Schwarzenegger's greenish building code

California issued new building standards Thursday, which state officials said would push developers to reduce the energy use of buildings by 15% and target a 50% reduction in water for landscaping.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger hailed the new standards as groundbreaking, adding in a statement that they "will ensure that California remains in the forefront of reducing our carbon footprint and conserving valuable natural resources while also protecting our economy."

However, the new green building language, which was heavily influenced by the construction industry, fell far short of the stringent rules that environmental advocates had sought.

Schwarzenegger staffers headed off what threatened to be an embarrassing full-throated condemnation by meeting with environmentalists Wednesday and agreeing to last-minute revisions of the draft.

Building codes, until now an obscure part of government rule-making, have moved to the forefront in the battle over climate change and energy. Nationwide, buildings consume 39% of energy, 12% of potable water and 40% of raw materials, according to the U.S. Green Building Council. The structures are also responsible for 39% of greenhouse gas emissions.

Although California has long had the nation's most energy-efficient building standards, the state will have to considerably toughen them to comply with its legal mandate to reduce its global warming emissions by 30% over projected amounts in the next 12 years.

Story in the Los Angeles Times today.

-- Margot Roosevelt

Photo credit: Justin Sullivan / Getty Images

Comments

[sheila]

and once again, in the game of "Schwarzenegger v. the Public Interest," the score:

Big Business 500

Humans 0

Planet 0

With "friends" like Schwarzenegger, who needs environmental enemies? Did he make the speech during his daily planet-killing private jet commute the length of the entire state? Or from one of his Hummers?

He must be confusing the GREEN of all that cash he is paid by Big Builders with the GREEN of good environmental policy...

[Jared]

Sheila, in response to my minimum wage comment on MR's previous article...

I understand where you're coming from. I think we have the same end goal with respect to protecting our enviornment. However, I have to disagree with your response to my analogy. We are already at $8 (with our current codes). The new green building standards mandate a reduction in energy usage by 15 percent, water usage by 20 percent and water for landscaping by 50 percent. To me, it's hard to call that a decrease from $8 to $5. Again, I undersatnd where you're coming from, but It's a bit disingenuous to call these codes a decrease in the "minimum wage."

I'm not as concerned with how you value the amount above $8; just that you see that it is a significant increase. If the Governor had backed off, then we would have had $8. Then we're all in a worse position because we are in the same position.

You can talk about the soft bigotry of low expectations, but I'm more concerned with the harsh reality of global warming. You can put your idealism above your realism, but at some point you have to reconcile the two or you end up with nothing.

With the adoption of the new green building standards, we are the clear leader in the U.S. and set an example for the rest of the world. As it goes quite often in the U.S., states tend to follow California's lead... and with the increase in oil prices, politicians in other states are finally getting with the program regarding carbon emissions (not because they want to, but because they have to - their constituents are finally demanding it). Hopefully other states and countries will follow our lead and give our grandchildren a chance at a sustainable future.

[Mike Roddy]

If California was serious about global warming, they would prohibit wood framing. Logging accounts for 7% of our greenhouse gas emissions, and a big share of the end product ends up framing our homes. By switching to recycled steel, we could make a big dent in CO2 emissions, and build houses that would last.

[Doug Morrell]

With California becoming the first state to approve green building standards, building owners, architects, and facility managers may not realize there are substantial Federal tax deductions available to help offset costs.

Sec. 179D of the IRS Code provides a significant deduction for the cost of energy-efficient improvements to commercial property.

Green building federal tax deductions – are you missing out?
Before a taxpayer can claim the section deduction, the taxpayer must obtain a certification (not to be confused with LEED certification) with respect to the property. The certification must be provided by a qualified individual and satisfy the requirements of section 179D(c)(1). The qualified individual must be properly licensed as a professional engineer or contractor in the jurisdiction in which the building is located, not be "related" to the taxpayer taking the deduction (as defined by the IRS), and represent to the taxpayer in writing that he or she has the requisite qualifications to provide the certification. The certifier must also use IRS-qualified computer software. Software must be on a list of products approved by the U.S. Department of Energy. Contact www.SourceCorpTax.com for a free Green Building Analysis.

[Matthew]

I am aghast that the state's building code "was heavily influenced by the construction industry." I mean, how crazy is it that our government would actually allow people that know how to build stuff advise on writing regulations to build stuff?

[Dan]

Is it possible for such standards to include some some of nature's energy conservation tools such as at least one or two shade trees close to the south or west sides of a new house? That would both be environmentally responsive (trees create oxygen) and reduce the excessive heat build-up in the summer.

What about mandating on East, South and West walls exterior window shading, again to reduce the excessive heat build-up in the summer. There are a variety of products out there which are (A) inexpensive (B) allow the home owner to install themselves and (C) still allow the home owner to see outside from inside the house. We have used these in our own home this year and wish we had started to use them years ago.

Just some thoughts,
Dan