Buildings are recognized as huge users of energy. Each year buildings consume thirty-nine percent of total energy needs and produce thirty-eight percent of carbon dioxide emissions (EPA, “Why Build Green”). Not only does the building itself have an impact on the environment, but the construction process does as well. The typical North American commercial construction project generates up to 2.5 pounds of solid waste per square foot (“Why Design Green?”). Landfills are piling up and the earth’s natural resources are being depleted at an alarming rate (“Recycling at the University of Pittsburgh”). To reduce dependence on the high costs of energy and limited resources, the construction of buildings must be altered to create a more sustainable, efficient, and eco-friendly product. The regeneration of the earth can be supplemented by green building thereby reducing the carbon footprint of today’s society and ensuring a better future.
As Walter Deal discusses in the article “A Place to Stay: Building Green”, around the time of the Industrial Revolution “energy supplies seemed to be limitless, and little thought was given to the impact that the extractive and refining processes of fossil fuel would have on the environment.” As the price of energy rose and the costly effect of “consuming large quantities of fossil fuels” was identified, attitudes changed regarding the construction process (Deal). A new form of construction that maximizes “both economic and environmental performance”, as defined by the Environmental Protection Agency, was needed. Green building evolved from this need (EPA, “Why Build Green”). Greg Kats et al. discusses “green or sustainable buildings” as using “key resources like energy, water, materials, and land much more efficiently than buildings that are simply built to code” (Kats et al. v).
Waste generated from construction projects and buildings poses a huge problem. Approximately 160 million tons of debris per year are created from construction and demolition and constitute about twenty-six percent of non-industrial waste in the U.S. (EPA, “Buildings and the Environment” 6). In California, one “ton of waste disposed in a landfill generates $289 of total output in the state economy” (Kats et al. 51). In addition to monetary costs there are social costs of hazardous substances and greenhouse gases being emitted from landfills or by incineration (“Energy Saving Benefit”).
“Energy is a substantial and widely recognized cost of building operations” and an increasing concern as the price of energy rises (Kats et al. 19). “The average annual cost of energy in [California] state buildings is approximately $1.47 per square foot” (Kats et al. 19). This number can quickly add up considering a 100,000 square foot building devours $147,000 per year in energy cost. Energy use leads to carbon dioxide emissions which are dangerous to the environment. Buildings are huge contributor to both factors; they are expensive and contribute to global warming (Kats et al. 19).
Green building provides answers to the major problems of “increasing energy prices and the prospect of climatic changes” (Deal). A building is a system comprised of many subsystems including “site, foundation, framing, roof, electrical ventilation, door and window systems, insulation, plumbing, and landscaping details” (Deal). Each subsystem plays a part in the efficiency and sustainability of a building and with minor changes in planning, people and the environment will benefit (Deal).
To verify that a building is “green” the United States Green Building Council developed the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Green Building Rating. LEED rates “new and existing commercial, institutional, and high-rise residential buildings according to their environmental attributes and sustainable features” (Kats et al. 4). The rating system consists of six categories: sustainable sites, water efficiency, energy and atmosphere, materials and resources, indoor environmental quality, and innovation and design process (Kats et al. 4).
“Of twenty-one buildings submitted to USGBC for certification, eighty-one percent reduced construction waste by at least fifty percent, while thirty-eight percent reduced construction waste by seventy-five percent or more” (Kats et al. 48). Reuse and recycling are two strategies used in green building that reduce waste by diverting materials away from landfills. Other strategies include using more durable materials, designing to generate less scrap, use of recovered building materials, and use of structural materials as a finish. For every one thousand tons of waste recycled, 4.73 jobs were created compared to 2.46 jobs for waste disposed. These statistics demonstrate the effect of waste reduction as a benefit to both the environment and people (Kats et al. 51).
“Green buildings use thirty percent less energy than conventional buildings” (Kats et al. 19). The increased energy productivity of a green building leads to a decrease in energy costs. The average energy cost of $1.47 per square foot per year falls to $0.44, creating savings that “exceed the average additional cost of green over conventional construction” (Kats et al. 27).
The environmental, economic, and social benefits clearly predict the impact green building has on the future. The conservation and restoration of natural resources, reduced operating costs, and improved quality of life demonstrate the reasons of why a shift to green building is necessary. Green Buildings “create healthier work, learning, and living environments, with more natural light and cleaner air, and contribute to improved employee and student health, comfort, and productivity” (Kats et al. v). These benefits clearly outweigh the outdated techniques of the average building process that are dangerously costly to today’s society. The minor changes made to create a green building benefit the people and the environment in ways that exceed the expenses of the efforts (Kats et al. ix). In a time when environmental consciousness is a crucial frame of mind, green building presents itself as an obvious and doable answer to positively affect the environment, improve lives, and reduce the carbon footprint of humanity.
Works Cited
“Energy Saving Benefit.” Green Energy Efficient Homes, 2010. Web. 28 Feb. 2011. <http://www.green-energy-efficient-homes.com/energy-saving-benefit.html>.
“Why Design Green?” Green Building Design. Arizona State University, 2010. Web. 28 Feb. 2011. <http://cfo.asu.edu/fdm-green-building-design>.
“Recycling at the University of Pittsburgh.” University of Pittsburgh, 13 Sept. 2010. Web. 22 Feb. 2011 <http://www.facmgmt.pitt.edu/recycle.htm>.
Deal, Walter F. “A Place to Stay: Building Green.” Technology Teacher 69.6 (2010): 11-16. Professional Development Collection. EBSCO. Web. 26 Feb. 2011.
Kats, Greg et. al. “The Costs and Financial Benefits of Green Buildings.” Oct. 2003. Web. 26 Feb. 2011 <http://www.usgbc.org/Docs/News/News477.pdf>.
United States. Environmental Protection Agency. Buildings and their Impact on the Environment: A Statistical Summary. 22 Apr. 2009. 26 Feb. 2011 <http://www.epa.gov/greenbuilding/pubs/gbstats.pdf>.
United States. Environmental Protection Agency. Wastes- Resource Conversation – Reduce, Reuse, Recycle Construction and Demolition Materials. 22 Sep. 2010. 26 Feb. 2011 <http://www.epa.gov/epawaste>.
United States. Environmental Protection Agency. Why Build Green. 2 Dec. 2010. 26 Feb. 2011 <http://www.epa.gov/greenbuilding/pubs/whybuild.htm>.
Written by Hadley Eickhof
