Why You Can't Afford to Not Go Green

I was very surprised last evening when a group of highly successful developers were asked about their plans for going green, and each of them mentioned cost as a barrier for doing so. I realize that sometimes environmentally preferable choices have higher initial costs, and that access to capital is tight. But these were developers who usually operated their properties, rather than selling them, which meant that their own bottom lines could benefit from energy and water efficiency. And more importantly, there are considerable risks associated with not going green. It's not just that operating costs can affect a building's value, it's also that when you "economize" by eliminating more sustainable choices you might run afoul of the law.

Local, state and federal officials are taking steps to require energy and water efficiency, and regulations are becoming increasingly strict. And no one seems focused on the fact that while incentives are often available for efficiency levels that exceed legal requirements, you cannot get a payment or a tax break reward for simply obeying the law.

U.S. Green Building Council recently released Top 10 lists of green building legislation in the House and Senate. That's nineteen bills in addition to The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which was signed into law about a year ago. Twenty Federal bills, and who knows how many state and local bills, seem a very strong indication that "going green" is not really optional. Many of the bills do involve incentives, but often those who cannot be persuaded by a carrot do wind up on the wrong end of a stick. The USGBC "Top Ten" include:

House Legislation

• The American Clean Energy and Security Act, Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and Ed Markey (D-Mass.)


• The 21st Century Green High-Performing Public School Facilities Act, Chandler (D-Ky.)


• The Expanding Building Efficiency Act, Dave Reichert (R-Wash.)


• The Property Assessed Clean Energy Tax Benefits Act, John Sarbanes (D-Md.)


• Act to Enhance Private Financing for Clean Energy Technology Deployment, Steve Israel (D-N.Y.)


• The Energy Efficiency Modernization Act of 2009, Mary Jo Kilroy (D-Ohio)


• The Water Accountability Tax Efficiency Reinvestment (WATER) Act, Michael Coffman (R-Colo.)


• The Livable Communities Act of 2010, Ed Perlmutter (D-Colo.), pending introduction


• The Federal Personnel Training Act of 2010, Russ Carnahan (D-Mo.), pending introduction

Senate Legislation

• The Clean Energy and American Jobs Act, John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.)

• The American Clean Energy and Leadership Act, Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska)

• Energy Efficiency in Housing Act (EEHA) of 2009, Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.)

• The Livable Communities Act of 2009, Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.)

• The Expanding Building Efficiency Incentives Act of 2009, Snowe (R-Maine)

• The School Building Fairness Act, Tom Harkin (D-Iowa)

• Clean Energy for Homes and Buildings Act of 2009, Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) and Richard Lugar (R-Ind.)

• The Energy Efficiency Modernization Act of 2009, Michael Bennet (D-Colo.)

• The Water Accountability Tax Efficiency Reinvestment (WATER) Act of 2009, Mark Udall (D-Colo.)

• The Federal Agency Energy Efficiency Improvement Act of 2009, Susan Collins (R-Maine)

Sustainable Interior Design --- Making Healthier Choices

The mantra of green design is "People, Planet, Profit." Personally, I don't think that there is any contest as to which of these is most important. While we do need to preserve the planet for future generations, we cannot risk their health and well being in the process. And our extreme focus on certain areas of green design and determination to prove them cost-effective could lead to serious health problems for current and future generations. Because energy efficient buildings are by definition relatively air-tight any toxins, dust or mold that are brought into such buildings tend to stay there.

Sustainable interior design, architecture and construction done properly are holistic practices that protect the health of building occupants. But unfortunately one of the most important aspects of what responsible design professionals do can be value engineered out of a project by someone who is focused on short-term financial paybacks and unfamiliar with the potential serious risks, both to the physical health of building occupants and the long-term fiscal health of any organization that does not take the necessary steps to ensure healthy indoor environmental quality.

When I tell people that I specialize in sustainable interior design, I often get the impression that they think "bamboo," when in reality I'm much less focused on saving trees than protecting people. Preserving North American forests may be more closely monitored than preserving healthy indoor air quality. And many sources for bamboo introduce more toxins into the interiors in which we spend 90% of our time than hardwood products would.

Improved indoor air quality can help reduce asthma, flu, sick building syndrome, headaches and respiratory problems that can lead to missed time from work or school, chronic illness, and potential lawsuits. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has quite a bit of information on preserving indoor air quality and the potential risks of not doing so in this section of its site:

Indoor Air Quality - EPA

Every interior design project, whether it involves space planning and construction or just new carpet, furniture and/or a fresh coat of paint, can affect the health of building occupants. And poor choices on the part of individual tenants can disrupt the air quality in even a LEED Platinum building. So all things being equal, I recommend always working with a design professional with demonstrable expertise in improving indoor environmental quality.