Blog
The Great Green Caper – The Truth About Eco-Friendly Products in Construction
Posted by:Jack Arbess | Posted on: December 28th, 2011 | 0 Comments
In a 2010 study conducted by Terrachoice, an independent testing and certification organization, some very interesting and troubling facts were presented to consumers. As a construction professional for almost thirty years, and at the risk of sounding arrogant - I am neither shocked nor surprised. The misleading nature of most marketing efforts involving "green" or "eco-friendly" products is pervasive. In fact, according to the study 95% of "green" products are being greenwashed. Their study found that out of 5,296 products tested, only 265 were really as green as they claimed. As a consumer society that has fallen hook, line and sinker for these "green" campaigns we ought to be mad as hell. Now, I am not going to go on (too much) about how the current administration is completely fallen for "Big Green", its outrageous claims, and its influence, much of which is at the expense of other viable job creating industries. With billions of dollars in subsidies going to this segment with virtually nothing to show for it in terms of jobs, wealth creation etc. (can you say Solyndra?) doesn't the America taxpayer deserve better? After all it is the tax payers that are now saddled with the cost of the failed debt that these companies received. The question here is not political, but simply why? Why has this emphasis on the "green" companies failed so miserably? In the early 90's my company was building homes for the middle market. We were considered leading edge by our buyers in terms of design, construction quality and techniques AND energy efficiency. We were going green before being green was popular. We learned a very interesting lesson that has become the basis of our decisions (with respect to "eco-friendly" or "green" products used) today. Our customers were very happy to know that "their" home was built with various "green" products and construction techniques. However, if we asked them to pay extra for this (at the time), the answer was a resounding "no". Why was this so in the early 199o's? The reason was that the consumers in that era were unable to quantify what those "green" products and procedures meant to them. Would the green products they purchased add value when they decide to re-sell their home? Did the additional costs of these products pay dividends elsewhere (such as energy bills)? Our buyers had no idea, and we didnt properly educate them. Perhaps back in the 90's had we educated our buyers better in simple economics such as R.O.I. (return on investment), we would have had even more success. Most purveyors of "green" products sell on emotion and mislead the public with every manner of deception in an effort to sell more product. According to the 2010 Terrachoice study, most products (remember 95%!):- have no independent 3rd party certification
- have hidden trade-offs (i.e. more energy, water pollution etc. used in the production process)
- use vague attributes (i.e. "all natural" could contain arsenic, mercury, formaldehyde etc.)
- use false labels (invent their own "green certification")
- sell irrelevance (i.e. claim "no CFC's" for example when CFC's are already federally banned )
When discussing "green" or "eco-friendly" construction or consumer products or construction procedures with our clients, it always starts with a discussion about goals and expectations. If their desire is simply to "do their part" in protecting the environment, then it is only about how much extra they are willing to spend to achieve that goal. The reality though is that this type of client in the world of commercial construction is extremely rare. Our clientele desire a high quality structure with an exceptional performing building envelope for the typically harsh environment that they are used in.
If we are going to suggest (for example) a closed cell spray foam insulation for the exterior wall assembly as opposed to the more conventional friction fit batt type, the decision is not simply limited to an increased R-value. The additional cost of this option has to analyzed with an accurate understanding of energy operating costs. It is also not enough to look just at the savings potential in operating costs as a result of a superior exterior wall insulation, you must look at the period of time required to pay back the additional capital costs. In other words - what is the R.O.I (return on investment)?
We always present a simple spreadsheet to our clients to show exactly what the payback period looks like - how much and over what period of time. This is the correct way to make purchasing decisions when it comes to construction and systems specifications. This is true whether you are making decisions regarding building envelope, HVAC, indoor air quality (IAQ) or appliances.
Our structures are built to exacting specifications for use in extremely harsh working environments in the oil, gas and mining sectors. While it makes for a nice "feel good" story to want to save the environment, as a practical matter it makes far more sense to apply sound economics to the decision.
Either way it is a win-win situation.
Obama Backs Modest Rise in Offshore Drilling
Posted by:Jack Arbess | Posted on: November 9th, 2011 | 0 Comments
"Obama Backs Modest Rise in Offshore Drilling" WSJ Nov. 9, 2011While some may see progress in this modest expansion proposed by the Obama administration (as reported in the Nov. 9, 2011 edition of the WSJ), a simple reading between the lines suggests otherwise.
It is no secret that the current administration is no friend to the oil and gas industry and I can accept that. Let the ballot box determine if that is widely acceptable. What is difficult to swallow is the fact that this administration places its subjective "feelings" about this industry or that industry above the best interests of the country. This latest 5-year plan proposed completely ignores the enormous potential of both the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, relegating them to "drilling free zones", and with it, no possibility of creating new jobs and wealth for Americans (not to mention new domestic sources of energy). The reasoning for this decision is valid on the one hand: "..they are concerned about the ability of companies to respond to spills in these areas." That should be of paramount concern to our Federal government, but why is this an issue on the east and west coasts and not in the Gulf of Mexico (for example)? Interior Secretary Ken Salazar goes on to say that the Federal government should not "open up every single place and look under every single rock for oil and gas production.. and continues that "we need to drill in the right places with the right protections".
Excuse me? Is it the place of the Federal government to decide which are the "right places" to drill? Isn't that for the companies, their geologists and their shareholders willing to risk hundreds of millions of dollars to decide? Companies that take huge risks decide where the "right place" might be, and it is the responsibility of the Federal government to ensure that they do so only with the "right protections" in place. Protect the people, protect the environment, don't impair commerce. Would Mr. Salazar prefer that we continue to rely on hostile vendors such as Venezuela, or our fickle friends in the Middle East such as Saudi Arabia?
This type of intervention is very problematic. With the stakes as high as they are, can't anyone in Washington see past their agendas? We need a new energy policy in this country for so many obvious reasons (economic boost, jobs, domestic security etc.) but until Washington can get past their own agendas and focus on what is really good for the country we will continue to lose our way both domestically and globally.
America’s Boomtown: North Dakota’s Workforce Housing Crunch
Posted by:Jack Arbess | Posted on: October 22nd, 2011 | 0 Comments
While it is difficult to believe a huge economic boom exists while living anyplace else in this country, the oil and gas boom currently taking place in the Bakken in ND is real - very real. I just returned from meetings in the State, visiting places like Williston, Tioga, Dickinson, Kenmare and others. Most services are running in overdrive. Stop by any gas station and expect to find yourself 5 or 6 deep waiting at the pumps. Walk in the store while you wait for your turn at the pump and expect the shelves to be half empty. Time to get to your next destination, say Tioga from Kenmare (which my GPS tells me is an hour away-about 60 miles), better leave yourself at least 2+ hours to get there. With the State's re-discovered wealth, many of the State roads and infrastructure are being rebuilt causing a nightmare on the roads. Ever see the original Mad Max movie? Drive around the Williston Basin and feel the dust in your teeth, the traffic, the huge trucks passing off your shoulder at warp speed and, but for a reality check, you are there! This is all the smell of success for those that have chosen to relocate to ND to participate in this latest "gold" rush. While these experiences amount to inconveniences in your day-to-day life in ND, greater problems exist. Perhaps the most serious is the housing shortage. Like any other issue that manifests itself when a boom of this magnitude exists, there is no simple solution. Clearly the pressure on the existing housing stock is indeed intense. Hotels and motels, RV parks and camp grounds in the area are all overflowing, with no vacancies for months (if not years). Permanent housing for the residents of the State that provide essential services to the oil and gas industries (lodging, food services, police, fire and education) must be dealt with in as expedient a manner as possible. Temporary workforce housing for the oilfields is also under tremendous stress. Most of these essential workers do not live in ND. Many work for 2 or 3 weeks at the drill site and return home for 1-2 weeks, this cycle repeating itself over and over. The challenges these people face with respect to housing is profound. Faced with few options, most live in sub-standard "trailer" like camps where quality of life can be very difficult. Stories abound of workers living in leaky trailers with frozen pipes and clogged sewage lines. This has a very real impact on everyone in the State, not just those living under these conditions. Exploration, drilling and other service companies are having difficulty attracting and then retaining a workforce that isn't transient, due mostly to the poor quality of the housing available. Having a workforce (one that is already highly mobile) turn over several times in a year is not good for anyone in the State, from the exploration and service companies, the workforce itself, or the full-time residents of the State. It is imperative that the housing problem be solved. Whether the issue is permanent housing for full-time residents of the State, or temporary housing for the essential mobile workforce that operates and manages the infrastructure for the oil and gas industry. Although the permanent housing shortage will take longer to solve due to approvals and regulatory lead time, superior temporary workforce housing solutions which employ state-of-the-art modular construction exist now. Innovative solutions are available which provide the workforce with quality accommodations, superior construction, upgraded amenities and an overall higher standard of living using state-of-the-art modular construction. Hopefully, innovative workforce housing solutions that address these problems in the near and long term will allow the great State of North Dakota to lead the way in the economic recovery for the entire country. Read more: http://money.cnn.com/2011/10/21/pf/america_boomtown_housing/index.htmMan Camp for Uranium Geologists
Posted by:admin | Posted on: October 18th, 2011 | 0 Comments
This new camp is home to more than a dozen hungry workers exploring a small portion Shirley Basin for uranium hidden deep under the gentle but barren rise and fall of the basin surface, at a site known as Bootheel. (more...)