Talking Points

Greening the building industry has significant environmental and economic benefits.

• Because traditional building is one of the most resource-demanding industries in the United States, widespread adoption of green building practices has the potential to significantly reduce waste and our dependence on finite resources.
• What’s good for the environment can be good for the economy, by reducing energy and waste disposal costs and by using smart design to make buildings more efficient.
• Since the highest costs associated with operating commercial space are the costs of training and keeping employees, green building techniques can save money by significantly increasing worker productivity, retention, and health.
• Green building seeks efficiency using integration from the outset of design, maximizing inputs, and minimizing costs and outputs.
• By designing buildings that are more energy-efficient, architects can significantly reduce the amount of fossil fuels our country consumes and, subsequently, the amount of harmful greenhouse gases the United States emits into the atmosphere every year, reducing our contribution to global warming.
• In addition to conserving energy, green building practices help conserve water and other natural resources. Smaller buildings that are designed to make more efficient use of space result in lower demand for raw materials and less construction site waste.

Mandatory continuing education (MCE) for architects is an effective means of affecting change.

• Creating MCE requirements specific to green design/energy efficiency for architects puts the right knowledge in the hands of individuals who play a key role in shaping the building market.
• The design process is the time when the incorporation of green building principles does the most good. Attempting to convert a fragmented system into an integrated one as an afterthought is difficult and costly. Architects trained in green building can design buildings that employ the principles of system integration.
• An architect familiar with high performance building design concepts can educate his/her clientele about the benefits of green building at a time when critical design decisions are being made. Clients who enter the planning phase with little or no prior knowledge of green building will be more inclined to take interest in it if their architect encourages them to do so.
• People are naturally timid about making large investments in new, sparsely-adopted ideas, seeking confirmation that their beliefs are sound and their goals pragmatic in lieu of forging ahead into the unknown on their own. Architects educated in the area of green design can instill confidence in potential green builders, becoming a primary agent in moving the building industry forward and educating customers on new possibilities.
• The continuing education policy option does not cost the state money, in part because it makes use of an existing fiscal infrastructure. Organizations seeking accreditation pay a fee to the American Institute of Architects (AIA), and architects seeking re-licensure, in turn, pay to enroll in the classes they offer. In other words, all requisite funds are derived from the provision of a service for which there is an established and reliable demand.

Continuing education is an effective means of accounting for regional differences and keeping up with technological changes.

• One of the most prominent shortcomings of programs that establish national green building standards like the U.S. Green Building Council’s Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) standards is their failure to account for regional discrepancies which, in turn, govern design priorities. Continuing education classes should be tailored to suit the needs of the locale in which they are taught, accounting for climatic and a host of other region-specific factors.
• Green building is part design and part technology. A simple example of green building technology is an energy-efficient light bulb. Like any technology, green building technologies are constantly being updated and improved upon, and it is an architect’s responsibility to keep pace with these changes. Such technologies are ineffective in and of themselves; those who apply them must be aware of their appropriate and effective application. The more informed an architect is, the more likely she/he is to make good design decisions.

Continuing education enables architects to meet increasingly progressive code requirements.

• Many states are enacting more stringent building code requirements with respect to energy efficiency and occupancy health, and architects need to be educated in order to be able to design compliant structures. A number of state studies have found training to be a key factor in improving compliance with energy efficiency standards.

Green building tax incentives and savings in water, energy, and waste disposal can compensate for the high initial costs associated with building green.

• Perceived initial costs are the single highest barrier to building green. Green building tax incentives help to alleviate the burden of the greater initial costs, making green building more attractive.
• The higher initial costs are more than offset by annual savings in water, energy, and waste disposal costs. This decreases the state’s overall dependence on resources and boosts the local economy. In addition, green buildings reduce the demand on energy at peak times, reducing the pressure on statewide energy systems.

States should take the lead to build green.

• Government is often the first to utilize environmentally friendly practices and technologies and to require its agencies to adhere to stricter standards than the public. This is especially true for building standards.
• The green building mandate would make the state a leader in green building practices and would help to increase the supply, demand, and awareness of green building practices and technology. As the environmental, health, and economic benefits associated with green buildings become evident, others will follow.

Building green buildings saves the state money by reducing operation and maintenance costs, energy costs, and increasing worker productivity.

• According to figures from the Federal Energy Management Program, by 2001, higher energy efficiency building standards for federal agencies had reduced energy consumption by 23% measured against 1985 baseline measures, at an estimated annual savings to taxpayers of $1.4 billion.(1)
• Green buildings can reduce annual energy costs by 20-50%, resulting in substantial savings for the state and taxpayers.(1)
• The cost of labor is the greatest operating expense (around 89%) for commercial buildings. Studies have shown that green buildings can increase worker productivity by 6-16 percent.(2)
• Incredible cost savings and environmental benefits can been achieved through green building water conservation strategies, such as on-site storm water and grey water capture/use/resuse, technology retrofits (on toilets, faucets, etc.), and the incorporation of native plant species that require less or no irrigation. Studies of buildings applying for LEED certification indicate that most were able to reduce water use by at least 50% outdoors and by at least 30% indoors.(2)