The Street of Dreams is a great example of a big problem in LEED (and other "green" rating systems): Density.  Sure you get a point or two for density, but the big points are in energy savings - where you compare your building to an identical building (with the same window area, etc.) without energy-saving features.  But sometimes the best way to save energy isn't by adding gadgets and better glazing - it's by building less square footage and less glass.  

Perhaps rating systems should measure based on a standard square-foot-per-person for each use (residential, office, etc.) and standard window/wall ratio.  

Problems like this aside, almost all Architects, most engineers, and many contractors are strongly motivated to build for energy efficiency - at least in my experience on the west coast.  We're constantly squeezing owners/developers to reduce just a bit more energy use, but it's a long and slow battle.  

I'm currently working with a developer that really wants to be green, but will be immediately selling his new building and won't see a penny of the energy-efficient measures we design for except through a vague premium he can charge for it being a green building.  As a result he's able to pay a bit extra for better glass (etc.) but not a lot.

Well-designed rating systems could solve all of these issues.  Potential owners would know what they're buying, and could feel confident that the extra money they spend will be paid back in energy savings.

A 10 cent subsidy for generating a green kwh or a 5 cent subsidy for saving it would pay owners of a building, not builders.  That's true.  But would not the incentive payed filter back top the builder in a higher price for the building?  

And in a greater demand for that builder's product?  

With a conservation and renewable generation (roof or wall mounted solar PV, small or medium wind, biogas power with farm or industrial buildings) subsidy all calculated and guaranteed in a contract, a lending institution could figure that into the financing.

Builders that could verify and sign contracts based on actual power generation and savings subsidies would expand their business in an energy boom.

Government should institute these subsidies and establish regulations based on NREL and other studies and quality control of subsidy programs with random inspection.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

I haven't seen any studies of the latest greenbuilding (as opposed to sustainable buildings) that address Jevons Paradox or the rebound effect.

If the process of designing and erecting new buildings becomes more efficient the prices of the commodities goes down which increases the total number of building.

Without strong aggregate consumption limiting public policy, greenbuilding just enables the status quo, massive ecological devastation.

Until someone builds a building as smart as a tree...

Sunsetbeachguy

Green conversion derails the paradox.  Greenhouses added onto existing buildings, oriented for best solar collection, for instance.  This allows almost any building, no matter the solar exposure, to be heated, cooled, and powered by solar energy.  And even to produce excess solar electricity in all but the cloudiest regions.

Conversion is so much cheaper than starting new green buildings from the ground up, that it will absorb most of the capital going green.

It will not take wholesale replacement to get to net zero GHG emmision buildings.  36% of GHG is caused by building heating/cooling.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

Retrofit Nancy.  

A nice weather proof, clear dome right over the city, that would capture enough solar energy to power the city.  Remember the sea wall will need to be started yesterday as well, to counter storm surge!

Just make the bottom 50 feet of the dome from fiber cement.  Great seawall.  All the rain water run off from the dome could supply a water conserving NYC with it's whole supply.  

It would cost around the same as a new world trade center.  Am I right?

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

I agree with the earlier comment suggesting that green point rating systems are more of a problem than a help in this scenario because they lead to all sorts of green materials and whiz bang equipment being assembled in a new building without assuring that the hoped for energy efficiency gains are actually met.  The building performance trade addresses that head on by directly measuring the actual energy uses and losses of whole building systems as they are actually installed.  Doing so leads to reports that make it easy to see the amount of energy one might expect to use to heat, cool, light, and run a given building, which in turn makes it possible to estimate the relative financial advantage of a new or retrofitted high performance building (to the extent that one can predict the future costs and availability of energy) and factor that into purchase or finance decisions.

The three main problems are that there is relatively low awareness of the building performance (known as "home performance" in the residential market) and building commissioning trades so people don't know of the benefits it can provide, there are not nearly enough highly skilled professionals to do the exacting investigations and installation work necessary to realize the gains made possible through the whole building systems approach to building performance, and it is much, much easier to market and profit from investments in an alternative energy project (for which demand will likely outstrip supply for decades) than it is to educate the public and train crews of trades people and building inspectors (to say nothing of legislators writing building codes).  The result is that we continue to get endless hype about the almost religious hope and righteousness of renewable energy projects while the very large potential to reduce the demand for energy used in buildings--shaving off 1/3 of heating and 1/2 of cooling and lighting energy needs is a typical result--remains more or less unknown even to those who are passionate about the need to actually conserve energy.

Conserving energy is necessary because it is unlikely that alternative energy will be able to offset the dirty sources of energy unless the total quantity of energy demanded levels off or falls.  A 2% increase in the total amount of energy being consumed worldwide dwarfs the entire annual alternative energy manufacturing capacity even as new plants and projects are popping up like flowers in Spring.  We need some serious conservation programs, and building performance is one of the most promising and beneficial prospects for making a large scale, welcome impact.  Not only can building performance projects save energy, they also tend to improve indoor air quality dramatically, improve the comfort of conditioned living and working spaces, and result in less wear and tear on components of buildings.