council’s own research suggests that a quarter of the new buildings that have been certified do not save as much energy as their designs predicted and that most do not track energy consumption once in use. And the program has been under attack from architects, engineers and energy experts who argue that because building performance is not tracked, the certification may be falling short in reducing emissions tied to global warming.

Yikes. 

The tack most of us in the green journalism community have taken on the subject is to say that if there weren’t organizations like the USGBC making their certifications desirable for tax credits and energy savings audits, the building community at large might have had less pressure from the green movement as a whole.  Basically, any movement toward sustainability is better than none at all.  Still, it makes this reporter wonder why a developer would bother going through the paperwork, the energy audits, and the bureaucracy of the process to attain LEED certification in the first place if the building’s overall performance wasn’t going to be tracked, monitored and, in some way, monetized.  Theoretically, it’s just as much as savings for them in the long run as it potentially is for the environment.

Let me know what you think! Leave your comments.

Quick update on something potentially neat: we got a little note this morning about Hakatai tiles being delivered in a reportedly “carbon neutral” state thanks to carbon offsets. 

From the company’s public relations rep:

Hakatai Glass Mosaic Tiles are now delivered carbon-neutral in a partnership with GreenShipping.com and the Bonneville Environmental Foundation. GreenShipping.com uses a CO2 emissions calculator and to provide a total, and Hakatai purchases carbon offsets from BEF to help fund the development of renewable energy.Neat stuff.  How do carbon offsets sit with you?  Would you consider buying them if they offset the footprint of a major project like a new home construction or massive addition to/remodel of an existing space? 

It’s a controversial topic, an attempt to reconcile those who believe minimalism and the “leave no trace” philosophy of environmentalism with the very carbon un-neutral building industry.  Thoughts?