In the course of my education over the past ten years I have been becoming gradually more aware of a certain unease in the structure of the "Green" movement. I have trouble defining this unease, although the strongest example I can think of is Henry Gifford's quixotic lawsuit against the U.S Green Building Council over the credibility of the LEED rating system. His challenge is not meant to undermine the philosophy behind LEED or the USGBC, but it may exacerbate vital relationships within the movement.
I will attempt to define the situation in terms of a dichotomy that relies on blatantly unfair generalizations: On one side there are engineering oriented, hippie-conservative types who tend to look at some of the basic math underlying human resource consumption and get justifiably scared at the possibility of a Big Crash happening sometime in the near future. They are deeply committed to changing things by applying the most cost-effective technology and methods, for above all, they abhor waste and gluttony.
On the other side are designer/architecture oriented types who have drawn similar conclusions about the condition of things, but are seeking to solve it with an application of new, in fact, undiscovered, technology and leveraging the marketing power of exceptional cases--like the latest LEED Platinum building or electric car to make others enthusiastic about the cause. Their optimism makes less room for the misery of budgets and cost benefit analysis and post occupancy evaluations. But, they have a more effective sales pitch.
These two groups must join in marriage--the pragmatism of the engineering types must be leveraged by the marketing and publicity abilities of the designer types. Both must keep up a barrage of information so that political forces and traditional customs are realigned. The age of cheap energy is nearing its end and with it, the gradual improvement of human lifestyles that has diffused itself across all cultures.
No comments:
Post a Comment