In this extreme, information overload age, it’s often difficult to separate the truths from the non-truths. This is prevalent in many aspects of everyday life and sustainable living is no exception. We are sometimes left with many unanswered and debatable questions like, paper or plastic? cloth diapers or disposable diapers? new Prius vs. old reliable vehicle? local food or organic food? Wine in a box or wine in a glass bottle?* I hear from people regularly that say they just don’t know what to believe, or what to do to live lighter on the planet.
These decisions are often compounded by financial anxiety. Won’t this gadget or life style cost more? This is a popular counter tool for any organization that has an interest in discounting the merits of any individual or group adopting more sustainable behaviors.
Recently, the New York Times published an article about green building that read as a short discussion to end the discussion on pursuing better building practices…end of discussion. Upon further investigation, we discover that the article was based on a report by the Commercial Real Estate Development Association or NAIOP. According to Architecture 2030, “This disinformation campaign is obviously meant to stall, confuse and distort.”
More from Architecture 2030…
Quote:
It is clear from a simple analysis of the study that NAIOP commissioned a building energy efficiency analysis to support predetermined results. They contracted with
ConSol, an energy-modeling firm, and asked them to analyze five (yes, only five) efficiency measures for an imaginary, square-shaped, four-story office building with completely sealed windows and an equal amount of un-shaded glass on all four sides of the building. In other words, analyze an energy Hog.
They conducted the analysis for different cities and climates - Newport Beach, Chicago and Baltimore - without changing the design to respond to these very different climates. They did not study changing the shape of the building, its orientation or form, or redistributing windows or using different windows to take advantage of natural light for daylighting or sunlight for heating (office buildings are day-use facilities). They did not study shading the glass in summertime to reduce the need for air-conditioning, using operable windows for ventilation (not even in Newport Beach with its beautiful year-round climate), using landscaping to reduce micro-climatic impacts, employing cost-effective solar hot water heating systems, employing an energy management control system or even study the impact of using inexpensive energy-saving occupancy sensors in rooms to turn off lights.
In other words, this study used the same computer analysis to determine results for very different regions of the country without considering many of the no or low cost options to increase energy efficiency.
This is a very real example of misinformation being used to steer a campaign in a particular direction. In this circumstance, it is being utilized to influence policy makers to not be overzealous about increasing energy efficiency standards because the result would be economically detrimental.
A similar argument was led by manufacturers of refrigerators in the 1970’s. They argued that the mandate to make the refrigerator more energy efficient would be cost prohibitive and an extreme financial burden both for the manufacturer and the buyer. The funny thing is, I haven’t seen a single home “go without” a refrigerator (except for some deeply passionate sustainologists for reasons other than cost) and I’ve never heard anyone complain that the cost of their refrigerator left them in financial ruin.
Sometimes we need to dig deeper to find the truth.
* The provided links are not an endorsement for any product or lifestyle choice. They are merely provided as a means for further investigation.
Recent Comments