Green Roof Resource

A few weeks ago, I participated in a conference call for bloggers to learn more about the green building efforts of Genzyme, a biotech company focused on diagnostic testing, pharmaceuticals, and medical treatments. In addition to its headquarters building in Cambridge, Massachusetts (a LEED Platinum building), Genzyme has several additional buildings seeking LEED as well as a few green buildings internationally.

What I found most interesting were the efforts to green research laboratories. Genzyme is presently seeking Silver LEED accreditation for its research laboratory in Framingham, Massachusetts and has a proposed research building in Beijing, China. Much of the work in the Framingham laboratory focused on lighting and daylighting, radiant heating and cooling, and a highly reflective roof. One of the challenges with laboratories is the added energy expense of once-through air systems. Achieving LEED standards for laboratories can be more difficult than standard commercial buildings as laboratory buildings are more energy and water intensive (the average wet lab uses five times as much water and energy as a typical office building per square foot).

Yesterday the House Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality (part of the Committee on Energy and Commerce) held a hearing focusing on building energy efficiency as one method of tackling CO2 emissions. The subcommittee is presently developing and understanding various potential mechanisms to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 60-80% by 2050 in a manner that limits costs to the economy and maximizes the efficiency of a mandatory climate change program. They have produced a white paper that analyzes cap-and-trade program options. While developing cap-and-trade programs will most likely focus on large-scale stationary sources and transportation, yesterday’s hearing demonstrated that members of Congress recognize and are exploring the significant reductions that can occur through improving the energy efficiency of our buildings. Wahoowa!

One of the facts that was mentioned multiple times during the hearing is that building stock represents 40% of total US greenhouse gas emissions. To reduce emissions by 60-80% by 2050, improvements in building efficiency must be made. The committee recognizes that sizable reductions can be made through improved building energy efficiency. Last year the committee and the House passed a new building code to states to advance energy efficiency, but the legislation was stopped by Senate action. The witnesses spoke of several different programs and efforts to formulate a national building energy efficiency policy. The challenge appears to be to create incentives to further energy efficiency without setting standards that are unachievable or of limited use depending upon the location of a building project.

Here are a few of programs and efforts that were mentioned in the hearing:
The 30% solution: The Energy Efficient Codes Coalition has launched a campaign to improve residential energy efficiency standards by 30% from the 2006 international energy code standards. In September, this will be decided at the International Code Council Annual Conference in Minneapolis, Minnesota. The 30% solution is designed to be achievable, affordable, and enforceable. This is the most promising effort for enforceable change in building construction at the moment, but we’ll see where this stands in two months time.

“Beyond code”: This was another often used phrase yesterday. This refers to voluntary program such as EnergyStar. I’ve mentioned EnergyStar before, but another source for energy efficiency ideas is EnergySavers, which provides energy information and tips from DOE, EPA, and HUD.

With representatives talking about efficiency targets and executive agencies and departments collaborating, change is certainly coming. Who knew that “state of the shelf” technologies could be so exciting?

Here’s an update on NYC green roof policy incentives as discussed previously. According to an article in Greener Buildings, bill A 11226 passed the state assembly on June 23rd. The senate had previously passed the bill on June 11th. For buildings that green at least half of the roof surface, they may receive a one-time tax credit of $4.50 per square foot (up to $100,000) of green roof.

So how does $4.50 per square foot compare with the cost of a green roof? In our study on the costs and benefits of extensive green roof systems, which included costs to install the conventional components in addition to the green components, we found that 4 inch systems were on average $22 per square foot. An intensive system would certainly cost more, and there are certainly variations in this price. Assuming this price per square foot, the incentive covers about 20% of the cost. By reducing the upfront cost with an incentive, the time required for a return on investment (ROI) is reduced considerably. Considering only energy savings and a reduced stormwater fee, typically the average green roof takes 20 years before ROI can be reached. With the additional incentive, this can reduce the time required for an average roof to 12 years. Not a bad deal.

With Wall Street officially in a bear market, I was curious to see what effects if any the subprime mortgage mess and other woes have had on the environmental field.

Simply hired, an online job search service and aggregator, provides data on the number of postings over time with specific terms. While this is only as good as the aggregator and doesn’t reflect hiring, I found the results interesting. I looked at four general terms within job postings: sustainability, environmental engineer, environmental scientist, and green building. The first and last terms fit into the growing “green collar jobs” while the middle two are more traditional job areas for environmentally minded folk. What I found interesting is that while those “green collar jobs” are growing (by 47% for “sustainability” and 16% for “green building”), they represent a fraction of jobs in the sector. What is more disconcerting is that the general trend since November of 2006 in posts for environmental engineer and environmental science decreases by by 37% and 42% respectively. The postings for these positions are ten times the number of those with sustainability or green building in them. With that in mind, while “green collar jobs” are growing, those traditional environmental job postings are disappearing at an alarming rate. Where’s a bull when you need one?

Sustainability, Environmental Engineer, Green Building, Environmental Science trends

Sustainability jobs | Environmental Engineer jobs | Green Building jobs | Environmental Science jobs