This tells us that green building, when correctly applied, is meant to improve design and construction practices so that the buildings we build last longer, cost less to operate, and will facilitate increased productivity and better working environments for workers or residents. But even more than that, it is also about protecting our natural resources and improving the built environment so that the planet’s ecosystems, people, enterprises, and communities can live a healthier, resource efficient, and more successful lifestyle.

It is no surprise that the general public’s perception of the green movement has changed considerably since its early formative days and is today sweeping across the United States and much of the civilized world. Moreover, sustainable design and sustainable development principles are taking on an increasingly important role by architects and engineers, building contractors, and in Real Estate applications, particularly by forward looking developers. In fact, many contractors are now seeking green certification and with this in mind, the Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc. (ABC) has recently initiated a program that would certify “Green Contractors.” To achieve the ABC Green Contractor Certification, the following steps need to be followed:

ABC uses qualified third-party individuals for the on-site assessment process of certification. And although there are many benefits to acquiring a Green Contractor Certification, nevertheless, some developers refuse to pursue the environment friendly or “Green” building bandwagon. This is mainly due to the misinformation and the misplaced notion that green buildings cost more or that they are impractical to construct. Below are discussed some of the more common myths and misconceptions relating to green building design and construction.

Many American scholars today like Dr Mark Wilson believe that the concept of green building first appeared in America more than a century ago. According to Wilson, “The revolutionary design philosophy known as First Bay Tradition had its roots in the San Francisco Bay Area in the 1890s. Indeed, the leading practitioners of this environmentally sensitive organic movement, Bernard Maybeck and Julia Morgan, developed a design philosophy that incorporated most of the concepts that are embraced by today’s green movement in architecture.” Some historians associate its beginning with Rachel Carson’s (1907–64) book Silent Spring and the legislative fervor of the 1970s or with Henry David Thoreau, who in his book Marine Woods, advocates for the respecting of nature and also for an awakening to the need for conservation and federal preservation of virgin forests. Some sustainability scholars believe that the green movement had its roots in the energy crises of the 1970s and the creative approaches to saving energy that evolved from it, such as smaller building envelopes and the use of active and passive solar design. But it was not until the 1973 OPEC oil crisis eruption that the cost of energy was brought into sharp focus and reminded us that our future prosperity and security was not in our hands, but in the hands of a very select number of petroleum-producing countries (mostly from the Middle East). This catalyzing event effectively highlighted the need for pursuing diversified sources of energy and encourage corporate and government investment in solar, wind, water, and geothermal sources of power. The energy crises artificially created by the imposition of an oil embargo by OPEC in 1973 caused an upward spike of gasoline prices and for the first time, long lines of vehicles at gas stations around the country. This had a dramatic effect on a small group of enlightened and forward-thinking architects, builders, environmentalists, and ecologists, who started to question the wisdom of current conventional building techniques and became inspired to seek new solutions to the problem of sustainability with the help of the latest technological advancements. However, by the 1980s, the enthusiasm for sustainability was fading and lower energy prices were lessening attention to energy-related issues.

This nascent “environmental movement” started to emerge and which was partly inspired by Victor Olgyay’s book “Design with Climate,” Ralph Knowles’s “Form and Stability,” and Rachel Carson’s “Silent Spring”, served notice of the emergence of a new era in environmental design. It also captured the attention and imagination of the general public and caused many to clamor for a broader reexamination of the wisdom of our reliance on fossil fuels for buildings and transportation. This encouraged a number of legislative steps to be initiated to clean up the environment including the Clean Air Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, the Water Pollution Control Act, the banning of DDT, the founding of Earth Day, and the Endangered Species Act.

The American Institute of Architects (AIA) responded to the energy crisis of 1973 by forming an energy task force to study energy-efficient design strategies, and in 1977 President Carter’s administration founded what became the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE); one of its principal tasks was to focus on energy usage and conservation. The energy task force was later to become the AIA Committee on Energy. The Energy Committee prepared several papers, such as A Nation of Energy Efficient Buildings which became an effective AIA tool for lobbying Capitol Hill. Among the more active committee members in the late 1970s included Donald Watson, FAIA, and Greg Franta, FAIA, when the AIA, too, was advocating building energy research. The committee also collaborated with government and other organizations for more than a decade. Committee member Dan Williams says that the Energy Committee formed two main groups: the first researched principally passive systems, such as reflective roofing materials and environmentally beneficial siting of buildings to achieve its goal of energy savings, while the second group primarily concentrated on solutions employing new technologies such as the use of triple-glazed windows. This was later transformed into a more broadly scaled AIA Committee on the Environment (COTE) in 1989, and the following year, the AIA (through COTE) and the AIA Scientific Advisory Committee on the Environment, managed to obtain funding from the recently created EPA which was formed in the wake of elevated concern about environmental pollution. The EPA was established on December 2, 1970 to consolidate in one agency a variety of federal research, monitoring, standard-setting, and enforcement activities to ensure protection of the environment. Its mission included the development of a building products guide based on life cycle analysis and which was published in 1992. As the energy concerns began to subside in the years that followed, partially due to lower energy prices, the momentum for green building and energy-related issues, in general, also gradually weakened but not stamped out due to the dedication of a core group of pioneering architects and professionals who continued to advance their green building energy conservation concept forward. Several notable buildings were constructed during the 1970s which utilized green design concepts such as the Gregory Bateson Building in California (used energy-sensitive PV—solar cells, underfloor rockstore cooling systems, and area climate control devices) and the Willis Faber and Dumas Headquarters in England (utilized a grass roof, daylighted atrium, and mirrored windows).

Numerous oil spills were witnessed during the 1980s such as the Exxon Valdez in 1989, among others, and while the industry presented significant opposition against environmental criticisms, the various energy-related Acts continue to remain in force. We also witness during the 1980s and early 1990s global conservation efforts by sustainability proponents such as Robert Berkebile (Note: a structural failure at the Hyatt Regency Skywalks hotel in Kansas City, which his firm designed caused the deaths of 114 people), William McDonough (Ford Motor Company’s River Rouge Plant in Michigan, USA), Sim Van der Ryn (the Gregory Bateson Building in Sacramento, California), and Sandra Mendler (World Resources Institute Headquarters Office, Washington, D.C.) in the United States; Thomas Herzog of Germany (Design Center in Linz, Austria); British architects Norman Foster (Commerzbank Headquarters in Frankfurt, Germany), Richard Rogers (The Pompidou Centre in Paris, France); and Malaysian architect Kenneth Yeang (the Menara Mesiniaga in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia). In 1987, the UN World Commission on Environment and Development, under Norwegian Prime Minister Gro Harlem Bruntland, suggested a definition for the term “sustainable development,” as that which “meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” This was followed by numerous alternative definitions of sustainable development.

President George H.W. Bush took a personal interest in energy issues and in 1991 issued a National Energy Policy, after which AIA President James Lawler convened an advisory group to issue a response and resolution. The resolution which the board passed a month later, called on all AIA members to undertake environmental reforms within their practices, including the immediate cessation of ozone-depleting refrigerants. President Bush reauthorized the Clean Air Act, which requires cleaner burning fuels.

In 1992, Brazil hosted a UN Conference on Environment and Development (also known as the “Earth Summit”) that was held in Rio de Janeiro and which proved to be a great success, drawing 17,000 attendees and delegations from 172 governments and 2400 representatives of nongovernmental organizations. The conference witnessed the passage of Agenda 21 which provided a blueprint for achieving global sustainability. This resulted in the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, the Statement of Forest Principles, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, and the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity. Following on the heels of the Rio de Janeiro Summit, the AIA chose sustainability as its theme for the June 1993 UIA/AIA World Congress of Architects held in Chicago, in which an estimated 10000 architects and design professionals from around the world attended the event. Today, this convention which had the theme of “Architecture at the Crossroads: Designing for a Sustainable Future.” is recognized as a milestone in the history of the green building movement.

In the Declaration of Interdependence for a Sustainable Future, it states, “We commit ourselves, as members of the world’s architectural and building-design professions, individually and through our professional organizations, to:

The election of Bill Clinton to the presidency in November of 1992 encouraged a number of sustainability proponents to start circulating a grandiose idea of “greening” the White House itself. And on Earth Day April 21, 1993 President Bill Clinton launched his ambitious plans to “greening the White House” and to make the presidential mansion “a model for efficiency and waste reduction.” To put this plan into effect, the President’s Council on Environmental Quality assembled a team of experts that included members of the AIA, the U.S. DOE’s Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP), the U.S. EPA, the General Services Administration, the National Park Service, the White House Office of Administration, and the Potomac Electric Power Company.

The “Greening the White House” initiative created substantial savings (more than $1.4 million in its first 6 years), primarily from improvements made to the lighting, heating, air conditioning, water sprinklers, insulation, and energy and water consumption reduction. Moreover, the initiative also included a 600,000 sq. ft. Old Executive Office Building that was located across from the White House. There was also an energy audit by the DOE, an environmental audit led by the EPA, and a series of well-attended design charettes consisting of design professionals, engineers, government officials, and environmentalists, with the aim of formulating sustainable energy-conservation strategies using available technologies. Within the first 3 years, these energy-conservation strategies resulted in significant improvements to the nearly 200-year-old mansion such as reducing its annual atmospheric emissions by an estimated 845 metric tons of carbon in addition to an estimated $300,000 in annual energy and water savings.

Bill Browning, Hon. AIA says, “The process pioneered by the Greening of the White House charrette has become an integral part of the green building movement.” However, the deluge of Federal greening projects was among several forces that drove the sustainability movement in the 1990s. To accelerate this process, President Clinton issued a number of executive orders, the first being in September, 1998, that directed the Federal government to improve its use of recycled and eco-friendly products (including building products). A second executive order was issued in June 1999 to encourage government agencies to improve energy management and reduce emissions in Federal buildings through the application of better design, construction, and operation techniques. The President issued a third executive order in April, 2000 requiring Federal agencies to integrate environmental accountability into their daily decision-making as well as their long-term planning. The team assembled by the President’s Council on Environmental Quality produced important recommendations to preserve the historical presence of the structure as well as maintain and improve comfort and productivity.

During George W. Bush’s two terms, during the 8 years of his presidency, greening the White House was taken a little further with the installation of three solar systems, including a thermal setup on the pool cabana that heats water for the pool and showers, and PV panels atop a maintenance shed to supplement the mansion’s electrical supply. Bush also made a big push to recycle office paper, although some outside observers are of the opinion that the overall go-green effort lost momentum during his tenure.

The White House greening approaches fit under several main headings:

The greening of the White House proved to be such a success that it created an underlying demand to green other properties in the extensive Federal portfolio, like the Pentagon, the Presidio, and the U.S. DOE Headquarters as well as three national parks: Grand Canyon, Yellowstone, and Alaska’s Denali. In 1996 the AIA/COTE and the U.S. DOE signed a memorandum of understanding to cooperate together on research and development, the objective being to formulate a program consisting of a series of road maps for the construction and development of sustainable buildings in the 21st century.

The onslaught of green activity facilitated individual Federal departments to also make significant headway. For example, the Navy became emboldened and undertook eight pilot projects, including the Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC) headquarters at the Washington Navy Yard. In 1997, the Navy also initiated development of an online resource, the Whole Building Design Guide (WBDG) whose main mission is that of incorporating sustainability requirements into mainstream specifications and guidelines. A number of other Federal agencies have now joined this project, which is now managed by the National Institute of Building Sciences (NIBS) which is a nonprofit, nongovernmental organization that brings together representatives of government, as well as the professions, industry, labor, and consumer interests.

The green movement’s emergence as a significant force was mainly a consequence of many forward looking individuals and groups from all walks of life. As mentioned earlier, visionaries and innovative thinkers have for decades recognized the challenges and need for serious changes in how we react to and treat our environment. The championing of green issues by forward thinking politicians and celebrities played a pivotal role in addressing some of the environmental concerns that captivated the public’s imagination during the early years of this century. Hollywood celebrities like Robert Redford were among the earlier true believers and who has been promoting solar energy since the 1970s. Redford has also spent some 30 years on the board of the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), which is described by The New York Times as “One of the nation’s most powerful environmental groups.” Redford also avidly lobbied Congress in support of environmental legislation and has energetically campaigned on behalf of local initiatives to address climate change and wilderness preservation. Other Hollywood environmental friendly celebrities who embraced green building and environmental causes include Brad Pitt, Daryl Hannah, Ed Begley Jr., Ed Norton, Cameron Diaz, and Leonardo DiCaprio. This led to a wide array of stars to follow suit and make it an avocation to champion their favorite environmental and green causes, both in the United States and globally.

The green movement was further helped by “green politicians” from mayors to governors, to heads of state, in the United States, and the world over. An excellent example of this is Vice President Al Gore whose release in May 2006 of his academy award winning documentary film An Inconvenient Truth is credited with projecting global warming and climate change into the popular consciousness and raised public awareness of many issues including that our quality of life was endangered, that our water was contaminated with toxic chemicals, and that our natural resources were running out. Another well-known eco-friendly politician is California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger who made California a global leader on climate change when he signed into law the historical milestone Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, which commits the state to cut its greenhouse gas emissions by 80% below 1990 levels by 2050. Other eco-friendly politicians include Ralph Nadar, Former Presidential Candidate and a key leader of the Green Party in the United States; the left-wing mayor of London, Ken Livingstone (also known as “Red Ken”) who aimed at making London the greenest city in the world. Livingstone also announced plans for a housing development in East London that would produce no carbon emissions.

Angela Merkel, German chancellor and current leader of the G8, former environment minister, and an outspoken advocate for action against climate change; New Zealand’s prime minister, Helen Clark, who pledged to make Kiwiland the first carbon-neutral country by reducing emissions and offsetting the rest; Former European Union environment minister Margot Wallström (1999–2004) was a leader in convincing every last E.U. member to ratify the Kyoto Protocol in 2002, and an outspoken critic of the United States’s failure to ratify it; from Kenya, we have Wangari Maathai, founder of the Green Belt Movement, which promotes peace and good governance through environmental protection and who has inspired Kenyans to plant 30 million trees since it began in 1977. She is best known as winner of the 2004 Nobel Peace Prize for “her contribution to sustainable development, democracy, and peace.” From China, we have Xie Zhenhua, Chinese Vice Minister of state development and reform and former environment minister. He has promoted environmental protection as a national policy and sustainable practices for China’s rapidly expanding economy. His work was honored with the United Nations’ Sasakawa Environment Prize in 2003.

President-elect Barack Obama stated that he plans to make the White House more environmentally friendly to set an example for other Americans. In fact, President-elect Obama has always been an outspoken vocal advocate for sustainability with regard to both the environment and the economic stimulus. He also frequently stressed the need to build a green economy to maintain America’s competitive edge in the global labor market, while reducing our impact on the environment. For example, investments in a smart electric grid and energy-efficient homes, offices, and appliances will go a long way to reducing our overall energy consumption as a nation. This partially explains why upon taking office, President Obama put green building at the forefront of his sustainability agenda and proposed expanding federal grants that assist states and municipalities to build LEED-certified public buildings. Jerry Yudelson a well-known green activist believes, “The impact of the Obama administration on green building is going to be to make it a permanent part of the economic, cultural and financial landscape.” The President is making great strides toward changing our energy future. And one of his first acts was endorsing the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. This would pump more than $825 billion into the US economy via tax cuts, publicly funded investments in infrastructure and workforce development. This ambitious Recovery Act which President Obama constituted is an unprecedented and historic investment in the clean energy economy and is primarily designed to bolster clean technologies. He also believes that investments in clean energy today will lead to the industries of the future and help put America back in the lead of the global clean energy economy in addition to creating millions of new green jobs in the United States.

Obama first set out his climate ambitions on June 2013, telling students at Georgetown University: “I refuse to condemn your generation and future generations to a planet that’s beyond fixing.” Since then, President Obama has taken action on all of the goals set out in the plan to cut carbon pollution, prepare the United States for climate change, and help reach a global warming deal. Moreover, in 2015 the president also used his executive power to bring about a great many climate initiatives.

A recent report by climate change consultants ICF International (ICFI) commissioned by Greenpeace reports that the proposed “Green New Deal” environmental measures included in President Obama’s $800bn economic stimulus package is calculated to deliver minimum greenhouse gas emissions savings of 61 million tons a year, which if correct is very significant as it is the equivalent of taking approximately 13 million cars off the road—and possibly more.

Green movement activist, Lindsay McDuff, says, “When politicians create or formulate policies, the business industries are consequently affected. With the rise in green policy, business executives from every arena are jumping on the green movement bandwagon, basically out of the growing market demand. Being green has become a selling advantage in the business world, and eager companies are starting to jump at the chance to get ahead.” The green movement today has become global and consists of miscellaneous individuals, activist groups, and diverse organizations seeking eco-friendly solutions to global environmental concerns negatively afflicting society and the planet.

The advent and implementation of green building and sustainability concepts signals a fundamental change in our approach to how we design and construct buildings today. It is clear that the green building phenomenon has over the last two to three decades, significantly impacted both the United States and global construction markets. Numerous environmental studies have consistently shown that buildings in the United States consume roughly one-third of all primary energy produced and nearly two-thirds of electricity produced. Recent research also shows that roughly 30% of all new and renovated buildings in the United States contain inferior indoor environmental quality as a result of an unacceptable level of noxious emissions, pathogens, and emittance of harmful substances that are found to exist in traditional building materials. Efforts have been in place for sometime to address these negative environmental impacts including the implementation of modern sustainability practices in green building construction projects. But the implementation and incorporation of sustainable practices into traditional design and construction procedures is an approach that requires redefining and reassessing the current roles played by project participants in the design and construction process to help guarantee effective contribution to a sustainable project’s objectives. To achieve a successful sustainable design typically requires applying a multidisciplinary and integrated “total” team approach that incorporates the various project members and stakeholders into the decision-making process, particularly during the early design phases. This holistic team approach helps to ensure that the building project will culminate in a more productive, energy-efficient, and healthier building for both its occupants and its owner. Likewise, the negative impact on the environment will be less than with conventional buildings.

The 1990s saw the introduction of important new environmental rating systems for buildings. And as international awareness of green issues increased, various international conferences were taking place such as the Green Building Challenge (GBC) held in Vancouver, Canada in October 1998, which was led by CANMET Energy Technology Centre of Natural Resources Canada. This event was a well-attended affair with representatives from 14 nations. The goal of these conferences was to create an international environmental rating system for buildings that takes into account regional and national environmental, economic, and social equity conditions.

The green building movement encouraged various parallel efforts to take shape. For example, in the United Kingdom the Building Research Establishment introduced its own environmental building rating system in 1990, known as BREEAM, which is one of the world’s leading sustainability assessment methods for master planning projects, infrastructure, and buildings. Among other things, it addresses a number of life cycle stages such as New Construction and Refurbishment. According to BREEAM, there are globally now more than 539,400 BREEAM certified developments, and almost 2,233,000 buildings registered for assessment since it was first established in 1990. Indeed, BREEAM sets standards for best practice in sustainable building design and construction and has become a widely recognized measure of a building’s environmental performance.

In the United States, we witness the founding of the USGBC, which in 1998, developed the LEED Green Building Rating System. LEED has become the leading and most widely accepted green building rating system in the United States as witnessed by its dramatic growth over recent years.

Additionally, we continue to see a dramatic increase in the number of projects seeking LEED certification from the USGBC, which tends to confirm the significant inroads green building is making into the mainstream design and construction industry. While many builders were initially reluctant to participate in or even encourage the green movement especially during its formative stages, this reluctance rapidly diminished as more and more developers and clients jumped on the green building bandwagon and the construction industry too is now making serious efforts to embrace this initiative. This was reinforced in January, 2016 when Brandon Tinianov, Vice President of business development, joined the USGBC Advisory Council. Mr Tinianov will leverage his industry leadership, extensive experience in sustainability, and perspective to help support the USGBC Board of Directors’ efforts to promote environmental and social responsibility around the way buildings and communities are designed, built, and operated. The use of LEED outside the United States also continues to grow rapidly. In fact, as of August 2015, approximately 43% of all square footage pursuing LEED certification existed in countries outside the United States. In the United States, there is more than 13.8 billion square feet of building space that is LEED-certified (as of August 2015).

According to Green Building Facts, published by the USGBC (February 23, 2015), “675.9 million square feet of real estate space became LEED certified in 2014, the largest area ever to become LEED certified in a single calendar year, and a 13.2% increase in total certified square-footage from 2013. 2015 looks to be another record-breaking year with 2870 projects certified representing nearly 464 million square feet of real estate as of August 1, 2015.” It is no secret therefore that since its inception, the LEED rating system has grown to become an international forum in the United States and some 150 countries and territories around the world including Canada, China, the United Arab Emirates, Italy, Israel, and India. India ranks third globally for countries outside of the United States with the most LEED-certified space, with nearly 12 million square meters, according to a recent report released by USGBC. One of the Indian Green Building Council’s declared objectives, for example, was to achieve 1 sq. ft. of green building for every Indian by 2012. The council’s chairman, Prem C. Jain, recently stated that India already has an estimated 240 million sq. ft. of green buildings in place.

The Green Building Initiative (GBI) introduced the Green Globes rating system into the United States from Canada in 2004. Green Globes is essentially an online green building rating and certification tool that is mostly used in Canada and the USA. BOMA Canada licensed Green Globes for use for existing buildings in Canada and is administered by the GBI for new and existing buildings in the USA. Since then, the assessments have undergone numerous periodic updates including the addition of building types, the most recent included updates to new construction and office fit-ups modules.

As previously mentioned, there has been substantial interest relating to green building issues; yet the amount of money allocated to research of green building has been minimal at best, constituting a mere 0.2% of all federally funded research which roughly comes to $193 million annually. This amount compares to a meager 0.02% of the estimated $1 trillion value of buildings annually constructed in the United States, while the building construction industry represents over 10% of the U.S. GDP. The Federal government is one of several relevant funding sources that should be encouraged to provide appropriate financial support to these research programs which have readily attainable strategies. We cannot progress forward toward achieving sustainability unless we significantly improve our green building practices. Failing to do so will have tragic consequences and generate an unduly negative impact on our ecosystem for years to come. To avoid these tragic consequences, the building industry and sustainability professionals need to make a determined effort to find ways of reducing the carbon footprint.

The many challenges we currently face of various sustainability issues, such as global warming, water shortages, indoor environmental quality issues, and destruction of our ecosystem, are mind boggling. It has been clearly documented that conventionally constructed buildings contribute substantially to the environmental problems that are emerging in industrialized countries like the United States, Germany, and China. For example, it has been estimated that current building operations in the United States account for about 38% of its carbon dioxide emissions and 71% of electricity use. Likewise, the Environmental Information Administration (EIA) in 2008 estimated that building operations accounted for almost 40% of total energy use; the latter number increases to an estimated 48% if the energy required making building materials and constructing buildings are included. It is further estimated that buildings annually consume about 13.6% of the country’s potable water and according to EPA estimates, wastes from demolition, construction, and remodeling amount to 136 million tons of landfill additions annually; additionally, construction and remodeling of buildings accounts for 3 billion tons or roughly 40% of raw material used globally each year. And as the population in the United States continues to grow at its current pace from 306 million in 2009 to an estimated 370 million by 2030, the pressure and negative impact on our environment will also continue to increase, unless urgent measures are taken to appropriately adjust consumption patterns to meet these challenges.

Numerous examples of the significant impact that green building research has had and continues to have on society can be seen by the impact of carbon emissions on global warming which continues to receive national and international attention. This has resulted in several organizations like the AIA, ASHRAE, USGBC, and the Construction Specifications Institute, collectively adopting what has become to be known as the 2030 Challenge. This essentially consists of a series of goals and benchmarks for the architectural and engineering community to compare each building’s design against the carbon footprint of similar buildings. But the main goal being that all new construction will have net zero carbon emissions by the year 2030, and that an equivalent amount of existing square footage will be renovated to use half of its previous energy use. The 2030 Challenge applies the Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS) to benchmark energy use in kBtu per sf; this allows a generalized correlation to the reduction of each building’s carbon footprint. This goal will add a new dimension to the use of energy analysis as a tool to predict a building’s carbon footprint, and this carbon footprint analysis will likely encourage increased measurement and verification in order to determine the status of each building upon completion. Should a building underperform or not perform according to design expectations, energy modeling, and commissioning groups can diagnose prevailing operation issues in order to determine how best to rectify them.

In March 2007, the United Nations came out with a report: Buildings and Climate Change: Status, Challenges and Opportunities that clearly reaffirms buildings’ role in global warming. In that respect, Achim Steiner, UN Under-Secretary General and UNEP Executive Director says, “Energy efficiency, along with cleaner and renewable forms of energy generation, is one of the pillars upon which a decarbonized world will stand or fall. The savings that can be made right now are potentially huge and the costs to implement them relatively low if sufficient numbers of governments, industries, businesses, and consumers act.” He goes on to say, “This report focuses on the building sector. By some conservative estimates, the building sector world-wide could deliver emission reductions of 1.8 billion tonnes (1 tonne = 1000 kilograms = 2025 pounds) of CO₂. A more aggressive energy efficiency policy might deliver over two billion tonnes or close to three times the amount scheduled to be reduced under the Kyoto Protocol.” But if we seriously intend to meet the 2030 Challenge, a dramatic change in our current methodology and knowledge of building energy and sustainability issues is required.

Today’s construction industry is facing unprecedented and growing pressures, due partly to a global economic crisis, rising material costs, an increase in natural disasters, and the dramatic impact of the green consumer among other things. Together these trends have motivated the industry to increasingly reevaluate and revise its position by adopting sustainable design and eco-friendly construction methods in a serious effort to build more efficient buildings designed to conserve energy and water, improve building operations, enhance the health and well-being of the general population, and minimize negative impacts on the environment.

Over the years, the market share of green building has continued to develop and increase, partly due to a growing public awareness in addition to the unprecedented level of state and local government interest and initiatives, such as the application of various incentive-based techniques to encourage green building practices. However, these efforts have not been totally successful due to a number of obstacles and challenges that were encountered along the way, particularly the high cost of these new incentive programs, and issues and stumbling blocks relating to implementation and the lack of adequate resources. In an effort to assist communities in overcoming these obstacles, the AIA commissioned a report, Local Leaders in Sustainability – Green Incentives, which defines and explains these various programs, scrutinizes the main challenges that must be overcome to succeed, and highlights examples of best practices.

The value of private construction in 2013 was $627.2 billion, 8.5% (±1.5%) above the $577.9 billion spent in 2012. Residential construction in 2013 was $330.7 billion, 18.0% (±2.1%) above the 2012 figure of $280.3 billion and nonresidential construction was $296.5 billion, 0.4% (±1.5%) below the $297.7 billion in 2012.”

In December, the estimated seasonally adjusted annual rate of public construction spending “was $266.6 billion, 2.3% (±1.8%) below the revised November estimate of $272.8 billion. Educational construction was at a seasonally adjusted annual rate of $58.2 billion, 7.2% (±3.1%) below the revised November estimate of $62.7 billion. Highway construction was at a seasonally adjusted annual rate of $84.0 billion, 1.8% (±3.9%)∗ above the revised November estimate of $82.5 billion. The value of public construction in 2013 was $271.2 billion, 2.8% (±1.8%) below the $279.0 billion spent in 2012. Educational construction in 2013 was $62.4 billion, 8.4% (±3.1%) below the 2012 figure of $68.2 billion and highway construction was $81.1 billion, 1.0% (±4.9%) above the $80.4 billion in 2012.” It should be noted that McGraw-Hill Construction’s name was later changed to Dodge Data & Analytics.

Green projects generally represent a diverse cross section of the construction industry. For example, roofing companies are increasingly making the determination to focus on green technologies that allow their customers to harness the energy rooftop solutions can provide. Most of these companies are however aware that if they are to be successful in meeting the challenges that green technology presents, will require reexamining how their company is to operate, in addition to making a serious commitment financially, in terms of manpower, green technologies, equipment, training, and education in green fundamentals. It also helps to have employees that are LEED certified.

Year after year, we observe an increasingly positive economic impact of new green technologies as is clearly evident in numerous industries such as the plumbing industry which is spurring economic growth for plumbing contractors around the country. Plumbing contractors are taking an active role and are pursuing actions to take advantage of the sustainable opportunities such as pushing for the installation of water and energy-efficient systems, and through the installation and use of green technologies, to promote energy efficiency and water conservation.

From the very beginning, it was the project designers and property owners/developers as stakeholders, who have played a pivotal role in pursuing sustainable design and green construction practices, and it was they who became the driving force of the built environment concept. With both the source (designer/consultant) and the end user (owner) increasingly adopting sustainable design practices, and with the belief that green building will continue to grow, it became obvious that the contractor/builder had to take on a modified role if green building projects were to be successfully executed; he or she had to become an active member of the project team along with the architect, mechanical/electrical/civil/structural engineer, landscape designer, etc. Experienced builders have much to offer in terms of input on aspects like specifications, system performance, material selection, minimizing construction waste, etc. The contractor can also assist in the achieving of a green project’s overall objectives by streamlining construction and applying value engineering practices, etc.

Recent surveys have found that concern over first costs remains the primary barrier to green building. But much of the latest research conducted on the costs and benefits of green buildings come to the same conclusion that energy and water savings on their own, outweigh the initial cost premium in most green buildings and the median increase that green buildings may incur (if at all) is less than 2% when compared with constructing conventional nongreen buildings. This should dispel the myth and public perception that green buildings are much more expensive than conventional buildings. A recently published international study, Greening Buildings and Communities: Costs and Benefits concluded that “Most green buildings cost 0–4% more than conventional buildings, with the largest concentration of reported ‘green premiums’ between 0% and 1%. Green premiums increase with the level of greenness but most LEED™ buildings, up through gold level, can be built for the same cost as conventional buildings.”

This report according to Henry Kelly, President of the Federation of American Scientists, “provides the first large-scale data resource on the cost and benefits of green buildings and sustainable community designs.” Finally, Greg Kats, the above study’s lead author and a Managing Director of Good Energies one of the study’s main supporters, says, “The deep downturn in real estate has not reduced the rapid growth in demand for and construction of green buildings,” which “suggests a flight to quality as buyers express a market preference for buildings that are more energy efficient, more comfortable and healthier.” This is reaffirmed by the study which determined that productivity and health benefits are a major motivating factor for building green. In fact, according to Harvey Bernstein, Vice President of Industry Insights and Alliances at McGraw-Hill Construction, “The acceleration of the green building marketplace around the world is creating markets for green building products and technologies, which in turn will lead to faster growth of green building.” Bernstein currently serves as a member of the Princeton University Civil and Environmental Engineering Advisory Council and is also a member of the Board of Trustees of the National Building Museum and the World G reen Building Council.

Finally, a new national green building code has been approved. This new International Green Construction Code (IgCC) that has recently been approved applies to all new and renovated commercial buildings and residential buildings over three stories high. Likewise, The International Code Council (ICC) and ASHRAE have signed the final agreement that outlines each organization’s role in the development and maintenance of the new version of the IgCC. The new code, which is scheduled to be released in 2018, will include ASHRAE Standard 189.1, Standard for the Design of High-Performance, Green Buildings Except Low-Rise Residential Buildings developed using the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) approved ASHRAE consensus process.

The IgCC code is indeed a historic code that sets mandatory baseline standards for all aspects of building design and construction, including energy and water efficiency, site impacts, building waste, and materials. The new codes differ from LEED in several ways. For example, the new code creates a mandatory “floor” which stipulates enforceable minimum standards on all aspects of building design and construction that now must be reached. LEED certification, on the other hand, is voluntary, and some building owners do not aspire to achieve it. Therefore unlike LEED and Green Globes certifications, the new US green codes will thus raise the standards for all buildings.

It should be noted that the 2013 California Green Building Standards Code, or CALGreen, established by the California Building Standards Commission, went into effect January 1, 2014. California first adopted CALGreen in 2010, when it became the first statewide mandatory green building code in the country. The Code establishes minimum green building standards through uniform regulations of most new residential and nonresidential California buildings. The regulations are intended to reduce construction waste, make buildings more efficient in the use of materials and energy, and reduce environmental impacts during and after construction.