The Green Angle

Chemicals Of Concern Causes Consternation

LEED v4’s chemicalsof-concern credits have raised concerns on several fronts, resulting in some forthcoming tweaking.

Requirements in the third option in MR Credit 4 of LEED v4 have caused considerable consternation and resulted in a joint ACC/ USGBC effort to make adjustments. T o stay competitive, it might be a good idea to learn something about LEED v4. But don’t be surprised if during your research you discover a growing number of critics who question the common sense behind the new LEED v4 chemicals-of-concern credit.

One such critic is Chicago attorney Ujjval Vyas. He claims the new LEED v4 chemicals-of-concern credits (MR Credit 4, Building Product Disclosure & Optimization: Material Ingredients) are focused too narrowly on the hazards of chemicals in building materials and products and not the potential risk.

“It’s like saying to someone, ‘if you try to cross that street, you may experience an injury that could cause serious bodily harm and potentially life threatening injuries, so don’t cross the street.’ It is the precautionary principle that motivates these material chemistry sections in LEED,” he said.

His voice and others, including chemical-industry groups, may be wearing down the resolve at the USGBC. According to USGBC president and CEO, Rick Fedrizzi, the USGBC and the American Chemistry Council (ACC, Washington) will form a cooperative Supply Chain Optimization Working Group to address building materials in LEED. A news release said the USGBC and ACC would form, “a new initiative designed to ensure the use of sustainable and environmentally protective products in buildings by applying technical and science-based approaches to the LEED green building program.”

The ballot-approved MR Credit 4 has three options for gaining LEED points: material ingredient disclosure, optimization, and supply-chain optimization. The credit requires project teams to source a certain percentage of products on a LEED v4 registered project that are listed in third-party verified green-product databases, such as Cradle to Cradle Certified Product Standard, GreenScreen for Safer Chemicals, and HPD Collaborative— Health Product Declaration (HPD), or other USGBC-approved programs. Most critics have few complaints with the first two options. However, the third option in MR Credit 4 requires project-team members to source products that do not contain certain chemicals. It’s that requirement that has chemical manufacturers and many in the architectural community upset.

Mark Rossi of Clean Production Action, Somerville, MA, which administers the GreenScreen program, is among the leaders within the green-product database market. He rejects critics comparing hazard-based assessments of chemicals to telling people not to cross the street, adding rhetorically, “Aren’t you going to cross the street where there is a crosswalk?” He says it makes sense to use chemistry that does not contain known carcinogens.

Still, as LEED v4 remains in effect, the ACC and USGBC have said they will work together. The timing of the joint news release came after further and significant threats to participation in the LEED program at federal and state levels. While presidential executive orders require LEED Gold certification on GSA projects, legislation in Congress has sought to limit military spending on sustainable buildings as well as the GSA’s spending on green-building certifications. States from Maine to North Carolina have passed laws striking down certain requirements in the new LEED program. Groups, including the ACC, are among those who fought for these changes.

A charter is forthcoming for the joint working group, and the USGBC steering committee will soon be finalizing the members of the working group, according to Taryn Holowka Hristova, vice president, marketing and communications at USGBC.

Meanwhile, architectural firms such as SmithGroupJJR, Detroit, are plowing ahead with the material-selection requirements in LEED v4, using the tools the USGBC has approved. According to specifier Wade Bevier, FCSI, CCS, LEED AP BD+C, GCP, his firm had completed more than 100 LEED projects by early 2014. It does try to avoid using red-list chemicals, such as those already mandated by authorities having jurisdiction, as well as honor requests by building owners. This means working closely with manufacturers and assisting them in understanding the requirements to achieve an HPD or C2C certification for their products.

“The efforts are to continue researching products to determine their chemical components and then determine whether there are concerns that need to be addressed or if a search for substitute options should be implemented,” Bevier said. He added, “In some cases there may not be a substitute in today’s market and in other cases different manufacturers for product types are using different chemicals.” Bevier said selection criteria development is in the very early stages, and the decision-making protocols continue to evolve.

The certainty is that the LEED v4 chemicals-of-concern credit appears to be due for another change or tweaking. Meanwhile, product manufacturers who can afford to keep up with this moving target will benefit, and those who cannot may be paying for additional product tests and certifications. CBP

For an extended version of this article, click on this link in the digital version of this issue at cbpmagazine.com/digital/oct2014.

Paul Nutcher, CSI CDT, USGBC, AIA Allied, is president of the Green Apple Group LLC, Maitland, FL, a marketing, technical, and sustainability consulting fi rm. He has more than 11 years of building-industry experience and has served in leadership roles with CSI, USGBC, and AIA. He can be reached at pnutcher@ greenappleconsult.com.

Architecture 2030: A Reachable, Worthy Goal?

Architecture 2030, established by Ed Mazria, puts forth a lofty goal for architects, builders, and owners. Many are rising to the challenge.

Kenneth W. Betz, Senior Editor

Design with a purpose, because life depends on it, keynote speaker Ed Mazria told an audience of architects at the American Institute of Architects (AIA, Washington) convention in Chicago earlier this year.

When he says, “life depends on it,” Mazria, the founder and spokesperson for Architecture 2030, Santa Fe, NM, is talking about climate change, and his single-minded purpose is to challenge architects to reduce global energy consumption and greenhouse gases through low-carbon design. His presentation at AIA made a convincing statistical case that climate change can and must be addressed by architects.

Why architects? Because the premise of the Architecture 2030 challenge is that buildings, designed by architects, are a major source of global energy demand and, consequently, a major contributor to greenhouse gases (GHG). Slowing the rate of GHG emissions from buildings, and then reversing it, is key to addressing climate change—that is, limiting global average temperature to an increase less than 2 C above pre-industrial levels. Mazria himself is an architect who closed his practice to devote all of his efforts to convincing fellow architects they can have a major impact on climate change.

The 2030 Challenge has some very specific goals.

Initially, new buildings and major renovations would be designed to a, “fossil fuel, GHG-emitting, energyconsumption performance standard of 60% below the regional (or country) average/median for that building type.” The amount of renovations, the challenge stipulated, would at least equal new construction. The reductions increase to 70% in 2015, 80% in 2020, 90% in 2025, and carbon-neutral in 2030.

Mazria told the audience that, until a decade ago, the building sector was overlooked as a major energy user, crediting a 2003 article in Metropolis magazine, entitled “Architects Pollute,” with raising awareness that the building sector was a major emitter of greenhouse gases. Mazria apparently provided the impetus for that article. According to the Metropolis website,

Mazria cold-called the magazine with an idea for an article that would reveal that buildings, and not SUVs and industry, were a leading cause of climate change.

Architecture 2030 issued its challenge in 2006 and has steadily gathered support since then. The AIA adopted the challenge the same year, calling it the AIA 2030

Commitment. Government, likewise, has incorporated the challenge’s goals. For example, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Washington, incorporated the 2030 Challenge targets into Target Finder, its webbased building energy-reduction calculator.

The Energy Independence and Security Act, passed in 2007, requires that all federal buildings meet the 2030 Challenge performance standards. California’s

Long Term Energy Efficiency Strategic Plan takes it a step further, requiring that all residential buildings

achieve net-zero energy use by 2020, and commercial buildings reach the same goal by 2030.

Mazria presents compelling numbers that suggest change can be effected by the architectural and building community. For example, he says, 60% of the entire building stock worldwide, or 900 billion sq. ft., will be built or rebuilt in the next 15 to 20 years, presenting a substantial opportunity to reduce emissions. “If we get it right, we solve the problem; if we don’t get it right, we lock in emission patterns for 80 to 120 years—80 years for buildings and 120 for infrastructure. That’s the average global life span of buildings and infrastructure,” he said.

Design and planning, from buildings to regional transportation and walkable communities, is a first step in getting to carbon neutral, Mazria said. The second part of that equation, accounting for perhaps 20% carbon reduction, is technological—renewables, onsite renewables, sun, wind, biomass, and hydro are a few examples that make up this 20%.

Numbers aside, Mazria noted that there remains an information gap. “What we know in the United States, not everybody knows; and not even we know everything we need to know. The folks in Peru or Bangladesh or all around the world need to get the right information as well. Right now, the information is highly technical. Nobody wants to read it: It’s in an inaccessible format, it’s compartmentalized, it has limited applicability, and it has a very limited audience. So how do we bridge the gap? We need user-friendly and visual information, because architects and planners are visual thinkers. Visual is a universal language,” he said. “We need [the information] to be global in scope but local in application.” It should address mitigation, reducing emissions, and adaption, because some climate change is already in the pipeline.

To address the need for information, Architecture 2030 launched the 2030 Palette with the goal of taking the best available information and aggregating it into one site. “We’re just curators; all the information is coming from you, everything from regional planning issues all the way down to buildings and building elements. We need to tie all that together because each piece of information is not isolated,” he told the AIA audience.

In addition to the challenge and the palette, Architecture 2030 issued Roadmap 2050 to Zero Emissions as a guide to help individual countries achieve CO 2 emissions, taking into account differences between developed and developing counties. The International Union of Architects (UIA) World Congress in August 2014 adopted the 2050 Imperative based on the roadmap initiated and drafted by Architecture 2030.

Yet another component to Architecture 2030 is the 2030 Challenge for Products, which states that, “products for new buildings, developments, and renovations shall immediately be specified to meet a maximum carbon-equivalent footprint of 30% below the product category average.” Further, the embodied carbon-equivalent footprint reduction shall be increased to 35% or better in 2015, 40% or better in 2020, 45% or better in 2025, and 50% or better in 2030.

Mazria’s various challenges clearly depend heavily on statistical projections and economic assumptions, but they present a plausible scenario under the right circumstances and a target to which architects, individually and collectively, can aspire.

Preceding page. Designed by BWBR, St. Paul, MN, the 159,000-gross-sq.-ft. Beck Academic Hall at Gustavus Adolphus College in St. Peter, MN, opened in 2011 as the first new academic building on the rural campus in 20 years. Envisioned as an energy-neutral addition to the campus, the LEED Platinum facility uses strategically placed classrooms and offices to maximize daylighting opportunities throughout the day, as well as roof-mounted solar-thermal panels, a photovoltaic array, and other energy-saving tools to achieve energyconsumption goals that are about 77% better than the Architecture 2030 baseline. Photo: Don Wong Photography

Below. The newly opened 217,000-sq.-ft. Institute of Environmental Sustainability (IES) at Loyola Univ., Chicago, showcases many ecofriendly features, including natural light and views from nearly 400 large, high-performance windows from Wausau Window and Wall Systems. The goal of the IES is to become a closed-loop urban agricultural community, a net-zero sustainable environment where people live, work, and grow their own food. Photo: Courtesy Wausau Windows

Above. The Nueva School Hillside Learning Complex, Hillsborough, CA, is woven into the land, designed to connect students to the natural world on a daily basis. The middle-school project targets 69% energy-use reduction from a typical U.S. school. Photo: Courtesy Leddy Maytum Stacy Architects

The renovation of Building 13 at the Edward Hines Jr. Veteran’s Administration Hospital in Hines, IL, provides outpatient mental-health counseling services for veterans returning from the Middle East. Enhancing the insulation value of the existing envelope, effi cient lighting, and a ground-source heat-pump system helped the project achieve a LEEDNC Gold rating. Photo: Courtesy Epstein, Chicago

Architects Respond To Architecture 2030

The American Institute of Architects, Washington, incorporated the reduction goals of the Architecture 2030 Challenge into the AIA 2030 Commitment. In the forward to the most recent annual 2030 Commitment report, the authors state, “it is no longer acceptable to strive to reduce the environmental impact of a building only for those clients that ask for, and can afford, green building certifi cation.”

The AIA takes pains to point out the AIA 2030 Commitment and the 2030 Challenge are not the same program. Architecture 2030, a separate nonprofi t founded by Ed Mazria, issued the 2030 Challenge. AIA adopted the reduction goals of that challenge and launched the 2030 Commitment in 2009 to create a reporting framework and accountability for the 2030 goals.

Representatives of three architectural firms that have signed on to AIA’s 2030 Commitment were asked for their reaction to the initiative. They are: • Terri Ulrick, AIA, LEED AP, project manager, BWBR, St. Paul, MN • William Leddy, FAIA, principal, Leddy Maytum Stacy Architects, San Francisco • Jason Chandler, AIA, LEED AP, vice president, director of project management, Epstein, Chicago. Questions and their comments follow:

Q: : As a firm that has committed to Architecture 2030,

describe the experience—success or failure, difficulties encountered, and lessons learned.

Terri Ulrick: As a firm, BWBR has been formally pursuing sustainability initiatives for 14 years with the establishment of our Performance Design Group. The group focuses on an all-encompassing approach to sustainable design to reduce the cost to create, own, and operate environments that enhance the well-being and productivity of their inhabitants and use the Earth’s resources efficiently. This focus is what has led the firm to commit to Architecture 2030.

One of the initiatives we employed following our commitment to Architecture 2030 was to develop a database of projects, tracking their projected and actual energy consumption, compared with the Architecture 2030 energy goals. What we learned is that several of our projects, while perhaps not meeting the 2030 goals, were performing better than national CBECS (U.S. Energy Information Administration’s Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey) averages. This effort has taught us that a collaborative design-team approach is key to successfully meeting 2030 energy goals.

William Leddy: The USGBC’s LEED (U.S. Green Building Council, Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design) program continues to dominate the public’s perception of high-performance architecture. But, as acceptance of the reality of climate change grows, client interest in meeting the Architecture 2030 goals is growing too—just too slowly.

While we have been fortunate to have designed and built many projects that meet these goals—including two designed to meet net-zero energy criteria—many clients still aren’t convinced that deep carbon reduction in our built environment is imperative. There is still a tendency to perceive the investment in deep energy efficiency and carbon reduction on a first-cost basis, not in terms of either the broader global imperative or the proven long-term benefits of reduced operating costs and occupant well being. Even when we are successful in designing environments that should exceed the Architecture 2030 goals, convincing users to operate the buildings as they are intended is often difficult. Meeting the 2030 Challenge will require a massive shift in global values and expectations.

Jason Chandler: Epstein has been a signatory firm to the AIA 2030 Commitment since 2010. We have seen the AIA 2030 Commitment grow and expand its influence within the architectural community and building industry. Initially the first major thrust to meet the commitment was awareness and measuring how our designs as architects were performing from an energy standpoint (measured by pEUI— predicted energy use intensity) because the only quantifiable way to know you are improving is to measure it. This task of measuring the energy performance of projects from across the country of varying sizes, project types, and levels of commitment to sustainability is a challenging task.

The AIA took a leadership role and created a recording methodology. Each of the AIA 2030 working groups improved and enhanced the reporting tool. As data began to be recorded, the next step was to use the data. Case studies were developed to show other architects how projects can achieve sustainability goals. Additional sustainability metrics for water usage and lighting density were added. We continue to explore ways to use this data to fi nd ways to make us all better architects and meet our ever-increasing sustainability goals. We are also exploring synergies with civic and government agencies to create an ever-larger database of information.

Some of the observations [resulting from] this process relate to finding useful information to help architects become better and deliver more sustainable projects. Since the beginning of the commitment focused on recording data and awareness, it was harder to point to straight benefits of the commitment and how we can achieve our ultimate

goals in 2030. As we are gaining more data, we are more able to provide real examples and data and, in turn, provide strategies for implementing highly sustainable goals on real projects.

Q: : An article in Metropolis magazine ten years ago

proclaimed, “architects pollute.” The inference was that buildings had been largely overlooked as contributors to greenhouse-gas emissions. What was your reaction? Was it an eye-opening moment or old news?

Terri Ulrick: The comment was neither eye-opening nor old news, but rather a [provocative] statement meant to elicit discussion. By the time the article was written, European designers had already been incorporating sustainability initiatives for years into buildings and construction. Think of Norman Foster’s Commerzbank in Frankfurt, constructed in 1997. The 56-story building incorporated natural ventilation, interior winter gardens, and material conservation. However, that’s not to say such practices reached far and wide, and I think [the article] was a fair assessment of practices in the United States. Compared to evolving European practices, it was eye opening to see how much waste domestic construction was generating, how much energy and water buildings were consuming, and the fact that this was seen as acceptable. It was exciting to see Metropolis bring the issue to light and gave hope that it would stimulate change.

William Leddy: That article and the work of Ed Mazria in general has had a huge impact. At that time, my partners and I had been practicing sustainable design for 15 years. However, as with many of our colleagues, the inspiration for this work was simply the desire to make buildings that were more respectful of the natural world. It was an ethical motivation. When Mazria started making links between buildings and climate change, all that changed: the ethical motivation was radically shifted to a practical imperative.

Jason Chandler: I would not say it was eye opening because the creation and particularly the operation of buildings have always contributed toward greenhouse-gas emissions. The article helped to frame, however, an increased awareness by the public and industry sectors over the past decade. You can attribute this to rising energy costs, energy independence, social consciousness, and the world getting smaller as a result of technology and the population explosion. Architects have a leadership role in designing a building and inherently have a duty to deliver responsive designs that protect the health and life safety of the public while serving our clients. In addition to direct life-safety concerns, such as fire exits, minimizing our negative impact to the environment is part of that duty. As architects we have historically been trained to create architecture that integrates into the community and respects the surrounding context.

Part of this was achieved through passive sustainability solutions—including building orientation, massing, shading, location of functions, and natural ventilation. As more advanced mechanical means of ventilation and cooling were developed in the mid century, along with the rise of the glass boxes, some of the those passive sustainability solutions unfortunately became less prevalent. As the awareness has increased, coupled with cost and social factors, new designs are beginning to be more responsive to sustainable goals and reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.

Q: : The goals of Architecture 2030 are optimistic and

far reaching. Are they possible?

Terri Ulrick: Yes. Several of these initiatives are being put into practice in other locations around the world. The Architecture 2030 goals are aggressive. However, with the desire and creative design approaches, these goals are achievable for most buildings. In addition, several national, state, and local codes are starting to align energy requirements and goals with those proposed in Architecture 2030.

William Leddy: Absolutely! But a massive shift in the expectations of every individual across the globe needs to happen within 15 years or less. In the developed world, we need to quickly learn how to make do with less: less energy, less things, less travel. The populations of the developing world must be convinced that mimicking our wasteful ways, as attractive as that may seem, is not a viable course of development. While this seems to be a monumental task, momentum is building toward a tipping point globally when attitudes will change more quickly, supported by rapid technological innovation and governmental regulation.

Jason Chandler: The goals are optimistic and far reaching and can only be achieved through a combined effort of owners, users, contractors, engineers, architects, and the public. One group, acting alone, will not be able to meet the goals single handed.

Q: : Architecture 2030 is a voluntary initiative. Can it suc

ceed without regulatory intervention? Or in spite of it?

Terri Ulrick: Referencing that several national, state, and local codes are aligning energy requirements and goals with those proposed in Architecture 2030, regulatory intervention already plays a role and, as it has demonstrated, can play a positive role. Regulations or not, many organizations are going to strive to meet these lofty but achievable goals. However, architecture is not an individual sport. It takes a team with all team members aligned with the same goals. Many organizations are apprehensive of the initial capital costs for sustainable building strategies. Regulations help align those interests by creating a common goal and promoting the environmental and potential fi nancial benefi ts of sustainable building.

William Leddy: Regulatory intervention is key. These goals are not optional, and governments around the globe need to step in to ensure that their populations have every possible incentive to meet them.

Jason Chandler: The AIA 2030 commitment is voluntary at this point as it aligns with architects’ roles helping to lead the project. Architects do not view sustainable and responsive designs as a fad; climate change is a real pressure impacting our environment. We need to collectively work together to improve the situation and reduce our carbon emissions. Any regulatory intervention would be in support of this effort. In [many] areas of the country, regulatory intervention already exists, and we as an industry need to get out in front of this issue.

Q: : What lies beyond Architecture 2030? Is it the only

initiative with which architects should be concerned?

Terri Ulrick: While Architecture 2030 has established goals for reduction of energy consumption within built environments, we understand our impact goes beyond a specific building. Recently, BWBR began exploring the Living Building Challenge and how we can utilize it with our partners to think more broadly and holistically about sustainable design, engineering, and construction. While most in the industry tout being good stewards of clients’ resources, more and more we understand the imperative is for all of us to be great stewards of our planet’s resources. The Living Building Challenge embodies that imperative, challenging us to look beyond certifications, adopt a higher philosophy, and assume the role of advocates for better practices and buildings. Net-zero water and energy use is at the heart of the Challenge. While daunting, it’s exciting. It’s giving us the language, tools, and, more importantly, impetus to work with owners, contractors, and government entities to discover new possibilities that improve what we are leaving our children—the Earth and our impact on it.

Jason Chandler: The AIA 2030 Commitment is just one initiative that is working in conjunction with other programs/ initiatives (LEED, Green Globes, Living Building Challenge, Energy Star, Energy Benchmarking, and on and on). Sustainable and responsive designs that minimize our impact on the environment are the ultimate goal. Sharing ways to achieve this goal and pushing the industry and each other will bring us closer to meeting our goal.

Sweetwater Spectrum Community, Sonoma, CA, is a residential facility for adults with autism. The project targets 88% energy-use reduction from baseline and obtains more than 80% of its electrical power from on-site photovoltaic systems. It is net-zero energy ready. Photo: Courtesy Leddy Maytum Stacy Architects

Manufacturers Commit To Sustainability

It’s not just completed buildings that use energy or have an impact on the environment. The components and materials that go into those buildings have a significant effect on energy use and the environment as well. The Architecture 2030 Challenge for Products prescribes that, “products for new buildings, developments, and renovations shall immediately be specified to meet a maximum carbon-equivalent footprint of 30% below the product category average. The embodied carbon-equivalent footprint reduction shall be increased to 50% or better in 2030.”

Whether or not manufacturers specifically support that challenge, most have made commitments to sustainability and efficiency. Whether building-materials manufacturers are doing enough in that regard, and what else they might be doing, was addressed by several manufacturers. Download a complete transcript of their responses to sustainability goals by using this link in our digital magazine at cbpmagazine.com/digital/ oct2014. • “I believe that building codes and the jurisdictions that adopt them are the true drivers of change. Product manufacturers work to meet all of those market codes and needs. Ultimately, the end-user will determine what’s important in terms of sustainability and energy efficiency.”—Lance Premeau, LEED Green Associate, product and market manager, Kolbe Windows and Doors, Wausau, WI. • “You are asking someone who feels we can always do better. Until we stop thinking of trash as a lost resource of no value we have work to do. As for sustainability at USG, we have a long history of environmental awareness and stewardship. For example, we have been evaluating many of our families of products using cradle-to-gate life-cycle modeling for over 20 years. These models have allowed us to evaluate raw-material alternates and manufacturing improvements.

With the release of 12 Environmental Product Declarations (EPD) last year covering 36 ceiling-tile offerings, we also accepted the Architecture 2030 Challenge for Products. With this challenge and using our historic data of impacts, we have already begun raw material improvements and new product offerings needed to reduce our products’ contribution to a building’s carbon footprint.

We have created several continuing-education seminars for the design professional which discuss the benefits of high-performing design solutions and simple material and system attributes for improving efficiencies.”—Richard (Rik) Master, AIA, CSI, AL A, LEED AP, senior manager, sustainability, USG Corp., Chicago. • “A large majority of the building industry embraces the green-building movement through their manufacturing practices and the products they offer. However, this revolution will never be complete, since green/ sustainable goals are fundamentally a process of continual improvement. In this process, today’s best practices becomes tomorrow’s standard practices, allowing for continued levels of higher performance.”— Tammy Schroeder, LEED Green Associate, senior marketing specialist, Linetec, Wausau, WI. • “The building industry has recently made great advances to promote sustainable building goals. Drivers like the Living Building Challenge are moving the industry in a responsible direction. There are opportunities, though, to stress the importance of holistic green building, occupant health, and workplace safety.

More can be done to ensure buildings are audited over time to prove the green statements that they claim, and the Living Building Challenge is setting the precedent on how this can be achieved. Facilities must prove that they are achieving certain high greenbuilding standards by showing records over time. This auditing and ongoing monitoring is one aspect of green building that should be stressed more.

A holistic approach to green building is also vital. Truly sustainable building products are environmentally friendly in more than one way and should encompass all aspects of the product and manufacturing company.”—Philip Ivey, strategic sustainability leader, Milliken global floorcovering division, Spartanburg, SC. • “The greenest building is one that doesn’t need to be built. Wausau provides a complete line of replacement windows and paning for historic renovations, energy upgrades, and buildings’ re-use. Likewise, the greenest building component is one that’s never produced. Durability and product life is an often-overlooked aspect of product selection. The NSTC’s 2008 Federal Research and Development Agenda, is clear in its goal to, ‘double the service life of building materials, products, and systems, and minimize life-cycle impacts.’ For windows and curtainwall, AAMA standards and voluntary specifications address such issues as thermal cycling and life-cycle testing of architectural AW Class operable windows to 4,000 cycles, as well as film integrity, chalking, and fading of organic paint finishes on aluminum.” — Steve Fronek, PE, LEED, Green Associate, vice president of technical services, Wausau Window and Wall Systems, Wausau, WI.

Reynobond ® NC Panels

30YEAR PAINT FINISH WARRANTY

Reynobond NC coil-coated panels offer a 30-year fi nish warranty

Now you can get all the benefi ts of Reynobond aluminum composite material in a double sheet.

Reynobond NC panels enable you to marry the fl atness and stiffness of ACM with the dent resistance

and recyclability of sheet metal. This combination, along with a 30-year fi nish warranty, is unmatched

in the industry. Reynobond NC panels really step up to the plate. Learn more at reynobond.com .

Part of Building 13 at the Hines VA Hospital, Hines, IL, was reroofed with photovoltaic roof shingles that complement the original look of the building and generate 16,000 W. A wind turbine and geothermal system help meet federally mandated renewable-energy goals.

ˆ DATA CACHE

Want more information? The resources below are linked in our digital magazine at cbpmagazine.com/digital/oct2014.

Download the AIA 2030 Commitment Progress Report.

Explore and use the U.S. Lifecycle Inventory Database. Explore and use the U.S. Lifecycle Inventory Database.

Learn more about building energy consumption from the U.S. Learn m Department of Energy’s Buildings Energy Data Book. Department of Energy’s Buildings Energy Data Book.

Assess the energy performance of commercial building Assess the energy performance of commercial building designs with the EPA’s Target Finder energy performance designs with the EPA’s Target Finder energy performance calculator.

The USGBC’s Green Building Facts information kit will tell The USGBC’s Green Building Facts information kit will tell you more about building energy performance.

The Living Building Challenge sets high expectations. Visit the website to learn more.

Ken’s View

You say what the green/sustainable/climate-change dialogue really needs is a good slogan or some nice moral outrage to get people on the same page? Maybe reducing climate change to a sound bite or a tweet would be helpful for those unaccustomed to long-form conversations. Alas, history is not encouraging.

The conversation, if you can call it that, started years ago as debate about something dubbed an energy crisis or, more specifi cally, an oil crisis and the disruption of the supply chain of said fossil fuel. The discourse has only become more convoluted as time has passed. Along the way, some folks started to notice smog, wheezing sparrows, and rivers that unexpectedly combusted. Thus, the environmental movement was born and linked to energy consumption, although environmentalism, of course, comprises more than just energy utilization. Now, the concept of climate change puts another spin on what to do about unrestrained energy use.

Ed Mazria’s Architecture 2030 takes a stab at framing the dilemma in terms of building energy use—and even more specifi cally, the fossil-fuel-derived energy used in those buildings. He even came close to a slogan. The “architects pollute” cover story in Metropolis magazine back in 2003 surely got the attention of architects and clearly focused attention on energy usage in the building sector, but it wasn’t quite slogan material, at least not for non-architects. Architecture 2030’s website suggests another alternative that comes close to being a slogan: Buildings are the problem; buildings are the solution. Will there be bumper stickers?

The fact that buildings use energy came as a surprise is, well, surprising. The energy crisis mentioned earlier spawned all sorts of government agencies, including the Energy Information Administration, Washington. The EIA, in its spare time, came up with something called the Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS) back in the 1980s. Those Washington energy wonks had an inkling early on that buildings, and not just transportation and industry, were major-league energy users.

Be that as it may, data lying around in Washington isn’t the same thing as public awareness—or policy, for that matter. Ed Mazria, no doubt because he was an architect and buildings were his business, made the connection and got lucky when a magazine editor put a provocative headline on the story.

That architects-pollute headline, however, demonstrates how perceptions are most often based on a chance combination of words and images. Facts usually come later, if at all—although Ed Mazria can’t be faulted in the statistics department. It’s just that some folks’ attention tends to wander after the initial sound bite, and too many numbers make their eyes glaze over.

Perceptions, especially those based on a slogan or a sound bite, are imprecise, unpredictable, and short-lived. The environmental phase of the green movement once focused on pollution. People could see smog and gunk in rivers and dead fish. “Give a hoot, don’t pollute,” was catchy if you were an eightyear-old. But the populace doesn’t talk so much about dirty air these days, maybe because some of these conditions have improved a bit. But they haven’t gone away. The National Weather Service still incorporates air-quality warnings in its forecasts. And folks put on their save-the-polar-bears T-shirts, fire up their SUVs, and go buy some toxic chemicals to spread on their lawns without a second thought. Perceptions. Go figure.

A change could be in the wind, though it could be just as unpredictable as those very air currents. A recent New York Times op-ed piece talks about a possible climate swerve, a term borrowed from a Harvard humanities professor to describe, “a major historical change in consciousness that is neither predictable nor orderly.” Contrasting the supposed climate swerve to the nuclear threat, and consequent swerve, of previous decades, the author notes the diffi culty people have imaging future catastrophic events, such as climate change, that lack the graphic effects such as those provided by images of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Conclusion: There may be a climate swerve or it could just be business as usual. Thanks for that good news.

No, the real good news is that those architects who are actively involved in designing buildings to reduce their carbon footprint have the imagination to see the consequences of doing nothing and aren’t waiting for a the right perception, slogan, or swerve to come along.

— Kenneth W. Betz, Senior Editor, CBP