Is green building dangerous?
Green building is fairly new, so naturally there are a lot of questions about it. But somehow, amidst the excitement of pursuing new technologies and arguing about what works and what doesn't, it seems a 
fundamental question has been left in the dust.... is green building dangerous?
Like any good question, it can be answered with another question: dangerous to whom? Dangerous to the developer, the inhabitant, the team members, the insurer, or to the economy? That answer, dear reader, is a mixed bag.
Now, I've most likely caused a number of you to see red by even suggesting that green could be dangerous. But remember that other cultural innovations through history - the atomic bomb and nuclear energy to name a few - have been viewed at times with the frenzied level of expected salvation that green building and green products have recently encountered.
Obviously, green building isn't about to physically blow up and kill people, so it's not "dangerous" in that way. Theoretically at least, it might even be increasing people's life spans by taking harmful chemicals out of buildings like volatile organic compounds.
But remember, green building is just a kid. And kids grow up into amazing - or horrifying - adults. What happens when green building suddenly spawns a spate of lawsuits (which local LEED certified lawyers assure me will happen, the only question is when). What happens when someone discovers a green building sacred cow does more harm than good (biofuels anyone?) What happens when the greenest greenie we know inevitable turns out to be clear cutting Amazon forests in their backyard?
Will the increasing green momentum implode or is green building and the ideals behind it stronger than that? It probably depends who you're asking.
A while back I spoke with an indoor air quality expert who said he's been in green buildings - LEED, Built Green, etc - that had such bad indoor air quality the house was effectively poisoning the people that lived in it. While it's (hopefully) an anomaly, what if it isn't?
If we look at the legal aspects of green alone, the trial has just begun. I wrote a story in February here about the legal issues facing green buildings. Just getting information for the one article was excruciating because there just isn't that much information, or people willing, to talk about the subject. In the past few months however, I've heard more and more people saying that green developers need to protect themselves in contracts against possible green building issues. Green building, they say, is a whole new ball game. And many clients aren't aware of what they could be doing for protection. For more on this issue, check out the excellent green liability subject on greenbuildings NYC, especially this post.
So is green building dangerous? You know as well as I there is no answer to that right now. But it's still a question that can be raised, and often isn't. If you've heard it raised before in any printed form, please comment below to tell me about it, or just tell me what you think.
I suppose even if there were an answer, it could be answered by yet another: if green building is dangerous, does the good it does outweigh the danger?
DJC Green Building Blog
Welcome to the Daily Journal of Commerce Green Building Blog. Our focus is on green building issues in Seattle, the Pacific Northwest and anywhere that might interest you. If you have any comments or questions, please email maudes@djc.com.
Opinions expressed by bloggers are their own and do not necessarily reflect those of the Seattle Daily Journal of Commerce.
Polls
Sorry, there are no polls available at the moment.Recent Posts
- Old warehouse becomes cool new school
- BIG’s hilly courtyard tops a new gym
- The next big thing in energy conservation? Small commercial buildings
- Your patio can also be a power plant
- Living Future a Deep Dive into What’s Possible…and Necessary, says Noted Paul Hawken
Recent Comments
- Dollie on Is green building dangerous?
- Sylvester on At Living Future! Stay tuned for updates
- www.aztecontainer.com on New home on Whidbey Island made of cargo containers
- Passive Solar on Frank Gehry apparently not the biggest fan of LEED
- Jon Silver on BIG’s hilly courtyard tops a new gym
Energy information
- BetterBricks
- Earth Advantage Blog
- New Buildings Institute Blog
- Washington State University Extension Energy Program
Green blogs
- Best Green Blogs
- Building Capacity Blog
- Building Seattle Green Blog
- City Tank
- Climate Solutions
- Earth Advantage Blog
- GreenbuildingsNYC
- GreenFab News and Media
- Greenversations
- Inhabitat
- Jetson Green
- Landscape and Urbanism
- Metaefficient
- New Buildings Institute Blog
- Portland Architecture
- SeattleScape
- The Greenworkplace
- Thinkspace
Green Building organizations
- Built Green
- Cascadia Chapter of the U.S. Green Building Council
- City of Seattle Green Building
- City of Seattle Green Building Program
- DJC.com
- Environmental Services Directory for Washington State
- Green Infrastructure Wiki
- King County GreenTools
- Lifecycle Building Challenge
- Puget Sound Clean Air Agency Resources
- Puget Sound Partnership
- Seattle Great City Initiative
- Whole Building Design Guide
Green events in the Seattle area
- AIA Seattle
- Cascadia Green Building Council Events Calendar
- Master Builders of King and Shohomish County Built Green Events Calendar and News
- Seattle Department of Planning and Development Events
August 5th, 2008 - 17:19
I think you’re overstating your case a bit. While I agree that green building is a very new industry and that at the rate it is growing (extremely fast for such a new industry), many of us are just waiting for a good-sized bump in the road. But to ask if it is dangerous is a bit heavy handed, in my mind.
Yes, there are certainly issues that the green building industry will have to face and anecdotal evidence of problems such as the poor air quality stories you mention above, but for the most part, the problems will likely be manageable. For real danger to occur, we’d need to see shoddy construction collapse and kill (God forbid), companies that claim their products are benign but actually cause cancer, or widespread lying in the industry about the “green” attributes of green building in general.
Except for the last, which is highly unlikely to happen, these are not issues faced by green building, but by builders in general, no? Individual cases brought on by the actions of n’er do wells looking to make a quick buck do not spell danger caused by an entire industry, rather, they make the perpetrators look bad.
August 6th, 2008 - 09:42
“A while back I spoke with an indoor air quality expert who said he’s been in green buildings – LEED, Built Green, etc – that had such bad indoor air quality the house was effectively poisoning the people that lived in it. ”
That’s a pretty vague but inflammatory statement to dangle in front of the reader without attribution or explanation.
August 6th, 2008 - 11:41
Charles – thank you for your comment. You have a good point, that these are issues faced by the building industry in general, not just green building. Still, I think it’s an important topic to broach.
John T – To clarify, I was speaking with Dan Morris, a 50-year veteran of indoor air quality who does home investigations and specification and testing of indoor air quality for LEED. In general, he thinks LEED needs to put more emphasis on indoor air quality. The specific example above was a home that had won a pretty significant local green building award but the children were getting sick so the parents hired him to do an investigation. Turns out the house was improperly ventilated and the carbon monoxide fumes from the furnace were infiltrating the air. He said this is not an isolated example, though he added that there are also excellent green buildings out there that do great ventilation and indoor air quality work.
August 6th, 2008 - 15:04
There’s so many aspects to green building that some of them could be dangerous. As Katie says, air quality and ventilation systems are a must for buildings that have new ‘green’ insulation which are literally air tight. In old buildings, air could move through the cracks thus ventilating the house. If you have an airtight building with improper ventilation, you could be exposed to mold and toxins in every day products. There’s still a lot to learn, but I think it will progress and end up with only positive results.
SteamboatEcobroker
August 7th, 2008 - 00:16
To some degree, I agree with you Katie. I think that everyone is jumping on the “green” bandwagon but there’s something called the law of unintended consequences that is just sitting out there waiting to show itself.
You touched on it a little bit with bio fuels where there is an obvious consequence there. The users of bio fuel will see some incremental savings each time they fill up their tank but in the end are we really saving any money at all? If farmers start using their farm land to grow corn and that corn is used for bio fuel, then what’s going to happen to the price of corn that is used for human consumption or to feed livestock? I think we might see a price increase in our food as a direct consequence to saving money at the gas station.
There’s also hybrid and electric cars. I just saw an electric car two weeks ago and the owner told me that he has 21 golf cart batteries inside. I asked him how long do the batteries last? He wasn’t able to tell me a definitive answer. I think that batteries contain all kinds of horrible chemicals. If we all went to his style of electric car, we’d be going from one battery in our traditional car to 21 batteries. Now, I’d love to hear how those batteries are disposed of — battery toxicity would seem to be a major concern for each all electric car that is using golf cart batteries.
So with all things, including green building, we need to do our due diligence and make sure that we are aware of the complete lifecycle. Follow it from cradle to cradle.
August 13th, 2008 - 14:17
I would encourage those who are skeptical about the liability aspects of green building to check out my blog’s archive of posts on the subject that Katie links to above. You’ll find a piece from last summer where I reference a presentation given by an attorney for a Maryland-based insurance company listing numerous claims made against design professionals arising out of green projects. One particular claim stands out in my mind where an architect specified a certain type of green product that wasn’t on the market, the project itself suffered significant delays, and a lawsuit arose. I’m not sure that qualifies green building generally as “dangerous,” but I don’t think there’s any question that “green” construction adds some twists to traditional principles of construction law.
September 10th, 2009 - 06:07
Hi! I was surfing and found your blog post… nice! I love your blog.
Cheers! Sandra. R.
September 17th, 2013 - 08:18
Magnificent beat ! I would like to apprentice even
as you amend your website, how could i subscribe for a weblog website?
The account helped me a appropriate deal. I were a little bit familiar of this your broadcast offered vivid clear concept