The Great Green Caper – The Truth About Eco-Friendly Products in Construction

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.

Man Camp for Uranium Geologists

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.

Read More