I. Introduction
In the new millennium, professional builders and clients have recognized the major contribution of buildings to carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions worldwide. The control of building energy use and GHG emissions represents a major solution to the problem of expanding energy usage. Hence, architectural and design firms, engineering firms, specialized consulting firms, and even small architectural organizations have now turned to green methods in making new buildings. According to Yudelson (p. 3), they have subscribed to the LEED evaluating and rating systems. They lead the sustainable way to construction and design.
LEED is a green system which promotes the sustainability of the new buildings. The LEED designed buildings generate low costs in energy, water, and waste management expenses (p. 21). Green methods such as LEED also show more concrete benefits which include: health improvements, greater marketing and public relations, comfort, risk management and mitigation, increased productivity of building occupants, better recruitment and retention, and enhanced employee morale (p. 22).
Engineers should use green methods when they design buildings because they have the ability to conserve energy, protect of the environment and health and it costs less money. They must incorporate green measures in the total design and construction of their new building evaluation system. These include lightning control system, energy using equipment, lighting design, carpet and composite wood products, furnishings, furniture and fixtures, paints, carpet, sub-metering, among others (p. 134). These help transform the industry into a more energy efficient and environmental friendly through its proposed green designs/methods. The significant amount of savings and the satisfaction and efficiency performed through the program made it very ideal for consumers and professionals. In 2004, energy performance spelled out a $4.2 billion savings in operational costs (p. 125).
II. Green buildings conserve energy
Building heating and cooling are the most energy-intensive activities. This is followed by the use of electricity for lighting and appliances (Zhang & Cooke, p. 1). The ultimate goal of most construction companies should benefit their income while taking care of the environment and conserving energy. To do so, the company must improve its manufacturing and business operations to save on energy and materials as well as decrease wastes and emissions related with the processes of production (Esty & Winston, p. 54).
Green buildings save money and reduce environmental impacts since it is made up of biodegradable, non-polluting and recyclable products/materials. They also use reduced energy and water and reduce the use of hazardous chemicals in its design and creation (p. 52). The energy reduction for heating and cooling are also accomplished by ventilation, heat sinks, and the use of solar panel and enhanced insulation (Zhang & Cooke, p. 1). Integrated building design and the improvement of building shapes, materials and orientation can also reduce energy use (p. 1). Green method in buildings can also reduce greenhouse gas emissions by as much as 70-80% (p. 1).
A. Saving energy
The green building measures can save the energy use of existing buildings by 40 percent or more below today’s averages (Yudelson, p. 67). If the commercial features of green building and the prospects for major decrease in the emissions of carbon dioxide from buildings are to be realized, the mandate remains for the building performances of these rated and labeled “green buildings.” Green building benefits include energy and cost savings, risk management, among others (Townsend, p. 29). This attributes to a major reduction of the operating costs for green buildings for energy, most especially in the future years. The sustainable engineering design reduces the traditional energy usage of buildings by 25 to 30 percent or even more. This is because they integrate high efficiency systems and energy saving measures in the primary building concept and design (p. 30).
1. Lighting system
The application of the sustainable engineering design makes a crucial carbon reduction. Energy savings can be evidenced in the reduced costs of the lighting systems in a building. It also includes cost reduction in lighting control system, light pollution reduction, energy using equipment, use of renewable electricity, and lighting design (Building Green in Pennsylvania, p. 1). Aside from this, there are also increased reduction in the use of sustainable engineering design such as extra insulation, high quality glazing and solar control measures, among others (p. 1). It also makes use of lighting replacement from CFLs to LEDs, and other measures for reduced costs (p. 1). Electricity can be also be reduced through increased use of natural lighting and the use of energy-efficient appliances (Zhang & Cooke, p. 1).
2. Ventilation system
As economic activities remain buoyant, there is a good appreciation of the improved productivity. This is further improved through healthier and sustainable indoor air spaces which reduce additional costs from one to five percent of employee costs (Yudelson, p. 178). As such, high performance buildings are applying green building measures. Green building measures include site restoration, storm water control, green roof, improved air quality at occupancy, updated measurements and classifications, recycled content materials, among others. For instance, green buildings receive ample indoor air quality through the careful utility of low VOC or non VOC paints, sealants, carpets, adhesives, and coating for the base building and tenants’ improvements (p. 179).
A main product used in this respect is an SIP or structural insulated panels (SIPs). It is one of the most airtight and well insulated building systems in green buildings (Townsend, p. 73). An airtight SIP building reduces energy use in heating and cooling the structures. It also enables better control over indoor environmental conditions and lessened construction waste. Building with SIPs creates a superior building envelope with high thermal resistance and less air infiltration (p. 74).
B. Saving Water
Green methods aim to preserve the natural water cycle and design site and building improvements such that they follow the natural site’s “pre-development” hydrological systems (Building Green in Pennsylvania, p. 1). It should maximize the recycled and reuse of water and minimize the unimportant and inefficient use of potable water on the site. The LEED program which is common to green building designs and structures also render itself with cost reductions in water and waste management expenses (Yudelson, p. 180). Green building measures can decrease the water use of existing buildings by 40 percent or more below today’s averages (p. 181). Buildings using this standard make use of interior furnishings replacements, utility of carpets and adhesives; toilets and fixtures replacement with low-water elements;
If the commercial features of green building and the prospects for major decrease in the emissions of carbon dioxide from buildings are to be realized, the mandate remains for the building performances of these rated and labeled “green buildings.” Other implied benefits include energy and cost savings, risk management, among others.
C. Using natural materials
Green buildings use a big amount of natural resources to construct and operate. Its construction use natural resources more efficiently. It also minimizes pollution which can harm renewable natural resources. Green methods are also incorporated in the total design and construction of the building evaluation system. These include the replacement of synthetic with natural materials such as composite wood products, furnishings, furniture and fixtures, paints, among others (Geiger, p. 1). Examples of advantageous and locally available natural materials are those which are minimally processed natural building materials like straw, earth, stone, bamboo and small diameter wood, along with recycled products. These raw materials create low cost, safe and healthy sustainable housing. These are also builder friendly and minimally require tools. Natural materials are also gentle on the planet.
III. Protection of the environment and health
New designs for products and services with compliance to environmental standards can bring the impetus to innovate and lower the total production costs or make enhanced values or improvements. These innovations enable companies to utilize a range of inputs more creatively, starting from the first step of production to raw materials and energy consumption and labor management. Hence, these processes or innovations offset the costs of improving environmental impact and this ends in a stalemate. Ultimately, this enhanced resource productivity makes companies more competitive and the environment more viable and sustained (Lovins, Lovins & Hawken, p. 67). Specifically, the top ten environmental problems which green methods aim to eradicate are the following: climate change, energy, water, bio diversity and land use, chemicals, toxics and heavy metals, air pollution, waste management, ozone layer depletion, oceans and fisheries, and deforestation (Esty & Winston, p. 91).
A. Reduce the impacts on the natural environment
Greening the buildings can lessen their ecological costs by controlling pollution and managing the environment. Such examples include waste disposal and pollution-control tools, management costs and penalties for environmental mismanagement issues (p. 92). Through green methods, companies also study their whole value chain and how their companies affect the whole environment (p. 102). Commercial companies reduce their value chain costs through the reduction in their environmental and financial costs as they distribute their products. This is exemplified by a Swedish company, IKEA, which uses “flat packaging.” Through this, they save on their fuel costs by 15% (p. 101).
Ecological designing of interior spaces and whole buildings is also an integral part of redesigning commercial buildings. It is very useful because it reduces costs; improve workers’ productivity and attests to the companies’ environmental commitment (Yudelson, p. 170). The supply chain is also redesigned to install quality while applying social and environmental standards (Melaver & Mueller, p. 93).
In this respect, it is implied that green buildings are also part of the sustainable business operations in places where they operate. This basically involves the selection of energy and raw materials, especially toxic materials. Dangerous chemical must also be shoved off. By making the company environmentally sound, the outcomes will be positive in the present and future undertakings (p. 12).
B. Reduce pollution indoors
The Indoor Environmental Quality (IEQ) is an important aspect of green buildings. This is to ensure the comfort, well-being, and productivity of building occupants (Green Building Website, p. 1). The LEED IEQ aspect answers the design and construction issues such as air and light quality, including thermal quality. This is because various building materials, including cleaning and maintenance products emit pollution and toxic gases like VOC's and formaldehyde. These gases can have a detrimental impact on occupants' health and productivity as well. Banning these products enhance a building's IEQ.
1. Air
Indoor air quality is very critical. On the average, people in industrialized countries spend about 90% of their time indoors, especially inside their own homes (p. 1). Indoors can contain substances that are potentially health hazardous. This includes the common dust, major irritants like chemical vapor off-gassing from the newer synthetic building materials being used at present (p. 1).
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency reports that the medical and lost-productivity costs of workers who inhale poor air amounts to tens of billions of dollars annually (p. 1). This is only for the United States alone. Reducing indoor pollution and enhancing energy efficiency leads to better working conditions. This results in significant increase of worker productivity.
2. Light
In the manner, the quality of lighting and temperature comfort also affects worker conditions. According to OSHA, the total cost of poor indoor air quality to U.S. employers is estimated at $15 billion due to worker inefficiency and sick leave (p. 1). The reduction in lighting energy requirements must be at least 50 percent. Green methods also prescribe the cutting of heating and cooling energy consumption by 60 percent (p. 1).
IV. Green buildings cost less money
In various comparative studies of creating agreen building, it was found out that ultimately, “it costs something from zero to a nominal amount more to build green over the budget for a traditionally designed building” (“The True Costs of Building Green,” p. 1).
A. The budget to build
An owner of a building customarily knows that there is a 40 percent return on investment into going green or making a green building (p. 1). Investments are derived from the capital but annually, the operating budget does not totally fit. In a study entitled “Costing Green: A Comprehensive Cost Database and Budgeting Methodology,” Matthiessen and Morris of Davis Langdon, California specified that “the cost per square foot for buildings seeking basic LEED certification subsumes into the present range of costs for buildings of a similar program type. This implies that the building costs are relatively insignificant compared to the benefits that will be accrued by the occupants of the green building.
An assessment of such beneficial aspects of various studies whoed that the sum total of the financial benefits of green buildings are more than 10 times the average initial investment needed to design and construct a green building (p. 1). This menas that th ebenefits accrued to green methods such as energy savings far exceed the average increased cost linked with building green. These benefits and savings are the true value of such sustainable construction. For instance, if the productivity factor is increased by more than 1.5 percent throughout a 20-year term of a building, this equates to a $40 per square foot mor ein terms of the ultimate productivity (p. 1).
B. Maintenance costs
Because of the traditional value system, traditionally built structrues face an obsolence risk. On the contrary, green buildings do not face such risk. By the zero need for maintenance, it shows that the costs of green building are negligible (p. 1). This makes an attractive and easy to pay option for owners of buildings to choose green building or a “sustainable, high-performance building against a traditionally built building (p. 1).
With a 50 year life-cycle investment, green buildings are growing at a rate of 40 to 50 percent annually. As prices of energy increase, the risks of doing traditional design are also compounding. Hence, there is a greater obsolescence risk in such conventional construction. If one takes into account an average of 3 years or more to make a new building (from planning and design to occupancy), experts note that in 3 years, between 20 and 25 percent of new construction will be green. Hence, it will be smarter to build a green building today since it will have an enhanced value and a healthy and sustainable environment than one which merely meets the old building code. More importantly, the issue of maintenance will be more crucial in the future especially that we will need thousands of sustainable structures and buildings which will require less energy and water (p. 1).
V. Conclusion
The benefits of green buildings and/or green methods have been exemplified by various global companies. The green business trend made a very powerful impact on the way business design and innovate products and services. It also made various changes in the way products are packaged, marketed and sold. Generally, green business paved the way for renewed marketing and business strategies. It is founded on the principle of environmental stewardship and the care of the community. Companies adopt green principles, policies and practices to optimize their performance, both financial and socio-ecological (Townsend, p. 10).
In turn, companies who subscribe to the green methods also promote innovations in being green or more environmental consciousness as they serve their markets in order to attract more customers. They show that in the long run, financial success and sustainability can be both achieved by the companies which commit themselves to greening. They also illustrate how the environmental practices and new trends have contributed to their enhanced value and redeveloped value chain. They evidence the sustainable business operations and the applications of green principles, policies and practices. They have also shown how companies can improvise environmentally-friendly products and services. These developments have shaped how the political and social environment perceive and embrace the green methods and have contributed in their own ways towards adopting more changes towards environmentalism.
Work Cited:
“Building Green in Pennsylvania.” Governor’s Green Government Council. 2010. Accessed on 13 November 2012 < https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:eCuSC4lHpaQJ:www.epa.gov/statelocalclimate/documents/pdf/12_8_what_is_green_GGGC.pdf+&hl=en&gl=ph&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESjFdH5j3_svKE9TtZLX1srox_u6EHDVzEXDkkxNdzw5GtX2GdRAvbJWxH3UBpP1sEcxzxzxA8xddeHfPdWfbrKtn-6HJT3BBCZYolPRndsERZrMP96I8rm0HBXAP7kbMtgZ1Imj&sig=AHIEtbTa8jI9G53yy32NlnB88n787n9_AQ>.
Esty, D. & Winston, A. Green to Gold: How Smart Companies Use Environmental Strategy to Innovate, Create Value, and Build Competitive Advantage. New Jersey: Wiley, John & Sons, Incorporated. January, 2009. Print.
Geiger, O. The Case for Using Sustainable Building Materials. Mother Earth News Website. Accessed on 13 November 2012
Green Building Website. Indoor Air Quality. Accessed on 13 November 2012 < http://www.greenbuilding.com/knowledge-base/indoor-air-quality>.
Lovins, A., Lovins H., & Hawken, P. A Road Map for Natural Capitalism. Harvard Business Review. July 2007. Print.
Melaver, M. & Mueller, P. The Green Building Bottom Line: The Real Cost of Sustainable Building, 1st ed. New York: McGraw-Hill Professional. October, 2008. Print.
“The True Costs of Building Green.” Buildings Website. April 3, 2006. Accessed on 13 November 2012 < http://www.buildings.com/ArticleDetails/tabid/3334/ArticleID/3029/Default.aspx>.
Townsend, A. Green Business: A Five-part Model for Creating an Environmentally Responsible Company. Atglen, PA: Schiffer Publishing. November, 2006. Print.
Yudelson, Jerry. Marketing green buildings: guide for engineering, construction and architecture. Michigan: Fairmont Press. 2006. Print.
Zhang, F. & Cooke, P. Green Buildings and energy efficiency. Center for Advanced Studies. Cardiff University. Accessed on 13 November 2012 < https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:GtqsJ11myhgJ:www.dime-eu.org/files/active/0/Cooke-2010-Fang-Green-building-review.pdf+&hl=en&gl=ph&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESjEOeoDfRSD7lsbddYFOlFLdyqTx0hDbd8D7gJBuA960WjSj_DwrQf7kSmkpjRaXwPYO6Znme7Cgqi49Gfh9fXw3PcCkEvuOPF3AmITO8kHOneQUmTvxBNTA2Rc52f7eu2024dg&sig=AHIEtbTapfp1wc2rXnJzj8AZXhwhjoXIow>.
