ThePoliticsofGreen

The Politics of GREEN
Jim Gleeson, AIA © 2005

In order for there to even be a “politics of Green” our political parties must first recognize the existence of the concept of “green” and build an understanding of the implication of “greening” both our built environment and our economy.

“Green” or “sustainable” building is a term given to construction which is more holistic and considers all aspects of a building’s performance and environmental impact in a way which produces many efficiencies making the effort not only affordable, but profitable.

Fourteen years ago the US Green Building Council (www.USGBC.org) was formed by a broad-based group of professionals, scientists and industry leaders with an initial US government grant. The problem being addressed was the huge amount of resources and
energy being expended on our American building stock, which it was thought was a major contributor to environmental problems. Of the $3.5 trillion energy industry
approximately $2.6 trillion is wasted energy. Buildings account for roughly 1/3 of energy use, greenhouse gasses and land-fill volume.

What does “greening” our processes, construction, building stock and the built environment really mean? Is this the province of environmentalists, (or “environmentalist whackos” depending on who’s talking) or is it just a design issue? Is the “sustainability movement”
something that is coming out of the need to save ourselves from global warming, ozone depletion and resource degradation: or is it something else; or has it become something else?

Democrats may think of Environmentalism as- saving the planet from “real dangers resulting from what people (mostly Americans) are doing to it”. Republicans seem to think of Environmentalism as an unnecessary reaction to exaggerated or even imagined
problems. They assume any action benefiting the environment will be bad for business and the economy. The reality may very well be that both parties are being hi-jacked by their own fears. There is much evidence that says that there are solutions to environmental problems which are both accessible and economically beneficial.

But, while the building industry is undergoing a revolution in holistic, energy and resource-efficient methodology characterized by a “triple-bottom-line” mentality, most outside this industry are unaware of it and its potential impact on their lives.

Today the USGBC is a self funding organization which has caused a wealth of experience and expertise to be realized through the market acceptance of the LEED
Green Building Rating System in the US and elsewhere. Initially as the first release
of the LEED program was available, organizations with an environmental agenda began using the system to demonstrate the seriousness of their environmental roles, in the construction of their buildings. Due to proven results, the program has grown exponentially (over 2000 buildings are currently registered for LEED Certification) and
some startling discoveries have been made about how we have been wasting money, energy and resources through over-specialization and lack of integration of our building design/construction processes.
We can argue about the validity of the global warming model or whether the ozone really has a hole in it caused by human activity forever, but if we use that as an excuse not to work together using our God-given intellect to live better, more equitably and sustainably on the Earth, we will be missing a very big boat.

Whether the earth is in peril due to our misuse of its resources, or not, does it make sense
to waste huge amounts of energy and other resources which can be largely ameliorated
without additional first-cost? Projects are now being built which use half the energy of
similar or identical “non-green” projects, require much less expensive infrastructure and
are safer and healthier to live and work in- all within the same first-cost budgets and within the same time frame. When you factor-in the life-cycle costs, the return-on-investments for any additional expenses (mostly associated with greening existing buildings) are routinely 7-10 times investment. This isn’t just “good”, it means that “greening” a construction project is a better investment than any “conventional” business investment. When you consider that new green buildings need not cost any more than
non-green buildings, but are a product of holistic methodology more so than expensive technology, you have to wonder what the argument over sustainability and environmental stewardship is all about. If what we have learned from the green building movement is any indication, developing environmentally friendly methodologies and technologies
through holistic thinking is at minimum a fantastic opportunity and possible the holy grail of a growing world energy and resource depletion nightmare.

Greening our building stock is not a cost at all, but is a fabulous investment
which any enterprise can make while helping to free up our economy from the waste and environmental degradation which had become “business-as-usual”. Taken out of the “environmental” arena and looked at on a purely economic basis, especially a triple-bottom-line economic basis (with economic, environmental and social aspects), this new green methodology is nothing less than the economics of the future. This can be a future without the “zero-sum” mentality which says that resources are finite and we must fight to control what is available. The “non-zero-sum” reality is that we are only limited by our inability to think and act holistically. By thinking of the world as not a “warehouse of materials” but a “library of ideas and solutions” we begin to find a wealth of examples in nature for synergy, bio-mimicry and sustainable methodologies.

For democrats, this means that the “environmental action” can produce real results with no burden on government and tax payers. Neither should republicans be anything but excited at the opportunity to bring vast new energy-saving technologies and methodologies to a new “energy economy”- one which brings new family-wage, un-
exportable jobs to America.



This is the time for all of us, including political parties, to see the “environmental” issue in a “new” light. It requires neither an “altruistic” (expensive) view or a defensive (protect business)stance. It does require a new non-political, view of the world as a non- zero-sum, triple-bottom-lined world “business” which has the potential to be fair, healthy and profitable.
Three decades ago, visionary engineer Dr. R. Buckminster Fuller developed the World Game simulation, posing the question:

How do we make the world work for 100% of humanity in the shortest possible time through spontaneous cooperation without ecological damage or disadvantage to anyone?

The results of this research show that the premier global strategy is the interconnection of electric power networks between regions and continents into a global energy grid, with an emphasis on tapping abundant renewable energy resources - a world wide web of electricity.

The benefits of this sustainable development world power solution are proven:
• Decreased pollution from fossil and nuclear fuels
• Reduced hunger and poverty in developing nations
• Increased trade, cooperation and world peace.
• Stabilized population growth
Of course Buckminster Fuller was “way ahead of his time”. We are only beginning to understand his ideas. One of his central concepts was the idea that as we become more and more specialized we become less and less able to access solutions which require holistic connections between disciplines or technologies for success. As it turns out, the biggest solutions, by far, are those which benefit from broad-based thought and action. This has been the case in the building industry where specialization had caused building design and construction to be among the most inefficient and wasteful industries in the world. Buildings in the 21st century had become loose assemblies of various systems, each with its own safety factor to compensate for lack of understanding of the possible effects of the other systems and all adding up to an often poorly performing and expensive-to-build-and-maintain building.
By looking at the building as a single system and integrating all of the disciplines, components and strategies in a more holistic approach, huge gains are being made. The really good news is that this approach is fully scalable to the community and world as a whole. When we look at our communities as a single system and work holistically to integrate all the systems which shape our built environment (as it interfaces with the unbuilt environment) we discover huge efficiencies coming from the synergistic effect.
When the city of Austin began to combine its need for better storm-water management with its need for an improved urban environment and more useable urban park land, it discovered and now displays a solution of beautiful greenways and landscaped, natural filtration/Bio-retention ponds which illustrate the benefit of holistic thinking in providing a unique solution to any “problem”.
When we move to the regional, state or national level, look for ways to grow the economy while improving quality of life.
“…most of the jobs produced by a sustainable energy economy -- focused on R&D and new energy generation, retrofitting our national building stock for higher efficiencies, moving to new rail and transit options, pushing hydrogen fuel experiments, developing more energy-efficient appliances -- won't be exportable.
Suddenly we have this dramatic convergence of 21st century energy needs, national security priorities, sustaining communities and our crying need to create solid, family-wage jobs that won't easily vault overseas.”
America’s Job Losses: An Energy Answer? Neal Pierce
We have been spending our natural capital rather than learning to live well on the interest.
As Bucky Fuller said, the oil reserves seem to have been placed here as a primer for civilization to get to the point that we can develop the ability to harness the renewable, sustainable energy available in abundance from our built-in energy generator, the sun. That time is now.
Our politics seems to have gotten so “sophisticated” that we no longer see the need to even relate to “the greater good” or anything that comes from “outside” our “platform”. If someone has to be wrong for us to be right, or someone has to lose for us to win, we are on our way to extinction. Instead of just defending business’ ability to be profitable in existing ways, we can look for ways for business to be more profitable through innovative solutions to long term problems or needs. Promoting production and use of renewable energy sources and the development of bio-pharmaceuticals and other bio-tech industries would lead to stabilization of world politics and allow a balance of economic potential while eliminating the need to mine the Earth (spending our natural capital) for fuel.
On the “liberal” side: instead of trying to “conserve” our way to environmental health, we can innovate through creative partnerships and change our goal from “saving what we can” to creating and perpetuating an environmentally sound, quality-of-life for everyone.
Neither party seems to be aware of the opportunity for the US and the West to play a leadership role in a new world economy characterized by innovation rather than fear of loss. A green building can only be the result of a partnership of all stakeholders toward a shared mission. Greening our economy will be the result of creative partnerships and a shared mission for a sustainable, vibrant future. This is the politics of Green.