Getting Started

The average person spends 80% of their lives indoors. Public awareness about the health effects of poor Indoor Air Quality has increased demand for building products that do not pollute the air in our home or office.

Conventional paints, finishes, flooring, adhesives, cleaning products and carpeting are known to contain Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs), formaldehyde, polybrominated Diphenyl ethers (PBDE), phthalates and many other hazardous chemicals that can result in health problems like allergies and asthma, especially in children.

Using Low- or No-VOC materials, reclaimed or sustainably-harvested wood products, wood alternatives such as bamboo and palm wood, natural flooring, carpets, rugs, and decor can make your house greener.

Building with tested and proved green materials also provides an alternative to products that degrade the environment we want to leave for our children and grandchildren. In buying green building materials, you can cast your economic vote for a better world, personalize your home or office, and make the air you breathe cleaner.

As the director of business development for a green general contracting firm, I often hear the question, "... but what's it gonna cost me?". Of all the questions I regularly address, that is certainly at the top of the list. Right below "What is LEED?"

The biggest concern among those considering LEED is the costs, and specifically the soft costs. The costs above construction. The "vague" costs. The cost of the unknown.

My standard answer is, "Well, that really depends..." and I still argue that it does. Every project is different and unique like little snowflakes. And each snowflake requires different little snowflake systems and each has it's own little snowflake agendas and ROI expectations on overall snowfall.

The best way to determine what LEED is going to cost for your project is to gather your design and construction team to talk about goals and then talk about potential costs. Though my specialization is commercial properties, I know this holds especially true for residential projects.

Until you have that opportunity, though, let's talk about some historical data on soft costs.

Colorado is ahead of the curve in terms of Green Building and LEED-certified projects, so they have more data to provide. Peter D'Antiono, LEED AP and PE with PCD Engineering Services in Colorado wrote "Cost and Benefits of Commissioning LEED-NC Buildings" which was presented at the May 2007 National Conference on Building Commissioning. Included in this paper are facts from 11 LEED-certified buildings in his state. He detailed their square footage, construction costs, Energy cost savings, LEED cost premium and the net LEED savings. The average square footage was 98,365, with the largest project being 288,685 and the smallest at 10,000 square feet, all of which were commercial or institutional projects.

Here are some of the overall statistics:

• The cost premium for LEED NC certification ranged from 1% to 6% of construction costs.
• Two of the projects noted they were able to achieve LEED certification on schedule and under budget.
• Soft costs, including LEED registration and certification, documentation, energy modeling and commissioning averaged 0.8% of the total construction costs, or average $1 per square foot.
• Documentation was difficult to quantify as the basis for reporting was inconsistent across the projects and ranged from $3000 to $35000.
• Energy modeling averaged around $10000 across nine of the eleven projects. Eight projects fell at or below the $10,000 and one was nearly $35000.
• Small projects averaged higher costs per square foot for energy modeling.
• All the projects averaged 20% or better than ASHRAE 90.1-2004 energy saving requirements.
• The net present value of the energy savings offset all the LEED soft and hard costs in seven of the nine projects reporting energy savings.
• Commissioning averaged $0.55 per square foot and accounted for roughly 60% of the total soft costs. Commissioning costs between $0.19 and $1.50 per square foot

So, there's some unvarnished truth on the cost of building green. Remember, your mileage may vary and these should not be the 'baseline' to quote the price of green. I will point out, though, it's not the 15-25% cost premium often cited by many in the construction and design industry. Seems like we have a ways to go in terms of cost paradigm shift.

Lastly, sometimes it isn't as much about the "cost", it's about the "value". A "cost" for me might be another person's "value". Understanding your green goals and tailoring a solution provides value. The cost isn't an issue if the owner realizes value. That's Sales 101.

Let's start talking about the value of green building.

The idea of energy efficient, healthy buildings has been around for a long time, so why is just now that the concept of "green" or "sustainable" building is entering the mainstream and catching the attention of fortune 500 companies like Wall Mart, Dupont, and Home Depot? There are probably several reasons; Global Warming, rising energy costs, the growing awareness and liability costs associated with "Sick Building Syndrome”, declining oil reserves, and concerns about our limited water supply. The list goes on, but whatever the reason or reasons, sustainable building is a concept whose time has come.

Which begs the question, what is IT? The ultimate definition depends on how one defines "green" as opposed to how one defines "sustainable".

My personal definition of "green" is relatively simple. A home's design is “green” if its serves to reduce many of the harmful impacts buildings have on our environment and our home's inhabitants. So "green" home design revolves around four key issues:

1. Designing for energy efficiency including the use of renewal energy sources such as wind, geothermal, and solar.

2. Creating a healthy indoor air environment with adequate ventilation and making material choices that minimize volatile organic compound (VOC's) outgassing within the home.

3. Specifying building materials and resources that are sustainable, have low embodied energy, and produce a minimal amount of upstream environmental impact.

4. Providing for the efficient use of water via appliance, faucet, and shower head choices and in arid climates by zeroscaping and recycling grey water and capturing rain water for landscaping and other non-potable uses.

However, the words "green" and "sustainable" are often used interchangeably, and sustainable has a more precise meaning that is often obscured, distorted, and dilluted by the commercialization and marketing of the green "movement". In the context of our built environment sustainable takes its meaning from "sustainable agriculture", or "the ability ... to produce food indefinitely, without causing irreversible damage to ecosystem health".

If we accept this as the basis for the definition of sustainable building everything changes. For example, a 5,000 SF home with a HERS index of 70, bamboo floors, and Energy Star appliances may be "green", but it is NOT sustainable. In the context of Global Warming and even the most optimistic projections of Peak Oil and Gas, only a home that meets zero energy standards can be considered sustainable.

Borrowing from A. A. Bartlett's Laws of Sustainability, here are my own Laws of Sustainable Housing.

1st Law - U.S. urban sprawl and the growth in home sizes and the associated energy and resource consumption is not sustainable.

2nd Law - Retrofitting over 100 million (energy inefficient) homes in American to a condition of sustainability will be a monumental task.

3rd Law - In the context of Global Warming and even the most optimistic projections of Peak Oil & Natural Gas, new and retrofitted homes should only be built to net zero energy standards.

4th Law - The size of population that can be sustained (the carrying capacity) and the sustainable average size and resource consumption of our homes are inversely related to one another. In other words, if the population increases the size and resource consumption of our homes must decrease to achieve a sustainable balance.

5th Law - The U.S. cannot sustain average home sizes that are more than twice the average size of other developed countries.

6th Law - All countries cannot simultaneously be net importers of carrying capacity(fossil fuels, etc.).

7th Law - The importation of such a large percentage of our energy carrying capacity makes the current U.S. standard and pattern of building extremely vulnerable.

8th Law - The benefits of suburban sprawl accrue to the developer and auto companies; the benefits of poor energy efficiency and standards accrue to energy companies and utilities; but the costs are borne by us all.

9th Law - Inadequate U.S. building energy standards are contributing to a rapid depletion of our natural gas and other fossil fuel resources. This is true not only within our borders but via our high level of imports, it is true worldwide.

10th Law - Net zero building energy standards will be necessary to slow the depletion of fossil fuels in a pre and post Peak Oil and Gas world.

11th Law - Converting our existing housing stock to a much higher energy standard will be completed negated by even a modest growth rate in new homes, however energy efficient those new homes may be.

12th Law - Smart residental growth is an oxymoron.

13th Law - Building should restricted on prime agricultural land. The highest and best use of land is for agriculture, especially to local food supplies.

14th Law - Energy shortages due to peak oil and gas will slow and then eventually stop housing growth and force the transformation of our existing housing stock.

15th Law - People living in slums don't care about sustainable housing.

16th Law - The addition of the phrase “sustainable housing” or “sustainable development” or “green building” to our vocabulary is not sufficient to ensure that our built environment becomes sustainable.

17th Law - The current state of our green, sustainable building “movement” may amount to nothing more than rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

By John Bower

Many people don't like the idea of living in a tight house, even though there are a number of significant disadvantages to the alternative (loose construction). In a loose house, air moves through the cracks, but only part of the time. Most new houses today are too tight to give you the amount of fresh air you really need, but too loose to keep pollutants out effectively.

When outdoor air moves through the cracks of a house into the living space, it brings with it pollutants contained in the outdoor air. Plus, it picks up additional pollutants along the way as it passes through the cracks, such as tiny particles of insulation, odors from the resin holding the insulation together, and tiny pieces of insects that have died inside the walls. Radon is also often pulled from the soil into the living space through the cracks of a loose house.

Air moving through cracks can also result in hidden moisture condensation, and that can lead to mold growth, rot, termites, or carpenter ants. Here's what happens: All air contains moisture in the form of water vapor. If you cool a given batch of air enough, that vapor condenses into liquid water. So, if air passing through the cracks in a wall reaches a cool surface, it can condense there, hidden inside the wall cavity where you likely won't know anything is wrong until you have a serious problem. This can happen in the winter, when warm indoor air passes through the wall toward the outdoors and hits the back side of the cold sheathing or siding. It can also happen in the summer, when hot, humid, outdoor air passes through the cracks and hits the back surface of the drywall, which is cool because the inside of the house is air conditioned.

Leaky houses can also be energy hogs. In the winter, the warm air leaks out and the cold air leaks in, and your heating bills can skyrocket. In the summer, the opposite happens. Hot, humid air leaks in and cool air leaks out, but the result is the same (high energy bills.) When you analyze the issue, there are absolutely no advantages to loose construction. So, even if you're only remodeling or adding a room, it's a good idea to tighten as much as possible.

Read the rest of this article on the Healthy House Institute's website.

image stock.exchange

By now we have all heard the terms 'carbon credit' and 'carbon footprint' but, exactly what impact do these concepts have on the bigger issues affecting your personal wealth and the health of our overall economy?

We must first define the general nature of a carbon credit. In essence it is a unit of measure that represents pollution in a form that can be traded in a manner similar to a share of stock or a bond. The 'price' of the carbon credit serves to put a cost on a specific quantity of pollution. This is the critical point of the discussion, as we now have a means to not only price pollution, but also a tradeable unit that can be used to transfer rewards and penalties.

Pricing pollution is important on multiple fronts. First and foremost, collectively we now are agreeing that it is no longer acceptable to freely produce, build, and pollute without incorporating the economy wide or life-cycle cost of pollution.

It is no longer acceptable practice to operate without at least tacitly estimating the size of one's 'carbon' or environmental footprint. As consumers, we are becoming acutely aware of the impact of driving a Hummer versus a Prius. We are now engaged in the discussion of the merits and costs of Fiji water versus Arrowhead versus NYC or LA tap water. The discussion has even evolved to whether the carbon footprint associated with shipping French wine to California is ethically similar to transporting water from Fiji.

We as a people are rapidly developing social expertise in the field of carbon ethics. Which leads me to the second critical issue of the discussion: carbon and the production process. Business intuitively operates on a cost reduction platform. Any lay person schooled in the most basic tools of economics understands that business wants to reduce costs and raise profits. Therefore, incorporating a new cost (carbon) into the business framework is something we as consumers and producers can intuitively understand.

As business owners are able to understand the 'new' cost of doing business, the enterprise will do what it does best and attempt to reduce that cost and concurrently raise profits. Capitalism and the free-market in its pure form. The consumer understands the life-cycle cost (materials, production, waste disposal, air pollution) of the product and adjusts buying behavior accordingly. This signal is apparent to the business owner which now has a demand side (consumer) and supply side (cost of pollution) incentive to change the way she/he does business. You as a home buyer demand a property that is energy efficient and utilizes a higher proportion of renewable materials. The home-builder incorporates consumer demand for green housing AND the cost of using old style practices into the production decision. Over time, the supply of green housing and materials increases to meet the new demand.

Through the efficiency of the free-market we now have a shot at actually improving the environmental impact of our products and services AND making profit along the way. It may be the first time in recent history that the interests of environmentalists and capitalists have aligned to create positive change.

Is it possible that the landscape has now shifted such that we can harness the inherent intellect and spirit of the nation to create innovation and change that in the end provides a sense of pride and accomplishment? Carbon 101 Part 2 will move from the theory of 'carbon credits' to the practice of trading and the creation of environmentally friendly products.

Cross-posted from my site. Enjoy.

Part 4 - Indoor Air/Environmental Quality

Where does indoor air quality fit into all of this and how does this pertain to me?

The one reoccurring theme throughout any of the previously stated guidelines, or pertaining to green building in general; is the importance of good indoor air and environmental quality. When one delves into the health statistics stemming from environmental exposure, it’s easy to see why the need for awareness is so much greater. Take for instance:

- Of chemicals commonly found in homes, 150 have been linked to allergies, birth defects, cancer, and psychological abnormalities. (Source: Consumer Product Safety Commission)

- Cancer rates have increased since 1901 from only 1 in 8,000 Americans, to 1 in 3 today. By the year 2010, this disease will afflict 1 of every 2 individuals. (Source: American Cancer Society)

- In the past 50 years more than 75,000 chemicals have been introduced into the environment. Today 300 synthetic chemicals are found in the bodies of humans. Even newborn babies have synthetic chemicals passed on from their mothers. (Source: REACH (Registration, Evaluation, and Authorization of Chemicals, a European Union program)

- At any given time, there is 3.36 million tons of household hazardous waste to contend with in our country. Source: Chec's Health House, the resource for Environmental Health Risks Affecting Your Children)

Prevention of poor indoor air and environmental quality plays a large role in the green building movement. Occupant comfort is also addressed in this category which would include thermal comfort and daylighting.

Whether the goal is general health benefits, employee productivity, less absenteeism for students or employees, or a combination of all of the above; many of the studies which have been conducted are showing amazing results.

- A study by Carnegie Mellon University measuring the relationship between increased lighting control and productivity showed an average increase of 7.1% in productivity. (Source: eBIDS.)

- Sales in stores with skylights were up to 40% higher compared to similar stores without skylights (Source: California Board for Energy Efficiency Third Party Program).

- Students with the most daylighting in their classrooms progressed 20% faster on math tests and 26% faster on reading tests in one year than those with the least day lighting. (According to a Heschong Mahone Group study, “Day lighting in Schools,” conducted on behalf of the CA Board for Energy Efficiency).

Common and possible sources of indoor pollutants would include: biological contaminants (including mold, bacteria, etc.), radon, carbon monoxide, volatile organic compounds, pesticides, and of course asbestos and lead in older homes.

Careful planning and implementation of viewing the project as a “whole building system,” is done from the beginning of the design phase, through the selection of interior products, HVAC design, and use planning.

Where do IAQ Professionals fit in to the green building industry?

According to U.S. Green Building Council statistics, the annual market for green building in products and services is $7 billion, representing 37% growth over the prior year (based on 2004 figures). This figure is expected to climb – and climb quickly. While cost will always be part of the equation; just like eating organic foods can be more expensive, the same may be expected when it comes to safer, alternative building materials for your client’s home or building, as well as the products and furnishings that go into it. For many people, the slightly higher cost is worth it for any number of reasons including: occupant comfort and improved health, energy and water savings, and of course adds value to their investment.

Many building teams (which would include the architect, builder, interior designer, etc.) understand the value and need for an IAQ/IEQ Professional. Who can better explain the importance of a healthy home!

Along those same lines, many builders are often willing to employ a consultant to teach them about preventative measures which can be utilized within the building process.

Interior designers can also benefit from the assistance of an IAQ/IEQ professional. With so many new products out there, many people can become quickly confused, and with green going “mainstream” we are bound to see an increase in “greenwashing.” Greenwashing is a term used to describe the “green” benefits of a product, that can often times only be sorted out by researching the particular product and delving into the MSDS. Again, teamwork comes into play with both the aesthetics coupled with occupant comfort and safety.

As IAQ/IEQ professionals, we have the opportunity on a daily basis to help make a difference. Simple things like recommending the use of no or low VOC paint, sealers, and other products can play a part in improving the indoor environment. Recommending clients upgrade their air intake filters to HEPA and installing carbon monoxide detectors is another good example. Asking your clients about their choice and use of cleaning products and giving them safer alternatives has the ability to potentially save a child’s life. You can perform preventative healthy home assessments with unlimited possibilities to make a positive impact.

Where do we go from here?

If interested in green building, I would encourage you to attend a green building conference such as West Coast Green or Greenbuild to learn more.
Green building is a definite win-win situation for all of those involved in the process. We have come a long way and still have a much longer way to go…

The question is, will you walk, or ride a bike???

As Mahatma Gandhi once said; “You must be the change you wish to see in the world.” Think green!

Cross-posted from my site. Enjoy.

Part III - Statistics and Reasoning

So… what are some of the reasons and statistics to support the benefit of building green?

Regardless of whether or not you saw Al Gore’s global warming documentary, global warming is gaining the attention of the media and scientists worldwide. The building industry, including how we power these buildings, how we live in them, and what we put in them, has played a significant role in global warming.

Energy from the sun drives the earth’s weather and climate, and heats the earth’s surface; in turn, the earth radiates energy back into space. Atmospheric greenhouse gases (water vapor, carbon dioxide, and other gases) trap some of the outgoing energy, retaining heat somewhat like the glass panels of a greenhouse. Without this natural “greenhouse effect,” temperatures would be much lower than they are now, and life as known today would not be possible. Instead, thanks to greenhouse gases, the earth’s average temperature is a more hospitable 60°F. However, problems may arise when the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases increases.

Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide have increased nearly 30%, methane concentrations have more than doubled, and nitrous oxide concentrations have risen by about 15%. These increases have enhanced the heat-trapping capability of the earth’s atmosphere. Sulfate aerosols, a common air pollutant, cool the atmosphere by reflecting light back into space; however, sulfates are short-lived in the atmosphere and vary regionally.

Why are greenhouse gas concentrations increasing? Scientists generally believe that the combustion of fossil fuels and other human activities are the primary reason for the increased concentration of carbon dioxide. Plant respiration and the decomposition of organic matter release more than 10 times the CO2 released by human activities; but these releases have generally been in balance during the centuries leading up to the industrial revolution with carbon dioxide absorbed by terrestrial vegetation and the oceans.

What has changed in the last few hundred years is the additional release of carbon dioxide by human activities. Fossil fuels burned to run cars and trucks, heat homes and businesses, and power factories are responsible for about 98% of U.S. carbon dioxide emissions, 24% of methane emissions, and 18% of nitrous oxide emissions. Increased agriculture, deforestation, landfills, industrial production, and mining also contribute a significant share of emissions. In 1997, the United States emitted about one-fifth of total global greenhouse gases. (Source:http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/content/climate.html)

US buildings alone are responsible for more CO2. emissions than those of any other entire country in the world except China. (Source: Kinzey et al., “The Federal Buildings Research and Development Program: A Sharp Tool for Climate Policy,” 2002 ACEEE proceedings, Section 9.21.)

Global mean surface temperatures have increased 0.5-1.0°F since the late 19th century. The 20th century's 10 warmest years all occurred in the last 15 years of the century. Of these, 1998 was the warmest year on record. The snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere and floating ice in the Arctic Ocean have decreased. Globally, sea level has risen 4-8 inches over the past century. Worldwide precipitation over land has increased by about one percent. The frequency of extreme rainfall events has increased throughout much of the United States.

Increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases are likely to accelerate the rate of climate change. Scientists expect that the average global surface temperature could rise 1-4.5°F (0.6-2.5°C) in the next fifty years, and 2.2-10°F (1.4-5.8°C) in the next century, with significant regional variation. Evaporation will increase as the climate warms, which will increase average global precipitation. Soil moisture is likely to decline in many regions, and intense rainstorms are likely to become more frequent. Sea level is likely to rise two feet along most of the U.S. coast. (Source:http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/content/climate.html)

Energy use is therefore extremely important to consider. Buildings represent 39% of U.S. primary energy use (including fuel input for production), and represent 70% of U.S energy consumption. (Source: 2003 U.S. DOE Buildings Energy Databook)

The savings which can be realized through the green building process, both new builds and retrofit/remodels is not arguable. Coupled with the use of Energy Star rated products for both your home and business, the immediate and long term savings are a big part of green building incentive.

For example, tenants can save about 50 cents per square foot each year through strategies that cut energy use by 30%. This can represent a savings of $50,000 or more in a five-year lease on 20,000 square feet (Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). On average, green buildings use 30% less energy than conventional buildings.

Water use, material use, and waste are also heavy contenders when opting for green building. Conserving water is often as vital as saving energy. Buildings use 12.2% of all potable water, or 15 trillion gallons per year. (Source: U.S. Geological Service, 1995 data.) Many things incorporated into a green building; including the landscaping, take water usage strongly into account.

Buildings use 40% of raw materials globally (and 3 billion tons annually). Combine this with the EPA’s estimate that 136 million tons of building-related construction and demolition (C&D) debris was generated in the U.S. in a single year – and you will have an understanding for the phrase “Reduce, Reuse, Recycle.” (Sources: Lenssen and Roodman, 1995, “Worldwatch Paper 124: A Building Revolution: How Ecology and Health Concerns are Transforming Construction,” Worldwatch Institute and the EPA)

On the forefront of the green building industry has been the U.S. Green Building Council’s LEED Program.

What is LEED®?

The Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Green Building Rating System™ is the nationally accepted benchmark for the design, construction, and operation of high performance green buildings. LEED gives building owners and operators the tools they need to have an immediate and measurable impact on their buildings’ performance. LEED promotes a whole-building approach to sustainability by recognizing performance in five key areas of human and environmental health: sustainable site development, water savings, energy efficiency, materials selection, and indoor environmental quality. (Source: U.S. Green Building Council)

LEED’s rating system basically gives “points” in all of the above stated goals, with various levels of “green-ness.”

Several other organizations have developed their own green building guidelines, specs, and initiatives as well including: the National Association of Home Builder’s voluntary Model Green Home Building Guidelines (http://www.nahb.org), Minnesota Sustainable Building Guidelines (http://www.csbr.umn.edu/B3/), Federal Guide for Green Construction Specs (http://www.wbdg.org/design/greenspec.php), and the American Lung Association Health House Builder Guidelines (http://www.healthhouse.org/build/04HHBuilderGuidelines.pdf)

Think green!

To be continued...

Cross-posted from my site. Enjoy.

Part II - Basic principles of green building

So… what are the basic elements or principles of green building?

Wikipedia sums it up nicely - Green building is the practice of:

1. increasing the efficiency with which buildings and their sites use and harvest energy, water, and materials, and

2. reducing building impacts on human health and the environment, through better siting, design, construction, operation, maintenance, and removal — the complete building life cycle.

Green building is also sometimes known as "sustainable building" or "environmental building". The practice can lead to benefits including reduced operating costs (by using less energy and water), improved public and occupant health (due to improved indoor air quality), and reduced environmental impacts (for example, by lessening storm water runoff and the heat island effect).

Green building is an essential component of the related concepts of sustainable design, sustainable development and general sustainability.

Practitioners of green building often seek to achieve not only ecological but aesthetic harmony between a structure and its surrounding (natural or built) environment. The appearance and style of sustainable homes and buildings can be nearly indistinguishable from their less sustainable counter-parts.

Green design often emphasizes taking advantage of renewable resources, e.g., using sunlight through passive solar techniques and using plants and trees through green roofs and rain gardens. (Source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_building)

To be continued...

Cross-posted from my site. Enjoy.

Part 1 - Laying the groundwork.

Ask ten people their definition of “green building,” and you’re likely to get ten completely different answers. While many perspectives of green building are more personal in nature, the basic concepts remain the same.

Green Building, which has quickly become a buzzword with the media, consumers, and manufacturers of every product under the sun, seems to have reached its tipping point. What was once reserved for the “alternative hippie” crowd, or the rich upper class – has finally found its way into mainstream America. Do a Google search on “green building construction,” and you get over 39 million hits! People are interested!

This interest IMHO stems from several basic realities –
1. Global warming and environmental concern is a very hot topic.
2. Consumers are more aware of the health effects which are associated with poor indoor air and environmental quality. Through the media, personal journeys, and the stories of others; many more people are beginning to “think” about what goes into their homes and bodies.
3. Energy costs. Energy costs continue to climb, our natural resources are being quickly depleted, and big businesses are learning about the large amount of money which can be saved by reducing their energy costs. Regular consumers can reap the rewards as well.
4. Over-development of land. While development is a reality, having a conscience about the impact to that land, and how the land will be used, is becoming a necessity as open spaces dwindle.
5. Incentives. Because of all of the above, many incentives such as tax credits and positive exposure have lured people in.
6. We live in a technological era where there is a mass of information available at our fingertips. Gone are the days of pouring over stacks of books at the library… We are quickly becoming a more self-educated society.
7. It just makes sense – and cents!

As it is with everything, there is never one single “silver bullet” to undo the damage which has already been done, create an instant utopia, and not come with some trials and tribulations. But – green building is surely a step in the right direction.

To be continued...