LEED is a long way from sustainability

 

 I would like to commend Jennifer Smith and the Capital News for the excellent article “The higher cost of building green” (Aug. 3, 2008), which dealt with some of the challenges of constructing environmentally responsible buildings. The article suggested that LEED Gold is quickly becoming the standard for buildings and will likely be made a requirement for all new structures by the new B.C. Building Code.

 

But LEED is not without its critics who say that although well-intentioned, it has many shortcomings in its execution such as that the LEED point system motivates developers to look for the easiest and most inexpensive way to accumulate enough points to get a certification for public relations purposes rather than to build structures that are genuinely best for the environment. Some other criticisms of LEED that have been made are that the benefits that come with LEED certification remain uncertain and that buildings that earn more LEED points than other buildings do not necessarily provide more environmental benefits.

 

Yet perhaps the most compelling criticism of LEED is that it does not contribute to the goal of environmental sustainability because LEED certified buildings are merely less harmful to the environment than non-LEED buildings and, for example, still result in a net increase in energy use at a time when we should be reducing our energy demand altogether. Despite these shortcomings, some local bodies such as the Advisory Planning Commission unquestioningly accept that LEED buildings are good for the environment, and thereby are regularly hoodwinked by developers into voting for some pretty dubious projects because they come with LEED certification.

Also see: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/05/13/CMGA7PCMDH1.DTL

Central Green proposal fails the test of energy sustainability

The City’s final plan for the Central Green (old KSS site) has many desirable features, such as an abundance of open space and a moderate amount of affordable housing, but environmental sustainability isn’t one of them. Touted as a showcase for sustainability, this project falls far short of what is desirable and necessary, particularly from the standpoint of energy consumption, because it has high-rise buildings as part of its plan.

 

It is a little known fact, but one that has been revealed by studies in Canada, the U.S., Great Britain and Australia, that high-rises consume more energy than any other type of housing, In a recent study, the CMHC estimates that the annual energy consumption of a typical high-rise unit is about 25% greater than that of an average single family house and more than 50% greater than an R2000 house on a per unit basis. Therefore, the 445 high-rise residential units proposed in the Central Green plan would consume more energy than 445 single family homes.

 

High-rises use an excessive amount of energy because of extraordinary heating and cooling needs posed by the exposure of their large building envelopes to cold winds in the winter and the hot sun in the summer without the protective presence of any natural sheltering. They also have wasteful lighting that is on 24/7 in hallways, stairwells, lobbies, and elevators.

 

In 2006 the Strategic Sustainability Planning Committee of the Vancouver City Planning Commission established a 4 to 8 storey range for building heights in order to optimize sustainability. This incorporates the desirability of compactness in urban form while avoiding the energy wastefulness of high-rise buildings. If the City is genuine about making Kelowna sustainable from an energy standpoint and not just using that term as an empty slogan, it shouldn’t be building any structures higher than 8 storeys.  

“Smart growth” advocates have their heads in the sand

 

It’s only April and Graeme James is already running hard for city council. But instead of running against the incumbents, he seems to be running against me even though I have not yet decided if I will run myself. One campaign tactic that James appears ready to use is hyperbole, referring in a recent letter to my advocacy of keeping our growth within the limits of our environmental carrying capacity as “development [grinding] to a halt while we bury our heads in the sand and hope no more people move to Kelowna .” James then goes on to say “We must be prepared for our future,” but seems to have no idea of the kind of future that we face.  

 

The problem with people like James is that they are totally ignorant — frequently by choice — of the seriousness of the environmental challenges that we will encounter in the 21^st century. He and others like him think that it will be business as usual with just a few adjustments to make which can be neatly accomplished with band-aid techniques like developing to higher densities with “green” buildings.

 

I regret to inform James and others that this century will see unprecedented challenges posed by a scarcity of resources such as energy, water, food, and many important metals and minerals in the face of continuing population growth. Signs of such shortages are already beginning to appear and are reflected in recent price increases in oil and some grains. On top of that, these challenges will be compounded by the environmental threats resulting from global warming. To think that problems of such magnitude can be successfully dealt with by even more growth, albeit “smart growth,” is truly living with one’s head in the sand.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Green development is not sustainability

I couldn’t help but be struck by the oxymoron in a headline to an article entitled “More green buildings needed to cut greenhouse gas emissions” in the March 14^th Kelowna Daily Courier.  How could constructing more buildings, I asked myself, reduce carbon emissions? But then instead of just seeing the unintentional humour in the headline, it occurred to me that it totally captured the naïve folly of the green building movement.  Green building is construction which increases the efficiency by which resources like energy, water, and materials are used while reducing the harmful impacts of such construction on the environment. But although green building methods do increase efficiencies and reduce harmful impacts, they are still a long way off from being sustainable as a sustainable activity is one that can continue indefinitely without doing damage.  Take a green building technique like LEED certified construction, for example. Structures built to a LEED gold standard reduce the energy consumed by about 50% compared to a conventional building, but they still result in a net increase in the demand for energy as opposed to building nothing at all. And in a day and age when we can look forward to a time when there will be an insufficient amount of energy available to maintain our current lifestyles, any increase in energy demand is too much and is simply not sustainable.  Although I applaud those who advocate more efficient buildings, I wonder if they aren’t also doing the public a disservice. This is because they proffer the deception, which is eagerly received by developers, builders, and others,  that green building is a sustainable practice when in fact it is not. In that regard, those in our community such as our mayor who propose that rapid growth is acceptable as long as it is “green” growth are merely proposing a band-aid solution to our problems at a time when our city (and the world) is hemorrhaging to death. 

Note: In an excellent article, Dr. Glen Barry exhorts us to look beyond attempts to greenwash growth and to get to the core of sustainability through the only genuine path — fewer people and less consumption. http://earthmeanders.blogspot.com/2008/01/time-to-stop-greenwashing.html