schneiderism

The image above is of a typical big-box style retail construction site. These sites are typically a mess, both in terms of waste and in terms of their impact on the environment.

We’re still surrounded by waste and energy inefficiencies in the building industry, and this is in the face of knowing better. There has been tremendous research into more efficient, less wasteful, environmentally sensitive building techniques and methodologies. These improved techniques are being used, but on a much smaller scale than really needs to be required. This is due, in large part, to the mistaken belief that new and innovative building practicers, those that are better for us and for the environment, are also much more expensive. A few years ago, this was the case, as many of the building technologies were very new and had not yet been properly tested nor had the opportunity to scale for efficient and cost effective implementation. That is no longer the case.

I read a great post on Inhabitat the other day that brought this issue to light, and pointed me to a report put out by the World Business Council For Sustainable Development (WBCSD).

The report is premised on the reality that people tend to overestimate the true cost of sustainable building methodologies. It bases this premise on an expansive survey of building industry professionals which exposed the still prevalent misconception that the added cost of sustainable construction is as much as 300% higher than reality, equating to as much as 17% above conventional construction. This misconception, and its commonality of belief, is enough to turn developers, contractors, end users, and the public at large away from sustainable options and opportunities in building construction. The kicker, and this really hurts given the consequences, is that added cost of building sustainably is typically less than 5%, and often close to parity with traditional legacy building techniques. How can such a huge, prolific, and pervasive industry be so wrong?

But wait, there’s more. The report also looks at the other side of this equation… at these professional’s perception of the impact of the buildings they construct. The survey found that most tend to misunderstand the environmental impact of legacy building practices and greatly underestimate the greenhouse emissions put out by buildings being constructed. The reality… buildings contribute over 40% of total emissions. Again, how can they be so wrong?

The answer is education and increased awareness. But that is only the start. Industries are powerful, and they fund well-armed lobbies to protect their interests. If the misconception is that sustainable building practices are expensive, that is being communicated to the end-user… who is most likely being held to very tight project cost accountability. The result is the impetus for an incredibly effective lobby to prevent legislation mandating improved efficiencies and lessened impact on the environment in the building industry. Ultimately, the answer is in the rest of us agitating for change, requiring the building industry and end user audience to adopt a sustainable building practices (as WalMart seems to have done), and to effectively articulate the importance of this reality to the people we put in office.