While we Americans spend a lot of time starting and bragging about efforts like LEED, green building in Europe is moving beyond such efforts by leaps and bounds. For example, the UK is pushing an initiative to build only zero-carbon homes by 2016.
Here’s a zero-emissions, self-powered home that’s a huge step in the right direction. It’s being built and demo’ed right now.
In fact, the incoming British government is promising this home will be part of a larger effort to create five new affordable “eco-towns” in the coming years, aiming to reduce or eliminate the source of one-quarter of carbon emissions.
Meanwhile, LEED lumbers along with ponderous efforts like this.
And in Portland, a city that gets over three feet of rain a year–enough to provide nearly all our residential needs–we can’t even get our act together to harvest rainwater in new homes. Instead, we waste time re-creating our own local version of LEED and thumping our collective chest over “green” buildings like this.
5 responses so far ↓
1 Wendol H. // Jun 18, 2007 at 3:37 pm
I really like your blog posts–the way you sum stuff up is good for me, I can get a good insight in a few words. I agree, LEED is not terribly relevant to truly sustainable work, despite its flashy reputation around here. They sure promote the hell out of it, though, and it costs so much to get ceritified, I don’t know…
2 Top Enviromental News » Zero is My Hero // Nov 1, 2007 at 7:48 am
[…] read more | digg story […]
3 Stephen // Mar 10, 2008 at 2:27 pm
I challenge your posting by mentioning that LEED is only a tool and and it can be used very relevantly to showcase sustainable design and build techniques. Not to mention there are homes being built and demo’ed here and now in Portland that are meeting both LEED platinum and would meet the UK’s Zero Carbon initiative. I know because our company is building them and I understand the standards for a Zero carbon home. I would also mention that the city of Portland is working hard to establish a rain water harvesting code amendment and that they do accept them as an appeal basis and I personally have installed two net-zero water harvesting systems this year in Portland. That said I’m not sure that a model of every house collecting all water for it’s own use to be flushed away is a good idea for aquifer replenishment. I think you might be missing the larger picture when it comes to water use and where ultimately it should go. A better proposal for water storage and use might be a system of permeable, streets, roads, and yards that absorb 75% of the rainfall coordinated with some per home roof collection water storage as well to ensure we are replenishing ground water while lowering our need for it at the same time. I think if you looked around you might see some amazing things happening here in Portland and not just condemning projects that didn’t quite fit the bill. There are plenty of failed chest beating projects that are coming from the UK as well. Another issue is do we really think the project you highlight which the architects acknowledge as 40% more expensive to build is really the best direction to go? Don’t you think there are other more natural less expensive alternatives? I do and I see them being built here in the Pacific Northwest where Cascadia (NW regional branch of the USGBC -the non-profit who set the LEED standards) have established the Living Building Challenge that blows the UK’s proposal out of the sustainable waters entirely. What about William Mcdonough’s cradle to cradle projects being developed here in the US as well - they certainly raise the bar far beyond the UK proposal. Now this is just the non-profit and market driven world speaking here in the US imagine what we would accomplish if we had some real federal endorsement! Now that is something I think is worth beating our chests about! Another question that I have with the UK Zero carbon initiative is how is it dealing with the social or community issues around home building - do we eliminate that from the discussion as well - LEED doesn’t.
4 ecohuman // Mar 10, 2008 at 6:07 pm
Hi Stephen,
thanks for visiting and posting. let’s see if i can respond to your points:
“I challenge your posting by mentioning that LEED is only a tool and and it can be
used very relevantly to showcase sustainable design and build techniques.”
here’s my one and only test for LEED, Stephen–is it making a significant difference? so far, the answer seems a resounding No. future promises about what LEED “will” do or “hopes” or “intends” to do doesn’t interest me, because the environment crisis is an urgent matter, not a matter for later this century.
“Not to
mention there are homes being built and demo’ed here and now in Portland that are
meeting both LEED platinum and would meet the UK’s Zero Carbon initiative.”
the UK’s “zero carbon initiative” pertains to homes only, Stephen. homes aren’t the big problem–commercial development is. it’s the bulk of building impact, environment-wise.
“I would also mention that the city of Portland is working hard to
establish a rain water harvesting code amendment”
Portland’s been “working hard” on that since the 1970’s, Stephen. I’ve followed its story. it doesn’t matter what’s being discussed–it matters what’s done. there is no code amendment mandating rainwater catchment on commercial buildings in the works, as far as I know. if you’ve got specific information about that, please post, I’d be grateful to read it.
“and that they do accept them as an
appeal basis ”
again, this isn’t about a rainbarrel outside a house being used to take a shower, or even a cistern. are they a good idea? absolutely.
“and I personally have installed two net-zero water harvesting systems
this year in Portland.”
great!
“That said I’m not sure that a model of every house
collecting all water for it’s own use to be flushed away is a good idea for aquifer
replenishment.”
fair enough–but we’re already polluting and draining the aquifer at a drastic rate already. just today, i posted on the existence of pharmaceuticals in water tables across the nation–earlier, i’ve posed on depletion and overuse of water resources. even in Portland.
“I think you might be missing the larger picture when it comes to
water use and where ultimately it should go.”
what is that “big picture”, if it isn’t what’s actually happening to the water supply and projects like Big Pipe being built just to keep up (not get ahead)?
“A better proposal for water storage
and use might be a system of permeable, streets, roads, and yards that absorb 75%
of the rainfall coordinated with some per home roof collection water storage as well
to ensure we are replenishing ground water while lowering our need for it at the
same time. ”
it might be. but massive infrastructure cost billions–making each new commercial building provide most of its own water does not.
“I think if you looked around you might see some amazing things happening
here in Portland and not just condemning projects that didn’t quite fit the bill.”
I have looked around, Stephen–for decades. i’m not denying the good–my post is criticizing what I see to be bad, or ineffective, and to show something (the UK’s proposal) that’s a leap in the right direction.
“There are plenty of failed chest beating projects that are coming from the UK as
well. Another issue is do we really think the project you highlight which the
architects acknowledge as 40% more expensive to build is really the best direction
to go? ”
you’re attacking the UK project. i put it up as one example–not THE example. make sense? still, it looks better than much of what I’m seeing most other places, so far. is it the Answer? who knows? do you?
“Don’t you think there are other more natural less expensive alternatives?”
yes. build much, much less, and more slowly, and stop building skyscrapers.
“I
do and I see them being built here in the Pacific Northwest where Cascadia (NW
regional branch of the USGBC -the non-profit who set the LEED standards) have
established the Living Building Challenge that blows the UK’s proposal out of the
sustainable waters entirely.”
the UK project is built (and hundreds more have either been built or are in process.) the Living Building Challenge is a piece of paper. so far–the UK project wins. when an LBC building comes online, I’ll be first in line to see it.
“What about William Mcdonough’s cradle to cradle
projects being developed here in the US as well - they certainly raise the bar far
beyond the UK proposal.”
do they? i’ve read about his projects–in China, for example. i’ve yet to see one example of his projects that exemplifies (or even hints at) his “cradle to cradle” philosophy–or anything approacing a “zero carbon” building. also–McDonough chiefly does large scale commercial and MFR projects, not homes, and admits that it’s an almost intractable problem at that scale and pace of development.
“imagine what we would accomplish if we had some real federal
endorsement! Now that is something I think is worth beating our chests about!”
I agree. I’d like to see the Feds get behind concepts like Architecture 2010 and 2030–a radical, radical reduction in emissions.
“Another question that I have with the UK Zero carbon initiative is how is it dealing
with the social or community issues around home building - do we eliminate that from
the discussion as well - LEED doesn’t.”
LEED for Homes doesn’t address the critical point–that homes, like larger buildings, need to reduce their impact by three-fourths or more, *almost immediately*.
what we need is a RADICAL leap, not baby steps through a gradual “market transformation” that focuses on things like energy efficient appliances, etc. the environmental crisis demands it. anything else–aiming for gradual fixes extending over decades, or even into the next century and beyond–are too little, too late, and almost certainly disastrous.
5 Earth Day Roundup: Top 5 Ecohuman Posts // Apr 22, 2008 at 9:17 am
[…] Zero is My Hero Britain tries to build zero-emission homes. Why can’t we do it even […]
Leave a Comment