Green Buildings
The Commercial Appeal recently ran a story about these so-called “green buildings” we’re beginning to hear about. Of course, there’s nothing green about it other than the money being made. Architects and developers are salivating over the prospect of more work, since increasing numbers of people want to be in “green” building. Business owners want to advertise their businesses as being “green,” because it’s good for business, not because it’s good for the environment.
The photo is from the story. Do you see anything green?
So we’re smack dab in the middle of a new fad. It’s hip to be green. That means more “green” stuff to be made. More “green” stuff to sell. More “green” stuff to throw in the dumpster when you’re done with it. More “green” buildings built on land that used to have real green trees. Office parks named after the lifeforms that used to be there. “Willow Oaks,” “Moriah Woods,” “Oakleigh Farms.”
Here’s my letter to the editor:
I read with great interest Amos Maki’s Sunday article, “Growing Green.” And while I was hopeful I would discover something of promise, I found exactly what I expected to find. More propaganda and drivel crafted by growth ad infinitum cultists.
There’s nothing “green” or sustainable about this type of development. As the article states, the “green” industry (and that’s exactly what it is, an industry) is about pushing a product with a green label to consumers enamored with the term. A lot of people want products they believe are green, yet they really have no idea what the term really means. Opportunistic but myopic capitalists with a keen eye for ignorant consumers are quick to seize the opportunity, labeling products green that aren’t any more green than an oil spill.
It’s a ruse. A sham designed to do nothing more than keep non-sustainable economic growth chugging along at breakneck pace. The only thing green is the money being made, and the term “sustainable growth” is perhaps the ultimate oxymoron of our time.
If a product is truly “green,” that means it’s sustainably produced. According to Dr. Michael Lewis, a sustainable process is does not consume more natural resources than can be replenished by natural biological and geophysical cycles, and does not produce waste faster than can be dispersed by natural biological and geophysical cycles. It’s produced locally with renewal materials and the manufacturing process doesn’t poison the environment.
So, let’s take a look at these so-called green buildings and other such products. Where do the materials for these buildings come from? How are they manufactured? Where does the manufacturing waste go? What is required to heat and cool the buildings? The energy sources for heating and cooling are not completely sustainable. Where does the land come from? Do you believe we have infinite supplies of land on which to build? The production requires cheap fossil fuel. In fact, our entire society, from pharmaceuticals to transportation, is propped up by the availability of cheap fossil fuel. But we’ve also reached what scientists and geologists call “Peak Oil,” the point at which the world’s petroleum fields attain their highest sustainable yield and commence a long, irreversible decline. Therefore, none of this is sustainable, because it’s all dependent on a dwindling, non-renewable resource with no adequate replacement.
A more sustainable alternative would be to reuse and retrofit a more than adequate supply of buildings we already have, and the only type of economic development that’s sustainable is development bound and governed by biological and geophysical reality.
Ah le gioie di redditizie “verdi” prodotti.