So they question remains, how do we facilitate the necessary paradigm shift towards a more sustainable homebuilding model?
This task is much more difficult than one can imagine. In order to demonstrate just how murky the waters truly are, we need to examine one of the organizations whose entire purpose is to defend national builders and their hyper-capitalist ways. This is none other than the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB).
Just to give you an idea as to exactly what this organization is about, the "NAHB strives to create an environment in which...Housing and those who provide it are recognized as the strength of the nation." Unless you've been living in a cave for the past three years, we all know how this vision has panned out for our nation!
Regardless, the NAHB is making an effort to embrace and promote "Green Building Practices". However, if we take a closer look at this effort we will quickly discover yet another greenwashing smokescreen intended to distract us from the real issues.
(You didn't really think that I would simply point out the NAHB's efforts without immediately proceeding to systematically dissect its true intentions, did you?!?!)
Let us begin with the NAHB's "Green Home Building Guidelines", which is structured somewhat like the LEED rating system. The NAHB's system allocates points for green building "line items", resulting in a gold, silver or bronze rating.
Points for site selection, site design, building materials and so on comprise the overall strategies to achieve a "green" community. But, if we take a closer look at their overall "green" goals, we quickly discover how they truly feel about the movement;
It should be noted that although many green building programs have been in existence for 10 years of more, the concept and practice of green building is not clearly defined and straightforward. Many gray areas remain in identifying and quantifying the precise environmental impact for each particular line item. (NAHB, Model Green Home Building Guidelines.)
Huh, that's funny because as we have come to learn, everything is connected to everything else. That seems like a pretty straightforward concept, but then again it could be construed as a gray area. I mean, does everything include stuff that we haven't invented or produced yet? And does it include thoughts or electrical impulses?
I've changed my mind; it is pretty gray.
Let's look at it another way. How about the view that sustainable development is "development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” (Brundtland, 1987.)
That doesn't help at all. For instance, what if scientists invent a way to solve all of the world's pollution problems in the future?!?! If that were to happen, then anything we do now won't really hinder the ability of future generations!
Yup, pretty gray.
How about if we look at the very first criteria for site selection; "Avoid environmentally sensitive areas". One could state with some certainty that this would include wetland areas.
Ahh, we remember wetlands don't we? Those diverse ecological communities which perform a variety of functions from cleaning water to providing protection from flooding.
But hold the phone, we may have discovered a gray area.
The NAHB, in all its infinite wisdom is quick to point out that "wetlands are a controversial issue for builders and federal agencies." Furthermore, they are quick to point out that wetland degradation and loss is a "common misconception". In fact, they feel that there has been "no net loss" of wetlands in our nation recently.
Well, those smoke-screening scientists over at the pesky EPA would probably like to step-up to the microphone to refute that statement by saying, "Huh?".
For instance, in Louisiana alone "every thirty minutes, an area of coastal land the size of a football field vanishes. Since the 1930s, more than 1.2 million acres (1,900 square miles), an area the size of Delaware, has disappeared from the Mississippi River Delta."
Yup, so very gray.
Perhaps the NAHB neglected to read the entire memo concerning the federal government's policies on wetlands. If they had read past the first two lines, they would have learned that both President Bushes wanted to implement a regulatory policy which accounted for no net loss of wetlands.
Oops. Missed that one.
A builder can still apply for a permit to "fill" a portion of a wetlands and either construct or "mitigate" their impact somewhere else on their site. Or they can even mitigate that impact to somewhere that is not even in the same area as their site!!!
In an effort to return to our original point, how do we expect the new homebuilding giant Pulex to embrace the concepts of sustainability and "green" building if the organization who supports them doesn't even wholeheartedly believe in these concepts?!?!
Well, in a democratic society operating under an capitalist economic system, We the People are the ones who possess the power to instigate change. That change must come from the consumer who demands nothing less than a truly "green" and sustainable product from organizations who are truly concerned with the impacts they are making on our society.
Remember, yes we can.
Are we not the whores of big business, selling our product for their commercial lust? -Arthur Erickson
Posts
