• High levels of resource efficiency overall, including transportation

and energy use in building materials, construction and building operations.

• Energy-efficient building systems.

• Renewable energy use.

• Water conservation and gray water reuse.

• Habitat preservation and restoration.

• Use of natural energies for building heating and cooling.

• Rainwater capture, reuse and recycling.

• Natural storm water management.

• Use of recycled-content, non-toxic, salvaged and local materials.

• Healthy and productive indoor environments for people.

• Durability of building materials and designs.

• Flexibility for building uses to change over time.

• Access to alternative transit modes.

Green Globes for new construction was adapted from a system that is widely used in Canada, where it is one of only two green building rating systems recognized by the Canadian federal government.

Under the trade name Go Green Comprehensive, it is also the basis of the Building Owners and Managers Association of Canada’s national energy and environmental program for existing buildings.

Green Globes has found some market interest, partly in answer to complaints

that LEED certification costs too much and is too complex. In response,

Green Globes created a Web-based project information system. In

the beginning, Green Globes was supported heavily by the forest products

industry, because it gave credit to wood products certified by an alternative

certification program, the Sustainable Forestry Initiative. At the end

of 2006, Green Globes had registered about 100 commercial projects for

certification, roughly 3% of the market, and had certified about 10, approximately 2% of the number of LEED certifications. In the residential

sector, by contrast, Green Globes has teamed up with the National Association of Home Builders and local home builder associations to offer its rating system to the new home market. At the beginning of 2007, 11 local home builder associations provided the Green Globes assessment system for use in their members’ projects.

Green Globes has its adherents, of course, who claim that the Web based

system is easier to use than LEED (which is also currently Webbased).

A 2006 study by theUniversity of Minnesota found that LEED and

Green Globes overlap in more than 80% of their credits. The study also

concluded that “Green Globes employs a rating criterion that reflects lifecycle

thinking and covers the entire life cycle of building materials,” but

that neither LEED nor Green Globes “successfully addresses functional

relevance with regard to materials selection.”

The Green Globes rating system consists of seven categories with the

following weights on a scale of 1000 points. It takes 350 points to get one

Green Globe, 550 points to get two, 700 points to get three and 850 points

to get four

• Project Management 50 points
• Site 115 points
• Energy 360 points
• Water 100 points
• Resources and Materials 100 points
• Emissions/other impacts 75 points
• Indoor Environment 200 points

Engineering is all about economy of resources. Someone once told me that a good engineer is someone who can do for $1 what a mediocre engineer can do for $2.What would a more substantial green building design

role for the engineers look like, and how would that lead to economy of means to achieve high-performance results?

buy, or to use Amory Lovins’ term, it generates “negawatts,” negative demand on the power grid and fuel supply. A 2007 report from the American

Solar Energy Society concluded that energy efficiency (conservation) and

renewables could contribute an average of about 1,200 million metric tons

per year of carbon reductions by 2030, putting theUSon a path to achieve

the country’s goals under the Kyoto Treaty. Energy efficiency could contribute

57% of the total, renewables 43%. For the building sector alone, the potential reduction is 200 million metric tons per year, about one sixth

of the total reductions needed in carbon dioxide emissions. That’s

how important building energy conservation technologies, designs and

techniques are to our future.

What are some of the most important energy conservation measures

that should be designed into our commercial and residential buildings?

Here’s a list of the more cost-effective measures.

• Better insulation of buildings and homes, including floor, window

and ceiling insulation.

• Plugging the leaks, especially in homes, so that heated or cooled air

doesn’t escape before it’s used.

• Better glazing, including double-pane, “low-e” coated glass for all

buildings.

• More efficient air-conditioning systems, with higher SEER (Seasonal

Energy Efficiency Ratio) ratings, along with radiant cooling systems.

• Waste-heat recovery systems from exhaust air.

• Natural ventilation and operable windows to allow nature to provide

heating and cooling.

• Improved lighting technologies and greater use of daylighting and

LEDs.

• Higher efficiency boilers and radiant heating systems, including tank less

water heaters.

• Better methods to control moisture in buildings, to allow comfort

with less cooling energy.

• Reducing losses of conditioned air with better duct sealing techniques.

• Ground-coupled heat pumps (geothermal heating systems) that reduce

whole-building energy consumption by 30%.

Rightsizing (downsizing) of HVAC systems so that they operate more

efficiently.

• High-efficiency condensing boilers for water heating and tank less

water heaters that supply hot water at point of use, only on demand,

reducing losses through gas issues.

• Distributed energy systems that allow for far greater total energy-use

efficiencies.

• Changes in building codes to require more stringent minimum

energy-efficiency levels.

• Reducing the required size of building ventilation fans through a variety

of techniques.

• Premium-efficiency motors with variable-speed drives to better

match input energy with loads.

• Water conservation measures to reduce energy use for water heating.

• Carbon dioxide sensors to control ventilation levels based on occupancy

avoid wasting energy.

• Occupancy sensors to turn oª lights and HVAC systems when spaces

are not in use.

pollution and resource depletion? The answer for 2003 was 1.25 Earths.

The concept of the “ecological footprint” was introduced in the early 1990s by a Canadian researcher, William Rees, and popularized by his Swiss colleague, Mathis Wackernagel.

According to the Global Footprint Network:

Humanity’s Ecological Footprint is over 23% larger than what the

planet can regenerate. In other words, it now takes more than one

year and two months for the Earth to regenerate what we use in a

single year. We maintain this overshoot by liquidating the planet’s

ecological resources.

• Can the Earth replace what I take? (Use no products faster than nature

can produce them, either by using recycled-content materials or relying

on renewable energy and natural rainfall.)

• Am I poisoning the Earth, water or air (Are my activities causing pollution

either upstream or down stream of the building activity?)

• Do I respect the biodiversity of flora and fauna (Does this project result,

directly or indirectly, in ecosystem degradation?)

• Are the choices I make fair and equitable? (Do the benefits of green

buildings accrue to all occupants?)

The Civano development operates by a strict energy and water conservation code that cuts annual bills for electricity (think hot, dry, desert climate

air conditioning) by 50%and annual water use by 60%, compared with similar suburban developments in the area. Civano is also denser

than most suburban developments. It has a community feel to it, resulting from two public swimming pools, a community center, several small businesses

(including a wonderful nursery) and narrow streets that keep down the heat in summer and serve as traffic-calming devices. Density as a sustainable

design virtue reduces energy use from automobiles and allows for amore walk able community.

Certain environmental benefits of density are unquestionable. Some have even argued that New York, especially Manhattan, is the greenest city

in the country (certainly for per capita use of energy and gasoline) because so many people take public transit, not only to work, but for everyday errands,

shopping and leisure activities.

Having lots of high-rise residential and commercial buildings is also energy efficient, because the ratio of exterior walls to total occupied space

is lower, reducing the potential for gaining or losing energy. On the basis of annual energy-use per square foot of floor space, such buildings can be

much more energy efficient than a single-family home or a low-rise office or apartment. They can also support a qualified operations and maintenance

staff, helping to keep equipment in good shape.

The drawback to cities is, of course, that they are largely devoid of nature.

Imagine a New York City without Central Park, or any large city without parks and street trees. Additionally, cities tend to have lots of sun absorbing

asphalt, brick and concrete surfaces, which heat up during the day and don’t cool off rapidly at night. This means air conditioning is required

without parks and street trees. Additionally, cities tend to have lots of sun absorbing asphalt, brick and concrete surfaces, which heat up during the

day and don’t cool off rapidly at night. This means air conditioning is required on summer afternoons and evenings, even when air temperatures

should be dropping and breezes increasing. Many cities are now 8ºF to 10ºF hotter on summer evenings than they were 30 or 40 years ago, causing

urban energy use to rise. But cities may also be healthier than suburbs because people tend to walk more. One of the classic comedic movie scenes I recall is in Steve

Martin’s L.A. Story. It opens with him pulling his car out of the drive way one morning and driving to the house next door, getting out and going in

for a cup of coffee. Having grown up in Los Angeles, with its dominant  “auto-erotic” car culture, I can tell you this imagined scene isn’t too far

From the truth! We are all much less healthy these days because of excessive  driving and in frequent walking.

from: GREEN BUI LDING A TO Z

without adequate daylighting, people will not perform well and will not be healthy. For building plans, this implies a design that is no more than 66 feet wide, front to back, or about 33 feet to a window from any workstation. This is a standard design requirement in many places inEurope, where people’s health is placed before economic efficiency. Looked at another way, a building should be oriented so that the long axis is east west; this allows for maximum daylighting, from both south- and north facing windows.

Daylighting’s benefits are immediately apparent; people see better and feel better whenever there is natural light for reading and working. Good daylighting design can employ skylights, north-facing windows on the roof, a central atrium, light shelves to bounce light into a space while shading windows from the summer sun, and other techniques. Good daylight According to a report fromCarnegieMellonUniversityanalyzing daylighting research, “Eleven case studies have shown that innovative daylighting systems can pay for themselves in less than one year due to energy and productivity benefits…the ROI [return on investment] for daylighting is over 185%.”

ACaliforniastudy of the impact of day lighting examined 73 stores of a chain retailer, of which 24 had day lighting. The results:

The value of the energy savings from daylighting is far overshadowed by the value of the predicted increase in sales due to daylighting. The profit from increased sales associated with daylight is worth at least 19 times the energy savings.”