Comments on: Going Green Gets Greatly Muddled

By: Andrew Ness

Andrew Ness — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 18:36:39 +0000

Thanks for the comments! How about reconciling the problem of universal standards vs. regional variations by having a uniform set of core standards that are applicable everywhere, with regional supplements that incorporate additional standards appropriate to that region?

By: Will

Will — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 09:57:51 +0000

Thank you Andy and William for an interesting and informative posting. Certainly there is merit in a uniform system for measuring building CO2 emission, such as the Common Carbon Metric, but there is also merit in the maintenance of regional green buildings ratings tools alongside a global system.

First, the ratings tools (LEED, BREEAM, Estidama, Greenstar) take account of many small factors beyond the ‘big ticket’ issues of energy usage and CO2 emission. For example, the Australian Greenstar tool considers issues such as natural light inside the building and occupant comfort, as well as the building proximity to public transport and availability of push bike parking/storage. Issues of this nature consider the overall environmental sensitivity of the building and its use but also impact upon the appeal of the building to subsequent owners and tenants. Small issues of this nature cannot be captured in a global, uniform system.

A second main reason supporting the existence of different ratings tools and systems is regionality. The different climatic and environmental issues faced by different regions of the world will affect the relevance of different issues in building design and construction. By way of example, the UAE Green Building Council certification system is based on the LEED tool, but has been adjusted to take account of Middle East conditions by increasing the relevance of water saving features (among other changes). Given different climatic issues and environmental sensitivity, I consider there will always be a need for regional ratings tools. I do agree, however that the existence of multiple systems within the same region will only lead to confusion resulting in a potential reluctance in uptake. In the UAE, Dubai uses the Emirates Green Building Council’s tool whereas Abu Dhabi has the ‘Estidama’ tool. Certainly consolidation within regions will bring efficiency and clarity.

By: henrylow

henrylow — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 04:40:22 +0000

Having been a part of the Online Universal Work Marketing team for 4 months now, I’m thankful for my fellow team members who have patiently shown me the ropes along the way and made me feel welcome

http://www.onlineuniversalwork.com

By: Lesley LEED AP

Lesley LEED AP — Sat, 23 Jan 2010 13:55:21 +0000

You bring up some good points. While I think the Common Carbon Metric is a good idea, it will be important to understand all the various rating systems. Each system claims that it is the best one for promoting the environment and being sustainable. These systems generally differ by a few percentages in different areas, whether it be air quality or water. These systems should work together to make one universal system that combines the advantageous parts of each system. Afterall, it is one environment, one world, one planet. How many different ways can we better it? If everyone is close to being on the same page, they should just work together. It will be way less confusing, and make more sense. Right now it is too much like a competition: our rating system is better and more sustainable than yours! Is that really what we are going for? Maybe in years to come the less popular systems will fade away and we will be reduced to two main systems that may end up working together to be one. We will see!