5
Is KB Home commiting a "random act of greenness"?
Joel Makower reflects upon the evolving definition of greenwash in a recent post titled, "How Bad is Greenwashing, Really?" He explains how greenwash in the late 80's and early 90's referred to "deliberate and cynical attempts by companies to mislead the public."
Fast forward to 2008, and corporate America has moved beyond abject denial and cover up to a phenomenon Makower calls "Random Acts of Greenness." They recognize that the public is demanding environmental responsibility, and are taking steps to do better (often motivated by the good PR that follows). Now the concern is that 'sustainability' is such a new concept among the general public that we have trouble evaluating the significance of these corporate green claims.
Case in point: KB Home recently announced a company-wide commitment that all communities opening in 2009 will meet "Energy Star" certification.
Is this greenwash?
The cynic in me wants to shake a tsk-tsk finger at them and say, "Great, green suburban single-family home development on green field sites. Big deal. That's like a 'green' 12-mile-per-gallon Hummer with recycled carpet and bamboo trim." It's their urban sprawl development pattern that is unsustainable.
However, this does represent a significant commitment on their part. Energy Star is not the norm. And they're only able to make the commitment because they see a market of consumers asking for green homes. For a business to stay in business, there must be a market for their product. They could commit to only building carbon-neutral, net-zero energy homes on urban infill sites, but they would soon be out of business. The American public isn't asking for that product...yet. Maybe this effort will even drive demand.
I'm inclined to restrain my cynicism and say, "Bravo HB Homes, well done."
Jim's last comment about cost of ownership is right on. If builders did more to educate home buyers about the cost of ownership, home buyers could see that the added cost of Energy Star homes is more then offset by the energy savings.
The question is: when will builders recognize this need and start an education effort?
Some builders have said to me that they are in business to sell homes, not educate the public, go figure that response.
I have quite a different take on this.
I call greenwash for two reasons:
1: Energy Star is a third-party certified program(which I like), but an unambitious standard.
2: Energy Star is already standard on homes for many production builders (like KB).
Energy Star is - in some states - significantly more energy efficient than code. On a national basis, however, it's merely 20-30% better than most homes. It's difficult for federal standards to keep pace with new practices. We've been learning about energy efficient homes for 40 years, now, and Energy Star is nowhere near as efficient as what can be easily built. European countries have much higher standards (although not necessarily federally backed ones), for example, the UK's <a href="http://www.carbonlite.org.uk/carbonlite/energystandards.php">Carbon Lite</a> and Germany's <a href="http://www.passivehouse.us/passiveHouse/PHIUSHome.html">Passive House.</a>
Several production builders - the ones who do entire single-family subdivisions - already build tons of Energy Star homes. Codes and use vary by state, but <a href="https://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=new_homes.hm_index">look up</a> your favorite big builder (Centex? Pulte?) in one or two states and see if they're already building hundreds or even thousands of Energy Star homes. Several companies already certify all or nearly all of their homes.
Whether they market them that way or not is another question. KB is in the lead only on marketing what they're already doing.
Thanks for the comments, Janne. While I agree that Energy Star represents a modest improvement over conventional practice, I believe that's really the point. Change is incremental and we won't see the U.S. new housing market change over night. According to the EPA, only 12% of new homes met the Energy Star standard in 2007, so I do believe that a large builder's move to build 100% Energy Star homes represents a significant commitment and not just greenwash.
http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?fuseaction=qhmi.showHomesMarketIndex
It's also a question of scale of implementation. A 20-30% reduction in energy use for hundreds of thousands of Energy Star production homes has a far bigger positive impact nationally than a handful (literally) of carbon neutral homes with no market penetration and extremely limited consumer demand. That's not to say that these kinds of homes don't provide tangible demonstrations of the future, but I feel like KB is pushing in the right direction in a proactive but realistic manner that will allow them to stay in business.
Thanks for the post, Harold. Your first comment parallels Janne's, in that you question the degree of change necessary to qualify for green (a 20-30% improvement isn't green, it must be at least 50%). Please see my response to Janne's post on that issue.
Regarding cost, one of our designers is fond of saying "more costs more" which is often true. I don't think we as consumers are accustomed to thinking in terms of cost of ownership and we often see only the sticker price. I remember hearing about a consumer study in the U.S. that went something like this(as well as my feeble memory can recall): Two refrigerators were presented side-by-side. One was $25 more expensive than the other, but it would use $50/year less in electricity. That is, after 6 months of operation, it would pay for itself providing $50/year in savings thereafter. They found that a majority of respondents said they would buy the less efficient model because "it was cheaper."
As energy costs continue to rise, that break-even point for efficiency investments gets closer and closer.
The "Green" label seems to be more about marketing the same old thing with a some low cost ceremonial add-ons (Like a few more inches of insulation in the attic and energy star appliances) that don't do much more than give the marketer an excuse to charge much higher prices. A true green home would be constructed significantly different to cut energy usage by at least half.
When someone pitches an energy saver product to me, and I object to its super high price, they always come back with "But look how much you are going to save." It is more about taking what I would pay to the utility company and paying it to the green marketer instead. That ruins the savings.
