Apr 6, 2013 | Uncategorized
By Grey Lee
by Chris Liston
As the debate continues over Boston’s proposed energy disclosure ordinance, it has understandably shifted attention to those cities and states that have already enacted similar legislation.
To date, energy disclosure laws have been approved by lawmakers in Austin, California, the District of Columbia, Minneapolis, New York City, Philadelphia, San Francisco, Seattle and Washington. Lawmakers in Boston, Boulder, Cambridge, Chicago and Portland have expressed interest in energy disclosure legislation, but have not yet formalized their programs.
Three commonalities in these laws are 1) the use of ENERGY STAR Portfolio Manager as a benchmarking tool 2) a focus on large buildings and 3) mandatory reporting with fines and/or penalties for those buildings that fail to disclose their data. The definition of a “large” building differs by jurisdiction, but generally speaking the laws are focused on buildings with a minimum size of 10,000 SF to 50,000 SF.
Like the proposed Boston ordinance, most local energy disclosure laws have been phased in over a period of time. The District of Columbia’s program was introduced in 2008; but per the District’s timeline, the only buildings to have their data disclosed have thus far been District-owned buildings. New York City’s program was introduced in 2009 and energy data for NYC-owned buildings was first published in 2011, while energy data for privately-owned NYC buildings was first published in 2012. Philadelphia’s law was just passed in 2012 and no energy data has yet been submitted or published.
The 2011 New York City Benchmarking Report, published in August 2012, was a groundbreaking study of private sector energy use spanning 1.7 billion square feet of space. The report found that energy use varies widely within the same category of building type. For example, the least efficient NYC hotels use 3.2x as much energy as the most efficient NYC hotels. Meanwhile, the least efficient NYC office buildings use 4.5x as much energy as the most efficient NYC office buildings and the least efficient NYC retail buildings use 7.9x as much energy as the most efficient NYC retail buildings. In addition to the PDF report, NYC also released an Excel spreadsheet containing the name, address, energy utilization index, carbon emissions and ENERGY STAR rating for more than 4,000 privately-owned buildings.
You can download CBRE’s US guide to energy efficiency disclosure requirements at
Apr 3, 2013 | Uncategorized
By Grey Lee
Ignorance: state of being ignorant, lack of knowledge , education, or awareness.
I felt that I needed to get that definition in place right out front before I start throwing bombs. My first few posts have been on items that have been rather mundane such as groundskeeping and maintenance plans. However, over the last couple of weeks several things have come to my attention that both angered me and made my wonder about the long term viability of the sustainability movement.
The children are the future
The first thing that got may attention was a concerted effort to pollute the minds of school children by requiring, under force of law, the teaching of climate denial in schools. Oklahoma, Colorado, and Arizona are all debating bills that refer to global warming as a “theory” that is “controversial” and riddled with scientific weaknesses. Despite the fact the National Academy of Sciences, as well as major national academies of science around the world and every other authoritative body of scientists active in climate research, have stated that the science is unequivocal: the world is warming and its primary cause is human activity. The veracity of climate change is unshaken, despite the fact that this spring has been ice bound and last winter was virtually snowless. These variations are explainable. The trend line of the data has been verified, despite the claims of climate change deniers.
These bills are being advanced under the canard that students need a “'balanced' perspective to develop critical thinking skills they need in order to become intelligent, productive and scientifically informed citizens.” (These efforts have been crafted and honed over decades. If you want to learn more, an excellent PBS documentary is here.) This is the latest approach to arguing for an idea you can't possibly support with evidence – the false equivalency. The powerful interests behind climate denial are well aware that the vast weight of evidence is against them so they propose that, for the sake of balance and fairness, both sides need to be considered equally. This is bunk. It is the same argument that was made between creationism and evolution. One side has the vast weight of the generations greatest subject matter experts all reaching some form of accord, while the other has….nothing. The best support that they muster is a selective interpretation of the data. Sure they can point to a scientist or two – often not even a climate scientist – to support their position. The tobacco industry would occasionally find a scientist who did not believe that smoking damaged your health, but it did not mean that those scientists' opinions should receive the same weight as the avalanche of opposing colleagues.
While these laws seem laughable on their face, this is not something to be trivialized. While the above referenced law is up for debate in 3 states, it has been raised in 10. The forces that propose these laws are very well organized and heavily subsidized. They are also expert at influencing the political process to gain a built-in, legislatively mandated advantage. Kudo's for them. If you care about something, you need to fight for it. I fear that the pro-sustainability constituents may not be up for the fight. Examples of their efforts include efforts to prevent the disclosure of fracking fluids, efforts to blockade renewable energy, and even developing a “Global Warming Curriculum for K-12 Classrooms.”
Now, we get to the part that worries me.
Journalists, the ones we trust to nurture an informed populace, seem to be completely abdicating any responsibility to cover environmental matters. Last year we had the ridiculous op-ed in the Wall Street Journal where 16 scientists, most with no expertise in climate science, advocated that global warming has stopped. That was countered by a letter sating that “97% of the scientists actively publishing in the field agree that climate change is real and human caused”. Despite the fact that that letter was written by 39 of the preeminent climate and atmospheric scientists in the world, the Wall Street Journal determined that it did not warrant a retraction or an explanation. It did not even deserve to be published in the more prominent op-ed section, yet it was relegated to “letters to the editor”.
Just a year later we hear that the New York Times is disbanding its special environmental team of 7 reports and 2 editors. Six weeks afterward they disband its Green Blog. A few days later, the Washington Post reassigned its star climate reporter to White House coverage. The NYT still maintains dozens of blogs, including six that cover style and fashion. They claim that they are not de-empahsisizing environmental coverage, but that the stories will be available in other sections such as technology or politics. No matter how you slice it, this is a dilution of emphasis. If covering the environment is not part of a reporters job and they are not passionate about it of if they are not required to produce green stories for an editor, then there can be little doubt that the issue will receive much attention. If we cannot count on the media to keep environmental concerns in the forefront of peoples consciousness, they will wither on the vine. You cannot affect change without a motivated and informed populace. When faced with the prospect of having to hunt for relevant information, the soporific effect of reality TV and the latest sensationalized news of the day will dull the minds and hearts of all but the most ardent supporters.
Attacking LEED
Some elements of the press have been openly hostile. Late last year, an article in USA today attacked the LEED for schools program. It called into question the benefits of LEED and insinuated that LEED was ineffective at saving energy, promoting better student performance, and creating a better environment. This was the second article critical of LEED in that publication by the same author. Granted, we as a community can do better. We need to get our message out with case reports and studies. We need to focus on the economic, as well as human being aspects, of green building. We can't forget two of the three P's, people and profit. However, without a press actively involved in accurately reporting environmental issues, who will counter such ill informed articles? Not only will we have a populace that doesn't receive environmental news but now the news they receive will be inaccurate at best and twisted at the worst.
A second example of information being twisted relates to recent governmental action looking to replace LEED with a sham standard. The U.S General Services Administration (GSA) has recently conducted a review of third party standards and it concluded that, while close, Green Globes was better aligned with the federal requirements for new construction. Also, Congress has been pressuring the DoD to limit, if not eliminate, the use of LEED for their construction projects. The DoD, to their credit, has pushed back.
Why is this important? The DoD and GSA are two of the biggest property managers in the world and both companies have a huge impact on shaping and driving markets. This pressure on Congress is coming from, no surprise, an industry group with the high minded name of The American High Performance Buildings Coalition. These 27 trade groups represent interests such as chemicals, plastics, sealants, and wood products. This group is pushing hard to make Green Globes a “business friendly and affordable alternative to LEED”. The vice president of plastics for the American Chemistry Council states that this coalition “will bring needed perspectives to this important work.” Another member of the group states that they see a danger (and seek to end) the “USGBC's further monopolization of these types of programs.” Once again we see the hydra of a false equivalency argument and a perceived “need” to bring an “equally valid” alternative to the table.
The true nature of the group is revealed in its adoption of Green Globes as its alternative since Green Globes was essentially created by the Sustainable Forestry initiative (SFI) .This industry group was in opposition to the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and its stringent criteria for sustainable forestry. Rather than manage their forests sustainably, the SFI utilized funding from the lumber industry to hire a PR executive and started their own green certification program, Green Globes. Now this group has spawned a second group called The American High Performance Buildings Coalition to recommend Green Globes. Its like the snake eating its tail: you can't get your products accepted by LEED, so you create your own product certification. Then you create a “third party” rating system that uses that “certified” product, only to create another group with even more undesirable products. Next you have that group push government to adopt your “third party certification” across their properties and you use the governments' wide ranging influence to distort the market. It's beautiful in a machiavellian sort of way.
“The sustainability regime is being quietly challenged, not from without but from within.”
Really?
The forces that seek to undermine the sustainability movement are not only battling in the war of public opinion, they are quietly eroding the efforts from the inside. “Good-bye Sustainability, Hello Resilience” is a very interesting, if misguided, article in the respected journal Conservation. The central tenant of this article is that sustainability has not worked, nor is likely to even work, and that a more pragmatic and more politically inclusive (my emphasis) approach, resilience, that focuses on adapting to the coming change rather than fighting against it. That sounds like capitulation to me. Now in the authors defense, he mentions that it's a “complementary dialog”, but that does bring to mind the false equivalency argument. He points out that Lower Manhattan, with the largest collection of LEED certified buildings in the world, was built to be sustainable, but not resilient. I would argue that the principles of sustainability and LEED in particular are -de facto- resilient. If you have on-site renewable energy, then are you not resilient to power outages? If you have rain water harvesting, is that not resilient? Proper air sealing, locally sourced materials, building orientation, durability and life cycle analysis all speak to resilience. The reason that so much destruction occurred when Manhattan flooded was that much of the infrastructure was from a different, unconcerned time and that decisions were made to avoid flood proofing the newer buildings. The author contends that those advocating sustainability are seeking a “perfect, stasis-under-glass equilibrium”. I don't think so. I believe that the purpose of sustainability is to preserve what we can and conserve what we need. We are trying to bend the curve here and if we can't immediately halt climate change, then perhaps we can buy time. Perhaps technological advances will allow the developing world to bypass carbon intensive practices and move directly to renewables. While it is important to follow the boy scout motto and “be prepared”, we should not simply resign ourselves to building higher sea walls.
If we wish to keep building a sustainable future, we need to be aware of the forces that are working against us. We need to shine the light of publicity on their activities. We need correct information, not a “balanced perspective”. We need to call out intellectual corruption and we must counter misinformation with credible data presented understandably. We need to work with manufacturers and business leaders to convince them that sustainability is not only the right thing to do, but that it is the profitable thing to do. We need to keep our promises, admit our errors, tell the truth, and expose those that do not. We can not, and wecertainly must not, capitulate!
Kevin Dufour is an Environmental Scientist with Viridis Advisors. He collaborates with Tom Irwin on creating greener greenscapes. The opinions expressed by member bloggers are their own and not necessarily those of the USGBC Massachusetts Chapter.
Mar 29, 2013 | Uncategorized
By Grey Lee
The
USGBC MA Chapter is happy to promote, support, and advocate for
public disclosure of energy use in Boston. According to the recent proposal, different types and sizes of buildings will report their energy use score (using EPA's
Energy Star Portfolio Manager) into a public database over the next four years. The city will rate all the buildings it owns starting in 2013. The information will be used to help the city's
Energy and Environment Office, led by former USGBC MA Board VP Brian Swett, to craft incentives and programs to help owners embrace energy efficiency measures. It will not be used to force anyone to do anything, just to report their building's energy use. One of our members Chris Liston, Director of Energy and Sustainability at
CBRE New England, noted that for his clients in New York, reporting for the entire year can be done in about 30 minutes.
I went to City Hall on Thursday, March 28 to submit supportive testimony to the City Council, which will be voting on the ordinance in the near future. We believe the ordinance will lead to better building values, better tenant experiences, better building operating practices, reduced waste of energy, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions among other things. Some organizations, including Boston's Building Owners and Managers Association (BOMA),
came out against the ordinance. Industry leaders like Partners Healthcare and Boston Properties spoke in support of the ordinance. It seemed like a lot of the opposition just didn't understand the program. It was too bad, but the USGBC MA Chapter is here to help people learn more and get more support behind the measure.
The ordinance is somewhat like telling people to go weigh themselves when you care about their health. If someone knows their weight, they might decide to start exercising or eating better. But some people just don't even want to know things and this ordinance isn't even like telling anyone you have to go to the gym – just to get weighed!
Below is the famous Boston City Hall—the civic building that everyone loves to deride. It is a bit dingy, but it serves the purpose. A lot of important work goes on there and the needs of the city are met by the Mayor, the City Council, and the many municipal employees working for Boston.
Below is the City Council Chamber. The table in the foreground was for panelists to submit testimony. There on the right side of the table is Darien Crimmin, member of the Chapter and VP for Sustainability and Energy at Winn Development, testifying on behalf of energy disclosure. His firm measures and scores their buildings with the Energy Star Portfolio Manager in order to make better management decisions about where to invest in physical plant improvements and energy efficiency projects.
One of the criticisms of the proposal came from a study, funded by BOMA, by Harvard researcher Robert Stavins. His conclusion was that no city where an ordinance exists has been able to show a measurable decrease in energy use. One response to this is that these laws have only just been implemented and it's reasonable to have not seen appreciable savings yet. Advocates point to the fact that industry leaders are already using disclosure and energy scoring to save money and make investments in energy efficiency. BOMA Boston suggests that the market is the best encouragement for this rather than a city-mandated policy.
We were disappointed at so much negative reaction from the conventional real estate world. One advocacy entity had revved up the reactionaries in the condominium association world. Many small condo association representatives came to complain about potential cost burdens on their residents.
I am afraid the term “assessment,” i.e. “energy assessment” was confused with the red-letter financial “assessment” concept that poorly managed condominium associations occasionally levy on their members to handle unplanned-for capital improvements.
It was a real shame. Brian Swett reported that the proposed ordinance only affects multi-family properties and/or condo associations with more than 25 units, of which there are only about 250 in the city, not the thousands that association reps were claiming. The ordinance does not affect single-family homes. One confused broker mentioned that having an energy score on a unit or house would be a major hassle for sellers—they already have to disclose lead and radon; adding energy efficiency to the mix could provide prospective buyers with more information than they could handle. The pro- side of the ordinance gave a round of applause on that one.
One opposition heavyweight (below) that came to testify the Commercial Real Estate Development Association of Boston near the end was David Begelfer, CEO of NAIOP. He argued that Boston should stay out of the real estate markets and let best practices reward the right players.
Brian Koop, VP at Boston Properties, came up with a good analogy. He noted that his kids love to play basketball. They play ball in the driveway with other kids in the neighborhood. When he comes home driving down the street, he can instantly tell whether the kids are keeping score or just playing around. When you keep track of the score, he said, you play differently. You play better batter when keeping track of the score. He talked about how his firm is serious about energy efficiency and uses Portfolio Manager to keep track of the performance of their properties, all of which guides important, asset-improving investments. He urged the city to help other firms get serious about improving their operations using energy disclosure as well.
One important note that came through was that owners and traditional real estate folks felt like they had not been involved in the process enough and they wanted the ordinance to be less punitive. They wanted to be at the table. I'm not sure exactly how the industry was involved in the drafting of the ordinance in Boston, but I can see how a more inclusionary process might have worked better and muted much of the resistance. So much of it was irrelevant rants from misinformed activists, but that's democracy for you!
USGBC's national advocacy lead Jeremy Sigmon wrote to me: “Property owners in many cities, including San Francisco, Seattle and New York City, worked hand-in-hand with city officials to develop recommendations on benchmarking and disclosure ordinances. Local ordinances have been supported by the Real Estate Board of New York and BOMA San Francisco. From BOMA San Francisco: “Our property owners initially thought, 'Oh, this is going to be horrible' … but there's been no blowback, if you will, from property owners,”
said Ken Cleaveland, a vice president with BOMA San Francisco. “It's just been a non-issue, quite frankly.”
I was glad to represent the Chapter at City Hall. It was a valuable learning experience for me and I met a lot of good people working on this disclosure ordinance. Thank you to the Chapter's Advocacy Interest Group for pulling together our testimony—Norm Lamonde and Greg Sampson principally. Thank you to Brian Swett for arranging me to be on one of the support panels. I look forward to working with the coalition to make energy disclosure a reality here, in Boston and beyond.
As I left, I noticed a lot of media coverage of the event. I knew it was contentious, but I didn't realize energy disclosure was such a hot-button issue!
(Well, actually, it did happen to be the same afternoon Mayor Menino announced his retirement…)
Mar 26, 2013 | Uncategorized
By Grey Lee
Is it the greatest show on earth? Or maybe for the earth? Well, you won't know if you don't go! The Upper Northeast Regional (UNRC) Summit is only once a year–this time on April 18th and 19th. So if you're ready to rock Rhode Island with your fellow USGBC Chapter members from your state and chapters from CT, MA, ME, NH, NY (Upstate), and VT, then mark your calendars now.
The UNRC summit is kinda like Coachella, but not a lot of music and a whole lot more green building/organizing, help/learning from each other. A large crew from Massachusetts will be there, so don't miss out! Jim Newman, the UNRC Regional Rep, is the info man if you want more deets.
What’s the program like? Glad you asked. You can read about it in-depth here or see below for the set list:
Thursday, April 18, 2013
6:00 PM – 7:00 PM: Continuing Education Course
7:00 PM – 9:30 PM: Opening Reception
Friday, April 19, 2013
7:30 AM – 8:30 AM: Registration and breakfast bar
8:30 AM – 8:40 AM: Welcoming remarks
8:40 AM – 9:15 AM: Keynote Address from United States Senator Sheldon Whitehouse
9:15 AM – 10:15 AM: First Morning Session – Doing the Extraordinary–Chapter, Members, and Leadership
Four panels:
1. Building Teams That Rocket and Rock It – Boards That Takeoff and Go BOOM! BAM! POW! – Going byeond the basics, we can ll walk, now we run
2. Chapter Steering Committee (CSC)/Emerging Professionals (EP) – Who are they, what do they do, and how we can use these resources as one of our bridges and connections to the national USGBC, our Upper Northeast Region, and Between our Chapters
3. Membership/Membership Touches ~ Chapter Programs/Positioning of the Chapters ~ Fundraising/Partnerships – The engine oil, transmission fluid, and the renewable fuel that keeps your Chapter running.
4.Ideas Charrette – Brainstorm Ideas and Initiatives for your Chapter, Chapter to Chapter, Chapter to Regional Committee, Chapter to Regional Committee to National USGBC
10:15 AM – 10:30 AM: Break
10:30 AM – 11:30 AM: Second Morning Session – Repeat Panels 1 through 4
11:30 AM – 1:00 PM: Lunch & Keynote Speaker Richard Saul Wurman
1:00 PM – 1:15 PM: Break
1:15 PM – 2:15 PM: First Afternoon Session – Doing The Extraordinary–Changing The World
Four panels:
5. LEED v.4 and LEED for Neighborhood Development (LEED-ND) – Powerful Ideas, Powerful Tools, Powered by You!
6.Energy Initiatives – Who Else Is Pushing Envelopes and Moving the Horizon Line
7.Climate Change – Why It Matters to the Northeast: Irene, the 100-Year and 200-Year Flooding in RI, and Extra-tropical Super Storm Sandy – The Then, The Now, and The To-Be
8.Kicking A** Organizations – Who Are Those Guys and How Did They Do That? Tales Far Flung From the USGBC Ranch
2:15 PM – 2:30 PM: Break
2:30 PM – 3:30 PM: Second Afternoon Session – Repeat Panels 5 through 8
3:30 PM – 4:30 PM: Plenary Session – Where Do You See Your Members, Chapter and the Region Going From This Point Forward? Doing Anything Extraordinary?
The Lowdown
When: April 18-19, 2013
Where: New England Institute of Technology
East Greenwich Campus
One New England Tech Boulevard
East Greenwich, Rhode Island 02818
Mar 22, 2013 | Uncategorized
By Grey Lee
For those interested in sustainability with a specific focus on green building, getting LEED certified is the way to go. The best place to start is with the LEED GA (Green Associate) exam. This exam is a two-hour, computer-based test covering the essentials of green design, construction, and operations. Individuals in a variety of occupations–from real estate to planning to education and beyond–take the exam every year to grow their knowledge and boost their careers. If you're thinking about going for your LEED GA, we at the USGBC MA Chapter are here to help. Our next LEED GA study group kicks off at 281 Summer Street, 5th Floor, Boston, MA 02210, on Thursday, April 4th from 5:45 PM – 7:30 PM. We will meet for the following five Thursdays at the same time and place. The best part is that each session with be led by a seasoned green building professional such as Erik Ruoff or Tom Hardey. Here's the agenda for each meeting:
- 4/4: USGBC Programs: General LEED GA knowledge, GBCI, Rating Systems
- 4/11: Sustainable Sites and Water Efficiency
- 4/18: Energy and Atmosphere and Indoor Environmental Quality
- 4/25: Materials and Resources, Innovation in Design, Regional Priority, & upcoming LEED v4
- 5/2: Green Building Jeopardy
- 5/9: Wrap-up and Green Associate Exam Prep
Hope to see you at the next meeting!
Mar 19, 2013 | Uncategorized
By Grey Lee
Time flies when you're building green! The USGBC Massachusetts Chapter launched its Innovation in Green Design Award program back in 2008 with the aim of publicly celebrating the most innovative green buildings and products in the Commonwealth. Hard to believe, but the Sixth Annual awards program is already upon us. That means it's once again time to recognize those projects that have been innovative, yet have also blazed a trail others may follow. Another key aspect of the awards is to promote the triple bottom line, so we'll be looking for projects that make a positive impact environmentally, economically, and socially.
In addition to continuing to give out awards for Innovative Building or System and Innovative Product or Technology, we're very proud to present a NEW category: Massachusetts Green Building of the Year Award! If you have a great green project you want to tell the world about, please enter by this Friday, March 29 at 5 p.m for your chance to win. All Innovation in Green Design submissions should be dropped off or mailed to the USGBC MA Offices (Attn: Grey Lee at Space with a Soul – 281 Summer Street, 5th Floor, Boston MA 02210). Whether you enter the contest or not, join us to celebrate all of the state's green builders at our fabulous Earth Day event on Wednesday, April 10 from 5:30-8:30 p.m at 2 International Place, Boston, MA 02110. We'll have the awards ceremony as well as live music, delicious food and drink, and the opportunity to connect with your green building colleagues. See below for more photos of last year's ceremony.
Mar 13, 2013 | Uncategorized
By Grey Lee
Managing a landscape, with or without pesticides, is a difficult decision. What’s so difficult you may ask? Pesticides are created to kill things. They are an inherently dangerous product. This should be an easy decision, but the pests they seek to eliminate also bring a danger. There's a reason one of the Four Riders of the Apocalypse was pestilence. After immersing myself in the study of this subject and trying to separate the science from the emotion, I find that the subject is, as in most things, far more nuanced than I initially believed.
I initially approached the subject from the aforementioned position that pesticides, herbicides, and fungicides are designed to kill things, therefore they must be bad for the environment and bad for human health. I also assumed that organic products that are ‘natural’ would be better. When you are asked to counsel a client on their landscape management plan, you will probably find that it's not quite so simple.
Which are safer?
For instance, let’s look at the assumption that organic products are safer than synthetic products. This is not necessarily true. There are organic alternatives that are, in fact, carcinogenic. There are organics that have a higher toxicity profile than synthetic pesticides. One of the most used synthetic pesticides, Chlorpyrifos, is 2.5 to 20 times less toxic than Copper Sulfate, a commonly used organic alternative. Copper Sulfate is carcinogenic and mutagenic. The synthetic pesticide is neither of these groups. Copper Sulfate are also bioaccumulates, which means that its toxicity increases over time. Chlorpyrifos is eliminated rapidly from the body, usually within 24 hours. Just like their synthetic brethren, organic pesticides have warning labels and cautions. One synthetic, made by DuPont, is the first synthetic pesticide that carries no signal word – not danger, not warning, not caution. In fact, it was found to have no adverse effect up to 10,000 times the recommended effective dose – the highest level tested.
Which are better for the environment?
What about the environment? Surely organic products are better for the environment than man made chemicals, right? This too is a dangerous assumption. One recent study in Canada looked at controlling a problematic agricultural pest using an organic regime vs. a synthetic regime. The results showed that the organic regime was more ecologically damaging than the synthetic regime. The reason that organic products can be more ecologically damaging is that they are often not specific. They have a higher mortality on non-target species and the potential ecological damage also extends to organic fertilizers as well. The reason is that the organic products are often not as efficient because they have to be applied at a higher rate to obtain the desired result. The excess becomes run off that contains other undesired components included. Case in point, organic compost often needed for nitrogen is usually undesirably high in phosphorous, which can lead to water pollution issues.
So what are we to do?
We may be asked to develop a plan for our clients, so how do we advise them? First and foremost, you will have to consider the client’s needs. You will have to consider the constraints that they are working under. Is there a regulatory scheme that will guide the decisions? Secondly, you will need to educate them. There are three principles at work: the first is the concept that, “chemicals are chemicals”. It does not matter whether they are synthesized by man or occur naturally. Most aspirin that you take is synthetic and for a healthier alternative you can also chew on 5 pounds of willow bark. In the end, you’re still getting salicylic acid, and the only difference is the means of delivery. The second concept is, “the dose makes the poison”. This is a cornerstone principle of toxicology. If it’s designed to eliminate plants or pests, then it is a poison regardless of its origin. The main question is minimizing the dose and this involves choosing the right tool for the job that is applied in the most educated and judicious manner possible. Keep in mind that the right action may be no action at all. The third concept is something called the precautionary principle. The precautionary principle simple states that, “when an activity poses a threat to human health or the environment, precautionary measures should be taken even when the cause and effect relationship is not fully established scientifically.” This idea is often misinterpreted to mean that “it is better to be safe than sorry”. What is needed is a balancing of the risks. What are the risks of using the tool versus the dangers of not using it? Avoiding the potential “sorry” part of the precautionary principle does not guarantee, in reality, the “safe” part.
Take the balanced approach
Integrated Pest Management is part of LEED. It strikes the balance and its approach is that one should use the least damaging, ecologically or physiologically means possible to achieve your desired end. It is a careful progression that balances the twin harms of action and inaction, requiring care and forethought in the actions one contemplates. This leaves open the ability to use the most effective and efficient tool, provided all other options have been tried. Clients may wish to use an all-organic approach that may be part of their value set. They must understand the trade offs in quality, costs, efficacy, toxicity, and environmental benefits. Other clients may value the perception of quality or want to minimize labor costs, maximize safety, seek to avoid the broken window effect, or view nice grounds as a means of attracting or retaining employees and customers. All clients wish to avoid liability, the risk of disease, issues with a board of health, or infestation. Most people want to preserve the investment they have in their property while having the smallest ecological footprint and the healthiest possible site. That can be done by balancing all options and understanding the entire equation.
Kevin Dufour is an Environmental Scientist with Viridis Advisors. He collaborates with Tom Irwin on creating greener greenscapes. The opinions expressed by member bloggers are their own and not necessarily those of the USGBC Massachusetts Chapter.
Mar 5, 2013 | Uncategorized
By Grey Lee
LEED for Homes Certification has two paths: Low-rise and Mid-rise. In addition to having some different 'optional point' credits, the two certification paths have some key differences in Prerequisites (the pass/fail items). One of these differences, which I will discuss in this post, is EQp12.1 – Compartmentalization of Units.
Compartmentalization is an air sealing practice that focuses on limiting air movement between dwelling units within a building. Historically, the exterior boundary has been the primary plane for reduction in building air leakage. More recently, air leakage across unit boundaries has been targeted for more than energy savings. Where air can travel, sounds, smells, heat, cold and rodents can as well. The goal of the compartmentalization requirement in LEED for Homes Mid-rise is to reduce the movement of all these things. Many of us have probably experienced an apartment where neighbors share more than just the common stairwell.
 |
| Figure 1 |
Figure 1 demonstrates the intent of compartmentalization. Solid lines in this image represent walls that have been sealed to act as continuous air barriers and dotted lines indicate walls that have not been sealed. The floor plan to the left represents a building in which only the exterior boundary has been sealed while the floor plan to the right represents a building that has been compartmentalized, or sealed to prevent air movement between units.
Now, you may be thinking, how hard can it be? The entire unit gets gypsum on the walls and with the ceiling, windows and doors being sealed, where can the air come from? Well, let me tell you something: air can be sneaky!
It finds its way anywhere that it can – whether through a light fixture, electrical outlet, duct chase or behind baseboard. If you don't seal it, it will come, and meeting the LEED for Homes Mid-rise prerequisite doesn't happen by accident.
 |
| Figure 2 |
Figure 2 is a cross-section of a multifamily building in which we are looking at one unit which is bounded on all sides by other units. The orange dotted line represents the interior gypsum on the walls, ceiling, and the floor. The red arrows indicate the paths for air leakage, which can be found coming through electrical penetrations such as wall outlets and ceiling fixtures. It can also enter the unit through penetrations made by ductwork and unsealed framing in spaces between unit ceilings and subfloors above.
In my experience, residential units that have not had a compartmentalization goal are typically measured at twice or more the allowable leakage level for LEED for Homes Mid-rise. Working with a LEED Green Rater from framing, insulation, finish, and focusing on compartmentalization has shown to be an effective way to help projects meet their air leakage requirements.
Feb 23, 2013 | Uncategorized
By Grey Lee
Boston's Mayor Thomas Menino has announced an Energy Disclosure Ordinance.
The establishment of this requirement will “provide information to owners, residents, and prospective buyers and tenants, and, through education and the operations of the market, create incentives to participate in energy efficiency programs.”
Energy efficiency in existing buildings is the single most important component of the City's plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 25 percent by 2020.
New York, Philadelphia, Seattle, San Francisco, Minneapolis and other cities have enacted energy reporting and
disclosure requirements in their jurisdictions.
Leading by example, Boston would annually disclose its energy and water use in all of its facilities starting with the 2012 building data. In the following years, the ordinance would apply to non-residential buildings greater than 25,000 square feet and residential buildings 25 units or more. The proposed roll out schedule for reporting requirements is as follows:
- Non-residential buildings 50,000 square feet or more in 2014
- Residential buildings with 50 units or more in 2015
- Non-residential buildings 25,000 square feet or more in 2016
- Residential buildings with 25 units or more in 2017
In addition to reporting energy and water use, buildings may be required to conduct energy audits or other evaluations every five years to identify opportunities for energy efficiency investments. Buildings in the top tier of energy performance or already taking significant efficiency actions will be exempted from this requirement.
Reducing greenhouse gas emissions through investments in energy efficiency is the largest component of the Mayor’s Climate Action Plan. Mayor Menino has established Boston as a national leader in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and promoting a clean energy economy through initiatives such as Renew Boston and the first in the nation's green building standards for private developments. To further inspire action, Mayor Menino has launched Greenovate Boston, a new sustainability movement to ensure a greener, healthier and more prosperous future for the City.
Feb 21, 2013 | Uncategorized
By Grey Lee
This is a guide for LEED® accredited professionals and eco-conscious individuals on how to apply the LEED® credit scorecard to their personal lives.
Why should only buildings benefit from the LEED® requirements? If we follow the LEED® guidelines so that our projects can hit silver, gold or even platinum, then why not apply those guidelines to our everyday lives? By applying the scorecard to our daily life, we demonstrate that LEED® is not just limited to buildings, but it is for everyone. It shows that we not only talk the talk but walk the walk.
My posts will be part personal journey, part advice column, and part standard by which we all live by. Living LEED® is for everyone, not just about me writing my personal reflections or giving advice. It is about you and your journey to your own personal silver, gold, platinum or even higher achievements! With this column, I declare a new standard that should be named as the EVERGREEN standard. Let’s be like the Evergreen Trees, who in their long fruitful lives, give us more than they take. So let us give back to the environment more than what we take from it.
For reference: the posts will follow LEED® for EB and NC, but to get to EVERGREEN level we will incorporate the other LEED® disciplines as Homes and CI whose credits cross pollinate. The choice of including LEED® for Homes is practical because it is where we spend much of our lives, in and around the home.
I call out to all my LEED® professionals and eco-conscious colleagues to contribute to credits that you have personally achieved and I will incorporate them here. I will try to write in each edition credits in the order they appear. This new Evergreen level doesn’t come with a prescribed checklistt uses the LEED® checklist as a reference to achieve a level greater than before.
Our first attempt at EVERGREEN standard is to achieve credits in the Sustainable Sites section .
In the current version of EB and CI you get a point for having a LEED® certified building. If you are living in a LEED® Certified building or Home, you are ahead of the curve. My townhome is not LEED® certified.
The best that I can do is go for Energy Star. Everyone needs to go here and learn as much as they can. If you can, register your existing or new home to get it up to Energy Star standards.
Not ready for Energy Star? Then consider Mass Save®. Here you can begin the journey to energy savings and dollar savings! Mass Save is chock full of rebate programs that will send you in an Evergreen direction!
There are many more components to Sustainable Sites. In the next few posts, I will try to incorporate the credits that directly affect us as people or credits that can be used in conjunction with people. Without infringing on USGBC or Energy Star copyrights, we will reflect on the credits and checklists that inspire an Evergreen Level of standard we can all live by.
Steve is a Holistic Design Professional at a large Boston-area design firm.
We welcome contributions from all Members. If you would like to write for the blog, use the Contact us tab to drop us a line.
PE | Associate, LeMessurier
Vice President, AEW’s Architecture & Engineering group
Interior Designer, Jacobs, Boston
Senior Vice President, Market Transformation and Development U.S. Green Building Council
AIA LEED AP BD+C | Senior Associate, Gensler Boston 
LEED Fellow, WELL AP | Founder and Principal, Ecoworks Studio
LEED AP BD+C | Environmental Sustainability Manager, Armstrong World Industries
Sustainability Director, Steven Winter Associates
Assistant Professor of Exposure Science | Director of the Healthy Buildings program
Managing Director, Harvard University Office for Sustainability
Principal & Director of Certifications and Consulting, Epsten Group, Inc.
Vice President of Sustainability and Corporate Social Responsibility, Jamestown
Founder and Principal, Linnean Solutions | LEED AP, O+M; EcoDistrict AP
Associate Principal, BuroHappold Engineering
Senior Vice President, Sustainability at Kilroy Realty Corporation
Co-Founder, Facilitator at The Laurentia Project | LEED AP BD+C, LFA
Founder and President, Board of the Healthy Building Network
Building Technology Director, Kingspan North America
LEED® AP ID+C, BD+C, USGBC Faculty, WELL® AP, WELL Faculty and Fitwel Ambassador
Workplace Strategy Expert and Researcher, EYP
Principal, Integrated Ecostrategy
Senior Vice President, International WELL Building Institute
AIA, LEED AP BD+C, WELL AP
Principal, Bruner/Cott
Architect, Associate, and Sustainability Design Leader, Stantec Architecture and Engineering
FAIA, LEED Fellow, Long Green Specs
Products & Materials Specialist, BuildingGreen
Director of Acquisitions and Development
Director of Restorative Enterprise, Interface
Vice President of Sustainable Development, Shaw
Sustainability Manager, Consigli Construction Company
Global Head of Sustainability, Superior Essex