What constitutes green building?
A good and often asked question.
I have read more definitions of what “green” means than I can remember.
I often hear references to “shades of green”.
If one acknowledges the severity of the problems we collectively face then one must acknowledge the need to difine a holistic solution to these problems (no matter how stringent the requirements of the definition).
It seems to me that the adjective “green” does NOT currently meet this requirement.
I’m tired of “shades of green”. A spade needs to be called a spade, and houses that will (actualy) help mankind to live sustainably into the future need a name too.
Any ideas?
PS. Thank you GBA for providing this excellent forum where these issues can be brought forth. I know of no other place that provides this function.
GBA Detail Library
A collection of one thousand construction details organized by climate and house part
Replies
The term "green" is commonly used and evocative, but does not have anything like a technical definition. The term "sustainable" is at least as overused and abused but, unlike "green", one can infer a strict definition of the term.
A truly "sustainable" anything does not deplete natural capital, period. It produces at least as much resource as it consumes, and it does not damage the ecosystem locally or remotely. There are no large buildings currently in existence that meet this criteria, as far as I know. However, the Living Building Institute is trying to define a standard that would identify the necessary characteristics.
A couple of caveats:
1) A building can be a net consumer of resources and still be sustainable by my strict definition. However, to do so it must (a) produce a surplus of other resources to offset its consumption and (b) be embedded in a environment that can infinitely recycle or regenerate the resources it does use without harm to the environment.
2) Given the harm that has already been done the the biosphere, a merely sustainable building (i.e. net zero everything) would be nice but isn't actually good enough. If we want long-term sustainability, we have to start repairing the damage that we have done since the start of the industrial revolution. So in my mind, a truly sustainable building (or more accurately, a building that supports a sustainable society) must be a net producer of resources and/or ecosystem services.
It's a really high bar. But there you have it.
Thanks Brent. I agree that some form of neutral existance may not be enough. The way we build needs to give back to the natural systems around us... You're right that this is a high bar.
My intent is not to take away from the obviously good work people are already doing, but I worry about the distance that needs to be covered between where we are and that high bar.
If we wait for the consumer to rationalize all the details, it's likely we'll never make the required difference in time.
I thought it might be useful to have a single term to indentify this type of building...
When I look at a beautiful solid house built in the 17 and 1800's, and there are many of them in New England where I am., I wonder what terminology the builders used then for Green? Obviously, they constructed homes that where, water tight, as energy efficient as possible, had great common sense about use of space and palcement of the buildings, etc. Building science at that time was a mixture of fine quality, great use of natural resources and sensible design. Application of these concepts in 2010 or 1800 is no different. What is the best terminology for replacing the words Green and Sustainable in present times? let's think about what the 1800's builder would have called it, Highly Efficient Craftsmanship? I'm not a good wordsmith but someone out there may be able to tie together pride in construction, environmental control and efficient use of space and materials to come up with the words we need. Steve Linsky - Green Building Coordinator at National Lumber http://www.national-lumber.com follow me on Twitter (Steveproforce)
3. (Whoops! spelling corrected here!) When I look at a beautiful solid house built in the 17 and 1800's, and there are many of them in New England where I am., I wonder what terminology the builders used then for Green? Obviously, they constructed homes that were, water tight, as energy efficient as possible, had great common sense about use of space and placement of the buildings, etc. Building science at that time was a mixture of fine quality, great use of natural resources and sensible design. Application of these concepts in 2010 or 1800 is no different. What is the best terminology for replacing the words Green and Sustainable in present times? let's think about what the 1800's builder would have called it, Highly Efficient Craftsmanship? I'm not a good wordsmith but someone out there may be able to tie together pride in construction, environmental control and efficient use of space and materials to come up with the words we need. Steve Linsky - Green Building Coordinator at National Lumber http://www.national-lumber.com follow me on Twitter (Steveproforce)
Steve,
I've heard lots of people speculate that it was sometime just after the Victorian era that humans crossed the threshold of unsustainability. I guess that would make the houses you describe the last of mankind's sustainable housing ;)
Replacing the term "green" isn't what I'm interested in. I'm looking for a term that sets what most people consider dark green apart from the lighter shades of green, hopefully bypassing the "shades of green" argument.
I'm also wondering if a regulatory approach of restricting how people are able to build houses is a possibility.
Sure it's a possiblity, I wish it was a probability though so that building inspectors will have a sustainable and efficient construction code to live up to - see article from my Twitter Retweets
there are huge shades of green in the local codes as practices as well.
sustainablemag Hewitt says the Int'l Green Construction Code is a start toward where we need to be: http://bit.ly/bwwzwK as is IECC 2012 #LF10
1:30 PM May 7th via TweetDeck
Retweeted by you and 3 others
Reply Retweeted
I hear the argument of "shades of green" from colleagues, friendlies, and not-so-friendlies, all the time... and frankly I'm getting a little tired of it as well.
There are many who claim that the term green cannot be defined- horse feathers!
We are either talking about a color, or we are talking about conservation! I don't care if its plastic bags at the grocery store, world-wide whaling, driving a car, or building a home... the basic premise for being "green" or environmentally conscious is conservation-- conserving resources, animals, plants, energy, etc.
Is a 10,000 square foot house conservative?
Is a 12,000 cfm range hood conservative?
No, and anyone who says otherwise is just being ridiculous.
12,000 cfm range hood are obviously not conservative in a single family home...
neither are 1,200 cfm range hoods
bit of a typo there...
Lucas, I think the term you are looking for is "living building". It describes the essential characteristic you are looking for: a building which has a healthy place in a functioning ecology, because it eats and excretes in harmony with its environment, just like an animal or plant.
Brett, I understand exactly how you feel. In my opinion it's time to stop beating around the bush.
When you see signs of turbulence ahead, it's time to throttle back. You reduce the severity of the impacts that way.
Coming out of this recession I get the impression most people are more interested in jamming the throttles forward to make up for lost time...
My homes are 2-4 million$ and honestly my clients could care less about green building or energy efficiency. A few will give it lip service, but they are more interested in appliances, plaster finishes, stone from France, swimming pools. I’m having to independently incorporate some of these practices into my homes, just hope I get some payback. I am a capitalist.
Brent, thanks again. I'd never heard of the "Living Building" concept before today. The concept is exactly what I'm thinking of although it's too bad "Living Building" doesn't have the same ring as "Green"...
I had already been thinking of building my house into a permaculture context. I would also like to incorporate some form (beyond material selection) of carbon sequestration... Any ideas?
I've been reading about algaes and biochar but I cannot find much practical information on how any of these ideas might be incorporated into a living building... I wonder if it's even a good idea to start messing with nature in that way.
Allan, I appreciate your independence and honesty. I have no doubt that your clients represent the way a large fraction of society thinks. This (in my eyes) is the whole problem.
The banquet table was so full as to seem limitless a century ago. Now it looks like my son and his generation will have to make do with the pitiful scraps of what the capitalists have left behind. Sure was nice while it lasted though.
In the latest edition of Green Energy Times, published here in Vermont, an article by David Blittersdorf, founder of NRG Systems and CEO of All Earth Renewables (which builds suntracking PV and residential wind generators) says this:
Civilizations collapse when they exceed the carrying capacity of their environment. Historically, every preceding one has.
About 150 years ago, humanity won the biggest lottery in the discovery of fossil fuel energy, and we've been spending it like a lottery winner ever since (almost 90% of all energy consumed globally is from this bonanza). But spendthrift lottery winners soon end up bankrupt, and we've already reached peak oil - there will be less of it at a higher price each successive year. To survive, we must wean ourselves of the carbon fix and return to living on our weekly energy paycheck. This means that by 2050 we'll have to reduce our energy consumption by 80%, both to prevent the worst of global warming damage and to return to a sustainable lifestyle. This, he says, is a requirement for survival - not an option.
So, as a bare minimum, and only considering the energy consumption facet of a multivariate problem, if we are not building houses that use 80% less energy than the last house we built (because these new houses will be around in 2050), then we are building irresponsibly.
No amount of energy efficiency will bring a McMansion down to that level. The only way to achieve this - and to also similarly reduce our resource depletion and broader ecological footprint - is to build very small houses of local natural materials, and not build a house that is not essential to meet authentic need.
In a broader context, what Brent is getting at is the concept of Biophilic Architecture:
"It's not a new idea--Edward O Wilson first proposed it twenty years ago--but in the last few years studies have begun to be done, showing it has significant and measurable effects on people's state of mind. The idea is that people function best in environments like the ones we evolved in, with other life around and with spaces that are more like habitats than like Cartesian boxes. Biophilia dovetails perfectly with green building because it involves giving buildings natural lighting and outdoor air, plants, water, and generally blurring the boundaries between building and landscape. Furthermore, it gives green building more of a soul than merely improving HVAC and fluorescent lighting."
http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/000664.html
Other approaches are Ecological Design, Integrative Design and Regenerative Design, including the Hannover Principles developed for the Millennial Worlds Fair by William McDonough:
Insist on rights of humanity and nature to co-exist
Recognize interdependence
Respect relationships between spirit and matter
Accept responsibility for the consequences of design
Create safe objects of long-term value
Eliminate the concept of waste
Rely on natural energy flows
Understand the limitations of design
Seek constant improvement by the sharing of knowledge
Also relevant to this discussion is this blog entry. The point about net present value is particularly salient. Or, to put it another way, choosing a high discount rate means you hate your children (and everyone else's too).
I’m glad you all moved this discussion to another question. Many of us have been in this Green Building movement for a long time, (20+ years for me and longer for some of you). About 10 years a go or so, about 100 people from around the States and representing almost all green building programs around the country at the time, we got together in Portland, OR to help develop a “national guideline” for green building that ALL OF US could follow. At the time, 99/100 agreed to do so and the USGBC sponsored the 1st set of guidelines that where called Leed-H at the time. Since then, must people that have participated in one program or another consider that a green building IS a green building if it can be registered to any of the programs available now.
There are good and not so good programs in the market, but the idea was to get all involved from the bottom up at different levels. Most of those same folks were also involved helping developing the NAHB guidelines directly or indirectly and many of the local HBA programs you see around the country today. And even all these programs are not perfect; they do allow all that want to build green, to do so at their own level and pace.
Many of us have gone on to become instructors for AIA, USGBC, NAHB and/or many other organizations and always with the idea that this Green Building Movement was to be as INCLUSIVE as possible and we would allow all who wanted to build green building to do so at their own pace. That’s why all these programs have different levels of Green. Some builders would be at the high end and some others at the minimum required, but most of those that were at the minimum level five or six years a go are at much higher levels today. Not every company can afford to go from scratch to the highest levels in a short time.
Many of us have gone to develop coalitions with other organizations that have become model for all of you to use; many of us have volunteer in LEED for Homes and NAHB Committees, developed and participated in local programs, in NM we developed the State Tax Credits and Green Codes that are the envy of all other States and all of this with volunteers.
Why I bring all this in front of you? Because there has been millions of volunteer hours putting all these programs and guidelines together FOR ALL OF US TO USE, irregardless of the level of green you participated at, just as long as you participated and certified homes. We did it and spent all those hours (and for some of us, still do) for the good of all and it just robs me the wrong way to have people now become selective and exclusive; specially when some folks have not done a thing to get where we are today.
And look at where are we now; the public is getting educated more and more, many builders are embracing green building, the IRC and IECC are changing for good, the ICC is developing the IGCC. All the major associations in the country have green programs, the government participated in the economic stimulus when building green and even http://www.architecture2030.org is moving us to the ultimate goal.
The fact is that WE are moving in the right direction, even though some of us want it faster, but I’m willing to let economical realities and the market place take us there, even though the codes are pushing and shoving behind.
Sorry Armando, but not a single LEED certified home can truly be called green. Green has to do with living in harmony with the green, growing, solar-infused no-waste biosphere. It has nothing whatsoever to do with codes or programs or certifications or bureaucracies or incentives or marketing or putting lipstick on a pig.
I just happened to do search on the GBA: “living in harmony with the green” and guess what, only 2 entries; everyting else is about green buildings, methods and products related to green buildings; and that is what I was reffering to as “Green” and “Shades of Geen”, I thought we were talking about green buildings. My bad and apologies if we were not talking about Green Buildings.
In fact the greenest home is the one is not built; therefore, none of us build green. But if the object is to talk philosophy, kumbaya and the meaning of the word Green in the global context, then I think that’s a whole different subject. But I can tell you this much, as I child growing in South America I saw real “green” an “sustainable” homes made out of dirt and branches in rural areas and the Amazon or in NM with all of its native people, their pueblos and their way of living, I’m sure to all those natives, our homes are not that green at all.
So no matter how high and all-mighty we think we are in “green” building, there are countless people around the world that are truly living and building green, we all just have accepted that our level and your level of green is the right green or shade of green that we have become comfortable with.
Robert
I appreciate your perspective , I really do. It works for a single guy living a Thoreau type lifestyle in the woods of Vermont. But for the other 98% of the population living a different lifestyle, it doesn’t work, although I do think we can learn from people like yourself.
You said “green building has nothing to do with codes, programs, certifications, and bureaucracies”, I would respectively disagree. The implementation of green building standards and methods has a lot to do with codes, programs, certifications, and the needed bureaucracies. Without these, these methods you promote would never become part of mainstream construction.
Armando,
with all due respect it seems you are missing the bigger point. You need to understand that there is much and growing evidence that industrial civilization has reached it's climax and is now begining it's descent. The golden age has ended and if you look around you will see that the entire system is groaning under the weight of its own excesses. The rate of the descent will determine whether we have time to adapt.
If you cannot see this or do not believe it... well, I personally won't try to change your mind.
I will say though that to deny that there is any potential for disaster is the very type of extreme thinking that you might use to identify someone as a "green fascist". If you can admit that there is even some small chance for disaster, then why would you not make every effort (no matter how challenging) to change whatever was required to avert disaster?
How would you feel if the captain flying your airliner, knowing there was a volcanic ash cloud ahead, decided to fly right through it because it was either too inconvenient to change course or he was pressured by economics to so?
Please don't take offense at those that believe current methodology falls far short of what is required to potentially save our collective necks. Luck favours the prepared after all.
Thanks for the links guys. Here's one in return for those interested:
http://www.theoildrum.com/files/Tipping_Point_4_April.pdf
Here is a link to James Kunstler's latest blog....always interesting...
http://kunstler.com/blog/2010/05/and-chicks-for-free.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+clusterfucknation+(Clusterfuck+Nation)&utm_content=Google+Feedfetcher
Lucas,
I am a realist, I do get it and have gotten it for over 20 years, if not I would not have volunteer for so much and for so long with out a conviction that we need to change; but I do not believe in doomsday either, nor I believe the world is going to end in December 2012.
People make their green house decisions based on their own needs, wants and buying power. I’m sure most of you do not live in 800 sf houses, built of adobe, using only pedal power vehicles and use 100% renewables (a la “Gaviotas” Village in Colombia) Why? Because you have made compromises too. All this to me is the same when you hear a $10 thief complaining about the $1MM thief; at what point we have the right to play judge of other people’s green homes or green builders?
Compared to how hard we had to work with clients about building a green home 20+ years a go, we are living in fast times; also, unless you are a builder or until a person’s livelihood and the feeding of your family depends on whether or not you sell a house in this market, you do not have the right to criticize any builder.
Armando,
Your argument is starting to smack of the elitism that was earlier used to describe the intolerance of the dark-greenies.
At no time have I critisized any specifc builder/designer/architect. Questioning the value of any current practice (green building not excepted) is how progress and change is achieved (hopefully).
At no time have I ever claimed to posses a moral high-ground.
At no time have I ever stated that the world will end in December of 2012.
What I have asked (quite nicely I thought) is that you refrain from taking offence at people who don't think the current practices are good enough.
I will remind you that you have voluntarily wandered into this thread and if you take the time to re-read the original question, you will find that what I am looking for is a definition that separates what I want to achieve from the obviously confusing myriad of definitions that constitute "green".
Simple people like myself need to have simple concepts to guide us.
If you aren't interested in contributing, by all means go back to answering questions about how to incorporate turbo-charged blowers into "green" houses.
Lucas,
You just made my case. When I and others ask questions about 1200cfm MUA units (or any other question), people should not preach the green issue or be judgemental. If they don’t have a helpful answer they should stay out. Most of us, know who we are and what we do. So respect is a two way street.
And yes you are right, my last statement was pretty bad, and I apologize for it, I was in a hurry to leave this morning; but in my defense I’ve been questioned on integrity, missing the bigger point or my work as a green designer (by several folks).
Maybe there is something we could all learn form this; that unless anyone can answer a question in a polite manner, sticking to the issue and reframing from judgment they should stay out.
What almost all so-called "green" designers and builders don't (or won't) understand is that the way that 98% of the US population is living doesn't work. By simple physics, it can't possibly work. The wealthy of the world (and almost all Americans fall into that category) are overconsuming what little is left of our collective resources, including those we most need in order just to survive.
Armando, you are not a "realist" but rather one of many who are in complete denial about reality. And then you want those of us with our eyes open to be "polite" and refrain from judging behavior which is literally killing millions of species per year, destroying the biosphere, and relegating our grandchildren to a miserable existence.
What makes your criminality even worse is that you recognize the indigenous shelter technology that is truly green and then rationalize what you do in order to live so high on the hog that those indigenous cultures have no chance of survival.
I'm not interested in a "polite" discussion when irresponsible designers and builders attempt to justify the damage they do to the future and then attempt to call it "green". It is, in fact, red with the blood of billions who suffer and die every day in order that we might maintain that "non-negotiable" American standard of living.
If GBA and those promoting good building practices are interested in attracting contractors, calling them “terrorists” and “criminal” and “irresponsible” will not make them want to participate or hang around here. You’ll end up with a small handful of cliquish people espousing extreme views. Too much of this and I know I’ll be outta here, there are other sites I can go to and learn as much or more without all of the drama.
Allan,
In case there is any confusion: Robert's opinions are his own. Robert is not employed by GBA.
For the record, GBA does not want to be associated with comments that appear to accuse builders of terrorism or criminality.
Allan,
As was pointed out earlier, you have voluntarily entered into this thread and so if you find the discussion offensive then there is no reason for you to invovle yourself.
Armando,
Thank you for your appology. Our world views are polar opposites but I do agree with you that in the interest of a productive learning environment that it is probably best to stick to the issue at hand. I have learned alot at the GBA (and not just from those that share my world view) and my intention was never to alienate those who make this site what it is.
this is gettin wacko. if the gba is a website for the wackos, I'll stop reading. Armando, thanks for standing up for our industry. we don't need wackos pushing our clients away.
It is amaizing that the GBA doesn't associate with members accusing builders of terrorism and criminality, but does endorse nasty and extreme views. Maybe builders need not apply here. To bad, I was planning in becoming a member.
GLC,
What nasty and extreme views do you think GBA is endorsing?
Out of respect to all of you and the GBA, I'll not respond to Robert's comments, they speack for themselves. We've all learned a lot here at the GBA from folks of all walks and views. Let's keep respect to all in the forefront.
Good grief. At what point did the GBA ever become responsible for comments made by the people who visit this site?
Armando's right. There's room for everyone to contribute and learn here if we simply stick to the issues at hand and refrain from judging each other.
I started this thread looking for specific information and it's turned into a battleground of ideology. This was not what I intended to do.
Martin,
Feel free to delete this thread from your site. It no longer serves my purpose anyway.
Wow.
Is this website called Green Building Advisor.com, or I-Do-What-My-Clients-Want-Building Advisor.com?
Discussions of $4 million homes, hot tubs, pools, theatre rooms, indoor basketball courts, dual dishwashers, floor to ceiling glazing, and excessive range hoods, have no place on a GREEN building website.
I think we all know Robert is right.... we just don't want to admit it.
Brett
Are you sugggesting we as builders should ignore trying to build $4 million homes energy efficient ly and as green as possible? Because they are going to get built one way or the other. I have 3 in planning stage right now.
No.
But you should call them what they are-- relatively energy efficient homes.
Leave the "Green" out of your marketing.
Brett
To clients who want to build green I am going to market myself as builder capable. I would never over-hype a particular house. I do think there are good building practices that can be gleaned from a website like this that I can incorporate into my homes. That's why I'm here.
I'll admit it. He is right.
As an affordable housing green builder in NJ, I have to agree with Mr. Cobo and I appreciate all he has done to promote and educate people; very impressive. So I thought in the spirit of transparency, I would like to know what Mr. Riversong, Mr. Durand and Mr. Moyer do for a living and what have you done to promote your dark-green ideology around the country.
Mike,
If you've been on this, or almost any other professional building discussion forum, you'd know that there is nothing opaque about either my perspectives or my history.
I've been a designer and builder of superinsulated and passive solar affordable homes for more than 30 years. I pioneered and promulgated the modified Larsen Truss method of superinsulation using mostly natural materials and cellulose insulation, often with local, native, rough-sawn lumber.
For the past five years I've been teaching building technology, building science, structural engineering, hygrothermal engineering, and sustainable building to home-owners, builders, architects and engineers. I have become more and more an advocate of small dwellings built of natural materials at minimal cost to the world.
I have been an organizer and activist for peace, social justice and ecological sustainability since 1969, a wilderness guide, a rites-of-passage and Vision Quest facilitator, and a minister of the Universal Life Church.
Additionally, and at various times in my life, I have been an auto mechanic (one of the first to be fully certified in the US), a statistical analyst and research assistant, a taxi driver, a farm hand, a service station manager, a substitute teacher, and a board member of several non-profit organizations. I have been a published writer and journal editor, an organizer of several documentary film series, a non-violence trainer, a construction supervisor and field trainer, and a war-tax resister for more than 30 years (I live my moral values regardless of the personal consequences).
I have done more, read more, thought more and taught more in one lifetime than most people might do in ten. I have studied under at least a dozen native elders and shamans from around the world. I come from a prophetic tradition, have learned to see through the fog of illusion we call culture, and will confront dishonesty, delusion and deception wherever and whenever I encounter it.
Unfortunately, there is much of that in what passes for the "green" building movement, which - like most of American culture - is more about personal aggrandizement than service to the world.
I almost forgot...
For more than 30 years I've been a volunteer firefighter, an EMT, a Wilderness EMT instructor, a search & rescue technician and trainer, a technical rope rescue specialist, trainer and consultant, a cave rescue team member, and a town emergency management coordinator - because I believe we have a primary responsibility to serve our communities.
In fact, the only legitimate purpose for living is to serve the local and global communities and the broader community of life.
That's what authentically green building is about. Anything else is narcissism.
In the interest of transparency:
I am not a professional designer, builder or architect.
I am a concerned citizen of the earth who is not so much concerned with promoting my dark-green ideology as I am in learning what I need to know.
I think it's important for anyone coming into this thread at the end to read it from the start so that they are aware that it was not started for the purpose of promoting any ideology or to pass judgement on any other ideology.
I don't really feel like I should have to defend my position of honest, legitimate green home building.
What I am asking building and design professionals to do is to be truthful with what they are designing/building. I do admit that there may be materials and practices that may be in grayish-green in color and debatable, but at some point we have to all admit that certain things in homebuilding are just NOT green.
And though I may not have quite the resume that Robert has, I am fully committed to this thing we call green building-- I am a professional builder, Certified Green Building Professional though California's Build It Green Program, Certified Green Professional through the NAHB, and have thoroughly studied the various green building programs in my area. I work extensively with the LEED for Homes program as a LEED AP+Homes, LEED Green Rater, and Chair the Residential Green Building Committee for my local USGBC Chapter.
My point is not to belittle builders and their efforts towards building "greener" homes, I just think that we need to be careful what we are actually labeling as green.
To address the original question, here is an abridged version of a public presentation I gave at a panel discussion at Yestermorrow Design/Build School about "What is Green?".
The Quechua of Ecuador have a prophesy that one day the Eagle will fly with the Condor. The Eagle is the technological modern civilization of the North, and the Condor is the indigenous way of the South. One day, the Iachak (wise ones) say, the modern world will be in harmony with the ancient ways.
Green is the symbiotic relationship between the photosynthetic bacteria called chloroplasts and the cells which transform that solar energy into blue-green algae, honeysuckle, and white pine.
Green is the cooperative order of nature that placed the bacteria called mitochondria into harmony with each animal cell so that the chemical energy they produce becomes honeybee, swallow, catamount, and human.
Green is that one creature’s waste is another creature’s food, that the dying feed the living, that a flowing homeostasis created by the totality of living things maintains the conditions for living things to flourish.
Green, then is the delicate webwork that ties all things, animate and apparently inanimate, into a matrix of consciousness and empathy that both contains and informs all things.
Green is the cosmic dance of creation and co-creation that is, and has always been, our destiny and our joy.
Green is coherence – wholeness (haol, health).
Green is interdependence (diametrically opposite the American suburban paradigm).
To the degree that the design/build process is one of perceiving, acknowledging and creating coherence or wholeness, it is green.
To the degree that it is an imposition of our own ego, it is not.
To the degree that it is a manifestation of the mechanistic paradigm – it is not.
It requires seeing, understanding, and a translation – through our hands – into the craft of forging an authentic vision of the living earth into a space for human habitation.
If you work with your hands, you’re a laborer.
If you work with your hands and mind, you’re a craftsperson.
If you work with your hands, mind and soul, you’re an artist
- manifesting love (or harmony) in material form.
Green is the direct conversion of solar energy - of the Cosmic OM - into living things.
A green house is a living organism and an extension of our own being.
Our clothing is our second skin, and our home is our third skin – and both must breath (transpire moisture), be flexible and resilient, self-regulating – responding and adapting to its inner and outer environment (including temperature, humidity, pressure, insolation).
Anthony Lawlor calls the house "the temple of our souls". Religion literally means to bind together what has been sundered. House-building, ideally, is a religious experience, manifesting the sacred from the profane, crafting an integrative whole from a myriad of disparate parts – binding together.
Green or ecological architecture is a process of reconnecting to the web of life: a process, not a product. And this, I believe, is the root of the confusion over what constitutes green design and building.
Green building has more to do with relationships between the designer, builder and home-dweller; among the crew; between material, method & mindset; than it does with a specific structural or physical outcome.
Just as healthy food must be prepared with love and reverence, a healthy (or green) house must be designed and built with a sacred appreciation of the field of consciousness that it manifests.
Ecology is all about relationships. To be ecological – or green – is to shift from parts to whole, from objects to relationships, from structure to pattern.
Wholeness, relationships and pattern – modeled after what Christopher Alexander called the quaternary archetypes of nature and society, the patterns of patterns, the holographic mimicry of the created Universe.
“Every individual act of building is the process in which space gets differentiated. It is not a process of addition, in which parts are combined to create a whole, but a process of unfolding, like the evolution of an embryo, in which the whole precedes the parts, and actually gives birth to them.”
A green house does not have to be zero net energy or zero waste, but it has to be part of a community which produces the energy it consumes and recycles all its wastes.
To be green, a design must (literally) incorporate the social, political, economic, and ecological relationships it participates in – those interactions with other homes, with places and modalities of employment, with local governance, with schools, markets, transportation routes, forests, fields, farms and recreation.
As long as we’re building single-family homes on privately-owned lots, we’re not building green. As long as we build with materials or methods that are not environmentally benign, non-toxic to humans and other life forms, and fully sustainable and recyclable, we’re not building green.
A green home unfolds from the place it is birthed, from the dreams of the home-dweller, from the creativity of the designer/builder, from the requisites of the community which enfolds it.
Green is holographic, reciprocal, participatory, and embedded in cooperative partnership with the totality of the environment.
As long as we remain dis-membered from the whole of life, we will be but "troubled guests on the dark earth".
When we re-member ourselves as part of the web of life, then we will become once again green and glorious.
We literally partake of the four winds of the Earth. We are wind and water, earth and fire. We are cells in the body of Gaia. When we not only understand this but feel it in our bones, then we will know what is green.
Mr. Riversong, et. al.,
It's interesting that you are an ordained Minister for the Universal Life Church, ("The Universal Life Church Monastery strongly believes in the rights of all people from all faiths to practice their religious beliefs, regardless of what those beliefs are,..." "We believe that you have the right to worship your God without intolerance or antiquated religious dogma" and " ...believes that all faiths are best served by the freedom and choice to become ordained online.") who is so narrow mainded when it comes to green homes, builders, architects and designers.
It is also interesting the the GBA promotes their website through builders who take the green building certification courses at the National Association of Home Builders, yet it allows a group of their members attack and make disparaging remarks to builders.
Mark Justice,
In most cases, we do not censor the comments posted on our site — even if the person posting the message has an extreme political viewpoint. Just because you see a comment on this site, does not mean that the opinion is endorsed by GBA.
Such a policy — sometimes known as "free speech" — benefits you as well as Mr. Riversong.
Martin,
Freedom of speech is a fundamental right in this country, but it is not absolute, and should never be used when inciting inflammatory and tasteless speech. Dissent is a belief that the rights guaranteed in the First and Fourteenth amendments of the Constitution must be protected, but Freedom of Speech carries responsibilities to safeguard the rights of others. No one is asking you to stop any postings, but you are allowing Robert to offend gratuitously other paying members of the GBA, and that will bring long-term consequences.
As I said before, Robert is a very talented individual and builder and all of us can learn a great deal from him, but his manners and rudeness are insulting and aggravating to many. I hope you can understand that much.
The simple truth always appears "rude" and "impolite" and "insulting" to those who either ignore it or deny it.
MLK was also a minister who "insulted" the establishment to such an extent by his simple truths that he alienated most of his associates and was assassinated by our government for speaking out. He was murdered exactly one year to the day after he publicly stated that "the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today is my government." That statement is even more true today than it was then, and yet most Americans take great offense at such obvious truth.
Almost the entirety of the green building movement in the US is little more than an attempt to "to good and do well", similar to the "socially-responsible investment" movement: a little do-gooding as long as it doesn't affect one's personal profit and standard of living.
Jesuit priest Daniel Berrigan wrote in his 1970 book No Bars to Manhood "We have assumed the name of peacemakers, but we have been, by and large, unwilling to pay any significant price. And because we want the peace with half a heart and half a life and will, the war, of course, continues, because the waging of war, by its nature, is total -- but the waging of peace, by our cowardice, is partial. So a whole will and a whole heart and a whole national life bent toward war prevail over the (mere desire for) peace."
Today, a whole national life bent toward the maximization of personal wealth, comfort and security at the expense of the natural world and third world peoples prevails over the mere desire for living sustainably. You can no more call yourself a "green builder" or "green designer" by making exorbitantly wasteful and globally destructive McMansions a little more energy efficient than you can call yourself a peacemaker by taking weekends off from your armament production or Wall Street work to demonstrate to end the (fill in the blank) war.
Building a sustainable (green) world requires the same kind of total commitment and personal sacrifice that Berrigan demanded of peacemakers. If your cowardice or avarice prevents you from doing so, at least acknowledge that honestly and don't pretend to fly a "green" flag.
The bottom line is if you don’t agree with Robert’s narrow views you will be lectured to and insulted, why would anyone subject themselves to this (and actually pay for it). This site will not attract mainstream contractors if this abuse continues.
Allan
Here is a question to which you have obviously not given a lot thought. What if what Robert is saying is absolutely right?? It sometimes requires some "blunt truths" to shake us up a bit and make us rethink what we are leaving for the grandkids...and not just our own grandkids....but those of all 6.8 billion of us...
Allan,
Why are you so offended by Robert's remarks? Are you two related? Is he the Godfather of your children?
"Abuse" ???
Quit being so melodramatic.
The perspectives I express are not "my" views, but the understanding of every awake and aware person on this planet. This issue is not about WHO is right but rather WHAT is right. And, far from "narrow", this perspective is based on the broadest possible understanding of the world.
There is no more narrow perspective than that of "objective" science, free-market economics, and consumer culture. The proof of the narrowness, and hence unsustainability, of the mainstream model is that it's experiencing global collapse at this very moment.
We are witnessing the end of capitalism (first Greece, then Europe then Japan then the US), the end of the fossil fuel era (everyone now agrees we're past peak and into decline), the end of population overshoot made possible only by the short-term exploitation of the "capital" of the planet, and a perfect example of the consequences of unrestrained greed: the Deepwater Horizon catastrophe.
It's now been established (and nobody is denying it) that the Horizon is gushing at least 70,000 barrels of crude per day into the Gulf (more than 10 times what's been claimed) and will very likely empty the entire reservoir of 50 million barrels unchecked. This oil will not only permanently poison the entire Gulf coast, but will probably move into the Gulf Stream up the East Coast and then on to Europe, possibly disrupting the flow with its viscosity and sending Europe into an ice age. The slick in the Gulf will also prevent supertankers from emptying their cargo at the Louisiana Offshore Oil Port, which is the only US site for supertankers and supplies 50% of US refineries.
Forget Peak Oil. We have just effectively embargoed the US from its primary energy supply and destroyed the Eastern and Gulf fisheries and beaches. Get ready to stay home and go hungry. Prices for everything are about to go through the roof.
Michael Ruppert, one of the most broadly respected prognosticators in the world, told me tonight that collapse is coming this summer (his book Collapse details this and the movie Collapse has just been released to critical acclaim)
http://mikeruppert.blogspot.com/
http://www.chelseagreen.com/bookstore/item/confronting_collapse
Well, I thought it was a fascinating conversation. Thanks, Martin, for allowing it to get so free wheeling.
How little things change over time:
"Many people today don't want honest answers insofar as honest means unpleasant or disturbing, They want a soft answer that turneth away anxiety."
- Louis Kronenberger, journalist, publisher & professor (1904 -1980)