Schwarzenegger's green building ... lite

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's administration made slight amendments this afternoon to a draft state building code that environmentalists charged would have compromised California's plan to ratchet down its global warming emissions.

Schwarzenegger staffers joined Rosario Marin, Secretary of State and Consumer Affairs who also oversees  the Building Standards Commission, to hammer out a compromise with opponents. It "fixed the major flaws," according to one participant, but the new code, to be adopted Thursday, would fall far short of the groundbreaking regulation that renewable energy advocates had sought.

Environmentalists had claimed that the draft would have undermined stricter green building codes in 75 California cities and counties. Now, it would be amended to explicitly state that it would "in no way preempt local authorities."

San Francisco and Los Angeles recently enacted laws forcing builders to cut energy and water use in new structures, encourage eco-friendly materials and recycle construction waste.

Despite today's compromise, however, the proposed state code would be far less stringent. It would not require private developers to meet the equivalent of nationally-recognized LEED standards--the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design benchmark established by the U.S. Green Building Council, which the state uses for its own public construction.  Moreover, the new code, while mandatory for residential structures, would be only voluntary for commercial buildings.

Nick Zigelbaum, a San Francisco-based energy analyst with the Natural Resources Defense Council, wrote green building advocates today that NRDC, which has 250,000 California members, would suspend its opposition to the new code but "we will be thoroughly involved in future revisions." 

Under the compromise, the new code would clarify that a residential green building should achieve more than a 15% reduction in energy use beyond current code. It also revises a section which gave equal weight to wood certified by industry groups, as it did to wood certified as sustainably harvested by the Forest Stewardship Council, an environmental non-profit.

The building industry has fiercely opposed restrictions on lumber and environmentalists were unable to persuade the Schwarzenegger administration to include FSC standards in the code.

Schwarzenegger press aide Rachel Cameron declined to comment on whether Schwarzenegger or his staff thought the original code too weak. The chairman of the green building advisory council is the technical director of the California Building Industry Association, the principal trade group.

The governor, she said in an email, "has directed the commission to enact a strong green building code and encouraged them to work with a wide variety of stakeholders including environmental groups, building industry groups and other state agencies."

--Margot Roosevelt

Comments

[Jared]

As I mentioned in my comment on Ms. Roosevelt's previous article, as someone who leans left on environmental issues, I believe that, while she has good intentions, what she's doing is destructive rather than constructive.

If the Governor caves to the media pressure and abandons the adoption of these codes, we will ALL lose. How long will it be before legislation is passed? In the end, will it be more stringent? We have no guarantees. What if we end up with a watered down version of the currently proposed regulations?

Based on what I've read, this is not some half-hearted attempt to appease those of us who care about the environment. I'm not trying to defend Schwarzenegger's environmental record, but on this issue, the two things that are most important to me have been satisfied: (1) the proposed green building standards are more stringent than those of any other state, making CA the leader (and example for other states) in reducing our collective carbon emissions, and (2) the regulations allow local governments to enact even stricter building regulations.

With the new green building standards, we have a blueprint for change. How long should we have to wait to start reducing our carbon footprint? We have an opportunity and, more importantly, the RESPONSIBILITY to get the ball rolling now. Don't let politics get in the way of change!!!

[Ule]

The people who created the LEED standard never wanted it to be a rule everyone had to follow. It was intended to be a challenge target for the top five percent to use to distinguish themselves from the pack, to stand out from the crowd. Having a building code is like making every kid take gym class. Making LEED the building code would be like trying to make every kid play ball in the NBA. (That's why they call it "LEED" -- it's a pun -- like "Leadership," get it?) You're not keeping things in perspective. Top-level challenges like LEED are great, they inspire greatness, but LEED is not for everybody. A code for everyone is also a good idea, but it has to be reasonable and reachable. You try building some houses for a living and try selling people a house for more money because it has milk paint or something and you'll see what I mean. I mean, I can criticize some guy for not being able to guard Kobe, but you don't see me out there trying to do it either. I exercise for health. I don't play NBA ball. Know what I'm saying, Holmes?

[sheila]

What's the phrase? The soft bigotry of low expectations?

I will not hear any apologies for this media whore who takes credit for things he does not do. These new codes do almost nothing, they are largely a publicity stunt, an excuse for Arnold, an actor, to posture as "Green Governor" and fake his way into his next job. Sure, we already have good codes, but the point was that now we have new information and need to behave accordingly - aka new and improved codes.

Either we believe things have to change or we don't. If they do, then they have to change more than this. If they don't, then this guy needs to stop mugging for the cameras and bragging about AB 32, which, by the way, has NEVER BEEN IMPLEMENTED, and his "green" credentials, and just go ahead and act like who he is - a total puppet for Big Business, a sellout on the environment, and an egomaniac with no qualifications for public office other than fame. Either way, we know what we are getting. It's the posing as one thing but being the other that is so incredibly dishonest and counter-productive.

Jared, to use your earlier analogy, it's like wages are $8 and we want $20. He came back with "$5 or I walk" and we are all just relieved to still have $8, and more afraid than ever to ask again. At this rate, change will take hundreds of years and we need change in one year...

As for housebuilders - if EVERYONE has to conform to LEED, then all the houses are in the same boat and the bar is raised evenly. The only problem comes when a few builders want to go out on a limb to do the right thing, but then their house ends up being a few grand more than the guys who pillage and pollute then socialize those costs onto us. Even though it's not much more nowadays, the good guys have to eat the difference or explain it. Having it be voluntary is an incredible disincentive, even for builders who want to do the right thing.

And LEED basic is not much more than you would already do if you made quality homes. Strictly farm league. Silver, Gold, Platinum, those are the bigger leagues...

that's my 2 cents, for what its worth...

[Jared]

Sheila, 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.