I’ve spent the last week in Boston and New York, riding subways that people in the Pacific Northwest can only dream about.

But while riding those subways (which are largely, at least in NYC, responsible for why the average person’s carbon footprint is so low) it struck me that green is becoming mainstream so quickly, it’s becoming many things to many different people. And often, because the message isn’t defined, it gets lost.

It happens in the definition of a “green building:” really, does LEED make a building green? What about a regular building that uses Energy Star appliances and PVC-free paint…. that’s in the middle of nowhere?

It happens in materials: FSC wood… is it really green to use South American or European wood, ship it to Asia to be milled and ship it back to use in your Seattle home?

And in happens in advertisements. Take the subway in NYC for example. On one train, overhead signs urged riders to recycle newspapers in recycling bins. On another, overhead signs begged newspaper readers to just throw their papers away to keep the subway clean. If you’re going to advocate one message, which is more important? Recycling or cleanliness?

That example represents the entire green movement. There are so many different messages out there, it’s easy to get lost. Especially if you’re a new “convert,” it’s really easy to be misled. Sometimes it’s intentional “greenwashing,” sometimes it’s just plain confusing.

For Earth Day this year, I got a press release from Horizon Air about how flying between Portland and Seattle was more eco-friendly than driving. I got another from Fairmont Hotels and Resorts and Lexus Hybrid Living on eco-friendly luxury suites in San Francisco and Washington, D.C., that are “the ultimate cosmopolitan experience for environmentally aware travelers.” Guests get organic towels, robes and free use of the Lexus LS 600h hybrid.

Is that really green? Who’s to say. The truth is it’s such a new field and word that just about anything can be spun the right way. And often, what really is “green” just gets lost in the spinning.

To learn more about greenwashing, click the tab below. To see what consumers think about “green” products or share your reviews, check out this site.

Of all the things to vandalize in Washington - why choose the lone Douglas fir at Chambers Bay golf course?

The course was otherwise having a good year. In February, the U.S. Golf Association said Chambers Bay would host the 2015 U.S. Open championship and the U.S. Amateur Championship in 2010.  

Throughout 2007, it won awards from Golf Inc., Travel and Leisure Golf Magazine,  Golf Magazine and Golf Week (according to the Chambers Bay Web site).

Its attention to environmental protection had been even been recognized by Audubon International (more on that here). 

Then on April 29, disaster stuck when the symbol of the golf course - an iconic Douglas fir - was attacked overnight. Somebody tried to cut it down with an axe. (more…)

Readers, you liked the post that directly preceded this one, about how Anne Whitacre, a specifier for Gehry Partners in Los Angeles questioned the claims of green products. In fact, you liked it so much that the long version of it (after  you click ‘more’) directly shot up to the most popular post I’ve ever written.

People read it from Lansing, Mich., from Salt Lake City, from Washington, D.C., from Atlanta, and all throughout Washington and Oregon.

We got interesting comments in our mailbox after running the full editorial too. One reader named Jason wrote, “BINGO! I think Anne nailed it. The second Green design became more about paper work and check lists, is the second green design failed.”  

Another said, “Finally, bang on, thanks for posting that.”

A third said, “People need to use intellect and reason to evaluate the results or benefits of these ideas in relation to short term and long term costs. Further ’sustainable’ does not always mean better and certainly does not mean more efficient. These concepts are meant to make us ‘feel good’ and provide comfort for some imagined guilt for having a successful culture.”

Here’s what I have to say: thank you for responding! My job (and the job of any credible journalist) is to report both sides to the best of my ability, though often (in non-DJC publications of course) I see that only one side of the story gets told. Your thoughts help me see the whole story, so thank you for your input in either direction.

READERS: I am more than happy to investigate these topics and sound them out, but I need to know what you care about. If you like (or don’t like) what we’re doing, comment or e-mail me at katiez@djc.com. If you like (or don’t like) parts of green design, green buildings, green products etc., comment or e-mail me at katiez@djc.com. I promise that I read all my comments and all my e-mails, and want to hear what you have to say, both good and bad.

We have been up and running for just over a month now. Thanks for reading and thanks for your comments. Keep ‘em coming!

Often, I long for your comments though they never come. In response to my post below on the Stranger’s not so pleasant coverage of Seattle City Hall, I got more than I bargained for from Anne Whitacre.

Whitacre is a senior associate at Gehry Partners in Los Angeles, though she spent 30 years working in Seattle at firms like ZGF and NBBJ. She’s a full-time specifier there and deals with products, both green and not green, on a daily basis.

Whitacre isn’t against green buildings or green products as a whole… rather her qualm is how a product’s ”greenness” often trumps whether it actually is a good product.

Among her comments in her very informative letter to me, she said, “I simply do not understand the bally-hooing of LEED buildings. From a design professional’s perspective, there are “good” buildings and there are “bad” buildings, and the procuring of a LEED rating does not automatically turn a “bad” building into a “good” one.”

(more…)

The Stranger, Seattle’s alternative weekly, is notorious for being especially skeptical of… well, everything. In this week’s issue, the paper takes on Seattle City Hall in honor of the announcement that Seattle has more LEED certified buildings than any other city in the country (see my post below on that).

Erica C. Barnett’s article concentrates on the building’s solar panels, which according to The Stranger, were never purchased or hooked up, and the “splash effect” of waterless urinals. To read what The Stranger has to say, click here. 

The Seattle City Hall

This isn’t the first time the seat of Seattle government has faced harsh criticism. In July 2005, the Seattle PI blasted the new building for its energy use. To read that story, click here. The DJC wrote a story about those claims in 2005 here. This February, I wrote a story about the future of LEED and lawsuits here, which looked at the PI’s City Hall allegations. 

The point is, these issues are out there and bring to light problems in the green building world, especially in LEED certification, which does not currently look at how a building lives up to its promises, or performs over time.

What do you think? If you work in City Hall, what is your experience? If you work with green projects, are these problems more commonplace than most realize?

Most importantly, if The Stranger’s claims hold water…. was a green city hall worth your tax dollars? Is it better to have a LEED-gold building with problems, or no LEED building at all? Let me know what you think!