Being a reporter, I get hundreds of e-mails a week. A good chunk of them are about eco-friendly products that are new, nifty and will “save the worrrllllldddd!” A couple of them are kind of nifty. But the majority of them aren’t… and are obviously motivated by business interests and the desire to make more green.

So when I received an e-mail this week about two entrepreneurs who founded an

Is greed good?

educational campaign promoting tap water, and then just happened to sell over 400,000 BPA-free, reusable water bottles from their Web site, it piqued my interest, precisely because it was addressing the money issue.

These two people - Eric Yaverbaum and Mark DiMassimo - are asking the public in a poll whether they are “greedy entrepreneurs,” “selfless environmentalists,” or both.

Now, both of these guys work in advertising or marketing, so this survey could very well be - and likely is - a marketing ploy. But even so, it’s interesting because it touches on the nebulous and often contentious connection between money and the environment.

The environmental movement isn’t completely comfortable with the notion that people make money off of things that are eco-friendly, especially because not everything that says it’s green really is (this is called ”greenwashing”). But really, the only way to get practices accepted on a large scale will be if someone, somewhere turns a profit in some way.

These two guys are making money but in the process they’re also getting their message - that buying bottled water is bad - out there to a broader audience. So is greed ok if it has a point?

What do you think - are they greedy or selfless? To answer the poll or to see results, click here.

Earlier today, NAIOP national released a report that looks at the levels of energy efficiency a standard office building can achieve while remaining economically feasible.

The study looked at whether commercial development could achieve reduction

The Casey in Portland is designed to use 52 percent less energy than a similar, conventional building

targets of between 30 and 50 percent above ASHRAE 90.1-2004. It compared results on a four-story, 95,000-square-foot, Class A office building in climate zones represented in Chicago, Baltimore and Newport Beach, Calif.

The results?

“Findings show that although significant energy efficiencies can be achieved (varying by climate zone), reaching a 30 percent reduction above the ASHRAE standard is not feasible using common design approaches and would exceed a 10-year payback. The study concluded that achieving a 50 percent reduction above the standard is not currently reachable.”

Here is the breakdown:

Chicago had a 23 percent increase in energy savings at a $188,523 cost increase at an 8.8 year payback.

Baltimore had a 21.5 percent increase in energy efficiency at a $165,148 cost increase at an 11 year payback.

Newport Beach had a 15.8 percent increase in energy savings at a $169,898 additional cost at a 12.2 year payback.

Ouch. Those are long paybacks for most developers. But then again, developers ARE targeting these goals and reaching them. Heck, there are net-zero buildings under development! NAIOP’s goal in developing this study was to prove that a one-size fits all approach does not work in green buildings, but that almost seems to holds true in countering the study, too. Though most of the developers who really push the green envelope, both in design and energy efficiency, are long-term holders of buildings.

Is that what it all comes down to? What a developer’s business model is?

The study also said elements of a holistic, integrated design approach that could create higher energy efficiencies were impractical in the study’s building prototype. The example the study gives is that a geothermal system requires an additional two acres of space, at least in the Newport Beach model.

To read the entire press release, go here.

Here at the DJC, there’s been a marked turn around in what stories make it to our most popular list. Namely anything that mentions ”recession” or the “economic slowdown” in some way, shape or form immediately jumps to the top of the list.

With that in mind, I’ve been speaking with people about how business is changing and how they’re shifting gears to survive the current downturn. For green building, most people say the same thing: we’re shifting how we do business a little bit, in products or services, but we’re not making any major changes. We’re going to stick with building green.

But with everyone from architecture firms to consultants tightening their belts and making layoffs, it may be hard to keep moving like nothing has happened. For information on how local firms are coping, read these recent DJC articles: read this one on architecture firms, this one on cities, this one on the contracting communities, this one on job seekers, and this one on commercial real estate.

How about you… how has your business, or the work you do changed? What about your long term business plans? Remember, you can always comment anonymously.

As for me, I’m off to a four-hour course hosted by the Associated General Contractors of Washington on … what else? How to survive a recession.

Al Gore, Nobel Peace Prize winner, Academy Award winner, author and oh yeah, former vice president of the U.S.A…. was in town on Friday at a fundraiser for Gov. Chris Gregoire. I was lucky enough to see him speak, along with a room full of Gregoire donors who paid at least $150 for their tickets.

Al Gore spoke in Seattle on Friday

Gore said the U.S. needs to get off foreign oil and onto renewable resources. He said Washington leads the nation and the world in this endeavor. He said we need to re-elect Gregoire. Nothing particularly earth shattering, except for the fact that he was saying it.

Then again, he did describe oil as another sub-prime asset, and said while the current economic conditions are dangerous, there is also opportunity. “It’s the biggest business and jobs opportunity in the history of the world economically.”

And where should those jobs and opportunities be concentrated? WASHINGTON my friends. Gore said he points to Washington as a leader in his lectures, both nationally and globally.

But the oil and coal age won’t end when we run out of oil, Gore said. Instead, it will end when “we come to our senses” and develop energy infrastructure based on solar and wind sources.

It also turns out he has a long relationship with this state and greatly admires it - heck, he’s climbed Mt. Rainier, Christmas shopped here, fished here and is oldskool buddies with Rep. Norm Dicks. In fact, none of this state’s flatterers mean it as much as he does, according to Gore. 

As a speaker, Gore was sporadically funny, connecting with the audience and drawing huge rounds of applause that drowned out his microphoned voice. Then again, the audience wasn’t exactly impartial. It’s also obvious that Gore speaks pretty frequently and he is so comfortable in the post he doesn’t really need to write a speech anymore, he can just talk.

Unfortunately for me, Gore never mentioned green buildings. He mentioned solar and wind energy, but that’s the closest it came to making my heart go pitter-patter. For substantive green building discussions, I guess I’ll have to stick with our local lectures. At least there’s lot’s to choose from!

If you want more information on what he spoke about, the Northwest Progressive Institute Blog has a nice rundown. Xconomy Seattle also has a nice post about what else Gore was doing in our great city here.

Do you think the current economic crisis will affect green buildings? Answer my poll at right, if you haven’t already.

Over the last few days two articles in New York Times affiliated newspapers caught my eye:

Spanish Region Limits Golf Development  by Kevin Brass in the International Herald Tribune is about how the government in Andalusia in “golf-happy Spain” has passed a new law restricting the development of golf courses. One of the golf courses there is pictured at right. The regulations limit how many houses a developer can build around a course and require new courses to use recycled water for irrigation.  It’s an interesting story about the relationship between a crashing housing market, “thirsty” golf courses in an area prone to droughts, and houses.

Plus, it’s always amazing to me how controversial golf courses can be. Doubt me? Read Alex Shoumatoff’s The Thistle and the Bee from Vanity Fair’s green issue.

The New Trophy Home, Small and Ecological by Felicity Barringer in the New York Times is basically a total overview of LEED for homes.

The Hollywood house profiled in the article is LEED platinum and $2.8 million. Kelly Meyer, one of the people behind the house, points out green houses can be stylish, while the article compares LEED platinum to Prada… but not all LEED homes, platinum or not, cost $2.8 million. Sheesh. Some are just Besty Johnson or Eddie Bauer. Though they do tend to be a tad more expensive…  locally Pride + Johnson’s Ashworth Cottages (also platinum and pictured below) cost between $739,000 and $950,000. Read my story on that here.

Barringer highlights LEED for its certification process, but doesn’t mention other programs, like Energy Star homes , are third party certified too. And while describing what third party certification is and how much it costs, there is no mention of why it is needed (to prove that everything works like it says it does) or where some people say it falls short (verifiers don’t actually see buildings, just read and verify the documents).

It barely touches on LEED as a marketing and selling tool… Like it or not, marketing is why lots and lots of people are doing LEED projects. For more on this, read the Building Seattle Green blog’s overview of a study that tackles that topic here.

I’m also interested in why the USGBC isn’t asked to comment. Then again looking at a topic like this in two pages seems momentous to me to begin with. And the reporter did cover a lot of ground. Judge for yourself.

Happy reading everyone!