–

Thanks for saying what many of us are thinking. I am often struck by the lack of serious examination of many of the studies that have been put out by green building advocates–the work of the USGBC, NBI, McGraw-Hill, NREL, Co-Star, GSA and others deeply vested in promulgating a particular brand of green building. The question is not whether this particular study by NAIOP is put out by folks with an ideological bias, rather it should simply be a detailed analysis of the study itself and its degree of usefulness. It is very much as you suggest, a case of protesting too much. The source of the ire is not that this is a bad study, but that it is a study by a large and powerful organization in the real estate industry that casts doubt on some of the shibboleths of the green building industry.

Studies should be constructed (and can thus be crtiqued) in two basic ways. For a good study, both a robust and relevant data set(s) and a coherently structured methodological armature are necessary. In additon, one must be transparent with both the data set(s) and the methodology. There can be no black box gaming of the system (as for example the BEES tool from NIST). For example, the Greg Kats studies that are so often cited are clearly lacking in these basic elements to count as cognizable studies of value. The recent NBI study put out under the auspices of the USGBC suffers from fatal methodological flaws. Anyone in the sciences knows that added to these basic requirements is the additional necessity to repeat the study for any palusible viability. Given the economic circumstances which have resulted from the recent capitulation to access capitalism, it is best to remember that marketing hype only goes so far. It would be too bad if the realm of sustainable building also capitulated to a form of access capitalism buttressed by marketeering slogans of market transformation. Market transformation can often mean simply that a new set of folks are to reap the benefits of special access to power and revenue, not to mention legislating advantageous circumstances to create a governmentally sanctioned scheme to concentrate wealth in the hands of the few.

For an example of an early, more thorough, study of a canoncial green building, the Lewis Center at Oberlin, please see the work of Scofield at http://www.oberlin.edu/physics/Scofield/ASHRAEcomment.htm. The simple fact is that many of the studies in the area do not stand up to basic scrutiny and yet as long as they continue to provide succor for various ideologically based positions about green buildings, they are allowed to stand, and in many cases, thrive.

This is a much larger problem related to the politicization of science and the basic way in which vested interests of all political persuasions seek to control information flows. Any studies or information that casts doubt on the validity of the chosen way is to be vilified or demonized. A rather sad outcome and certainly not, I think, the dominant sentiment of many of those that see sustainable buildngs, design, construction and planning as an ethical calling demanding real creativity, honesty, and serious questioning of the status quo. By the way, without a thorough economic, technical/building science, and legal/risk management analysis, no meaningful policy in this area can be implemented.

Well, the protest in this case was predictable because every building is unique, bespoke and therefore (arguably) beyond modelling. However, if the alternative is to shutup and follow current versions of LEED then we’re all worse off. In large part, LEED’s success (BTW it hasn’t caught up to EnergyStar) can be accounted for by its “scalability”: a catalogue of rating systems; different levels of achievement; some points more easy to achieve than others; more points to be had in one area than another; and always recourse to a credit interpretation request. Enter LEED 2009 (the King of Denmark?)….

The oldest national, energy-efficiency programmes in North America (R-2000 in my country and EnergyStar in yours) have relied heavily on the use of models and research. So, whatever one thinks of ConSol’s study, it is what it is – an analytical construct. The critics should now show us their models.

The amusing thing amidst the furor is – wait for it – if any of these measures were to become the metric for a government energy-efficiency, sustainability, or building performance programme they would first have to be run through a policy model. So choose: Would you rather have a building scientist, or a micro-economist have first cut at your programme?

By bringing these people to the table early, project owners will establish specific, quantifiable goals that they will work to achieve throughout the process.

The line that I particularly like is: “until we get studies that are grounded in actual performance-related data, it is dangerous to advocate for policies that are based on energy models.” This is straight from UV’s mouth! An objective statement that requires evidence to support conclusions.

Great post!

Mark

Thanks for the post.