Capitalism versus “Greenism”

Over the course of the past several decades, the world has become much more energy-conscious. This trend actually began in the mid-1970's during the first energy crisis in the U.S. which was brought about by the Arab Oil Embargo. As Americans watched the cost of energy in general, and gasoline in particular, skyrocket, they rushed to find ways to stave off the siphoning of money from their wallets. Other, less-severe energy crises since then have served to make Americans more aware of their energy consumption. The federal government's mandated Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards is evidence of the government mandating personal behavior of citizens in the name of conservation.

---

The movement toward energy conservation has permeated nearly every aspect of our everyday lives - not just with regard to the vehicles that we drive. This trend has continued unabated for the past three-plus decades and has given us such marvels of modern technology as toilets that will not flush completely, clothes washers that do not wash well, and light bulbs that provide insufficient amounts of light. These mandates do a wonderful job of making us feel good by giving us the often-mistaken impression that we are being good stewards of our planet. However, they are of little practical value as we merely flush our toilets two or more times, rewash clothes that do not come clean, and turn on every single light in a hotel room so that we can see (I speak from experience on the latter). In 1998, the US Green Building Council was founded. The mission of the USGBC and its Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design (LEED) certification is, "To transform the way buildings and communities are designed, built and operated, enabling an environmentally and socially responsible, healthy, and prosperous environment that improves the quality of life." This mission statement, while noble in nature on the face, is nothing more than an entity attempting to force its will upon the populace. The USGBC is well-known for its close ties to the United Nations - an organization, it could be argued, that does NOT have the best interests of the United States as its driving force. As a matter of fact, the USGBC has on its staff, a Senior Vice President of Global Policy & Law, a Mr. Roger Platt, JD. Mr. Platt, according to the USGBC's web site, has served on the United Nations Environment Programme. His job description, again from the group's web site, includes, "...managing policy and legal aspects related to the increasingly global adoption of the LEED green building certification program." Legal aspects relating to global policy and law? Does this not sound like an infringement upon the sovereignty of the United States? Consider this: If you, as a developer or builder (or as a consumer - i.e., a potential homeowner) have the choice of constructing a building or a development that is either (a) energy efficient and environmentally friendly, or (b) NOT efficient, purely economic motivation is going to steer you toward the former rather than the latter, is it not? Why then, do we need a splinter group of the United Nations telling us how we should be constructing our buildings? Liberals will argue that we need guidelines to ensure compliance with environmental and energy efficiency "standards". Conservatives will counter that market forces will drive us toward those practices that will yield the best return on investment. In other words, the desire to save money in the long-term - NOT a group of elitists mandating it - will motivate people toward the most energy efficient building practices.   The USGBC is a large machine generating positive cash flow for no one but itself. It has even been alleged that, in some instances, LEED-certified buildings have been proven to be LESS energy-efficient than non-LEED-certified structures. As noted above, although USGBC is seemingly altruistic in its motivations, the aforementioned developer’s desire to see his or her dollars go as far as possible should be the driving influence for that entity's decision to construct a building that is as energy efficient as practicable. How far shall we allow Gore-like tacticians - especially tacticians with allegiances to the United Nations - to go insofar as dictating to Americans how Americans' buildings will be constructed?  In other words, should we not allow capitalism – rather than "greenism" - to be our guiding influence?  For more information: usgbc.org/ greensource.construction.com