Arguably Shakespeare’s most recognizable character, Juliet Capulet, captures the play’s central theme and struggle in one simple line after asking her beloved Romeo Montague “what is in a name?”

“That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.”

It’s a message we can all take to heart as we grapple with how to market products, goods and services to the ever expanding green economy, especially the green building sector. And it’s been a problem since the early days of the movement.

When we started offering media services to companies interested in the green building arena we assumed, like many others encouraging sustainable business, that our major concern would be “greenwashing” by those who would over-promise and under-deliver, folks who would exaggerate claims about the environmentally friendly aspects of their offerings.

However, what we actually encountered was quite different. We rarely came across manufacturers who deliberately inflated their stories but quite the reverse. There were, and still are, serious concerns on the part of many that they will be challenged by skeptics, called out very publicly if they make claims they cannot categorically prove.

That fact, as much as any other single reason, may explain why third-party certifications and approvals have gained so much importance in the world of sustainability. It is one thing to say you’re green yourself, it’s quite another to have an endorsement from a trusted outside source.

But not every product or system has access to accepted criteria, testing and verification. Those tools simply don’t exist in every case. And that leaves companies wondering how they can safely get their message to potential customers.

Enter Shakespeare’s underlying message…

The rose is not sweet because of what it’s called. The rose is sweet because of what it is. Green is not just an ingredient, a feature or an attribute. Green is an outcome, an added benefit, a by-product of doing something well.

Green building is quality building, and green products are – more than anything else- quality products. You don’t have to call them green, just build in the right ingredients…responsible materials and processes, durability, resource efficiency, water and energy savings, response to indoor air/environment concerns…build in the quality and value.

That’s the story you need to tell. The green message will take care of itself, and your success will smell just as sweet.
 

A favorite story of mine comes from an interview with Thomas Edison who, late in his life, reportedly confided that if he "had known anything about metallurgy" he would never have invented the incandescent light bulb, because he "would have known it is impossible".

The  human imagination may be among the most powerful forces in the universe, but without the courage to exercise it, to challenge "conventional wisdom" and to embrace the endless possibilities, we are doomed to go along with outdated ideas and obsolete concepts that not only perpetuate our ignorance, but actually promote collective laziness and conservatism, leaving us increasingly unwilling to accept change, even when it is clearly in our own best interest.

The path of least resistance is found by going along with accepted thinking, because we don't want to risk the embarrassment of being wrong, or simply because we assume that others already agree with whatever is being said. Sadly, that is a path to nowhere.

Worse yet, we fool ourselves into believing we are part of the "solution" by participating in established institutions who on the surface appear to be seeking progress but who, in fact, use us to advance predetermined agendas. Their process has been perfectly described as "transactional, not deliverative" and they are masters and herding the rest of us in directions of their choosing.

Fortunately, there is also another ytpe of person who has the intellectual capacity and the courage to challenge the status quo, to confront conventional pluralistic ignorance and push the boundaries of the existing comfort zone.

Begun in 2002, and presented biennially in 2005, 2007, 2009 and 2011, the U.S. Department of Energy Solar Decathlon has challenged collegiate teams from a variety of countries to "design, build and operate solar-powered houses that are cost-effective, energy-efficient and attractive".

The 2011 Solar Decathlon provided more than 350,000 house visits over a ten day period, and information to millions more across the globe through a wide variety of media.  Additionally, more than 30 onsite public workshops were held, as well as a day of workshops dedicated to builders and industry.  Conducted on the National Mall in Washingotn, the event featured 19 teams from as nearby as Maryland and from as far away as New Zealand.

As you can see in our January issue, the innovative solutions were as diverse and imaginative as you might expect, but they shared some commonalities too - especially a fearless pursuit of knowledge and solutions for a better future.

Introducing the Better Use of Time and Talent (BUTT) Act Each time I am treated to Congress's latest effort to dumb down the issues in order to satisfy the agenda of this or that special interest group, or to indulge in adolescent temerity strictly for the sake of exercising one's frustration over having to abide by the rules like everyone else, I just can't help thinking of a quote from the man who remains perhaps America's most insightful political observer of all time, Will Rogers, who once suggested: "It's a good thing we don't get all the government we pay for!" 

This pearl applies beautifully to the tantrum de jour, H. R. 2417, AKA the infamous "Better Use of Light Bulbs (BULB) Act", a childish, snotty and (frankly) not-so-bright piece of misbehavior which has manifested itself into a proposed congressional act calling for the repeal of light bulb energy standards that are part of the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA), which was passed by Congress and signed into law by President Bush in 2007.

Egged on by bitter venom dispensers like Limp Dishrag or Rash Lumpskull or whatever their names are, it seems that some in Congress will use any excuse to exercise their egos and indulge in their petty resentment without regard for the time and money they waste, resources that could be put to much better use in constructive efforts toward public service or even perhaps, (do I dare suggest?) acts of leadership.

They prey on the willing ignorance and enthusiastic distrust of those who have been exposed to just enough of the facts to eagerly believe that they will suddenly be forced to use some new and scary product of someone else's choosing, in this case, mercury-laced, expensive compact fluorescents, which actually represent only one of the options available.

What they conveniently decline to mention is that manufacturers are already producing a variety of new energy-saving bulbs for residential and commercial use, including incandescent bulbs, that look, feel and operate just like the ones we've been using for many decades, they just happen to be about 30% more energy efficient.

Oh, and by the way, those energy standards that are set to go into effect in January are expected to save consumers more than $10 billion a year on electric bills. But hey, what does that matter when compared to being told what to do? Rogers is also quoted as having remarked:

"I don't make jokes, I just watch the government and report the facts!"

Unfortunately, distractions like the not-so-bright act are not all that uncommon. Earlier this year, in fact, we were treated to a distasteful and embarrassing outburst from another elected official who mounted the bully pulpit in a shameless show of grandstanding to verbally abuse public servants because he resents having to comply with regulations that restrict how many gallons of water go down the drain each time he flushes his toilets at home.

The benefits from the low-flow regulations, which have been in effect since the 1990's and now take the form of the WaterSense program (which has resulted in saving a cumulative 125 billion gallons of water and more than $2 billion in water and energy bills), are apparently irrelevant to some, even though according to EPA "by the end of 2010, reductions of 16.7 billion kWh of electricity and 6 million metric tons of carbon dioxide were achieved through the use of WaterSense labeled products."

Just goes to show, you don't want to get between a politician's pet peeve and his satisfaction of being above the law, regardless who else benefits. Perhaps this is the kind of behavior Rogers had in mind when he said:

"If stupidity got us into this mess, then why can't it get us out?"

All of these behaviors and detours, like the three ring performance we are witnessing around the looming debt crisis, get in the way of attempting to deal with some pretty important issues and they distract both lawmakers and their constituents from more serious business.

So where do we go from here?

Whoever decided that cats are the best example of critters that are impossible to "herd" apparently never tried rounding up sacred cows. Now there's an exercise that takes wrangling - by every definition of the word - to a whole new art form. I'm not sure that even Rogers could get a rope around this one.

There are a couple of particularly exasperating aspects awaiting anybody foolish enough to attempt to do this. One, there has never been a sacred cow that would voluntarily be the first to go into the corral. And two, those who worship sacred cows are terrified of having any discussion which would suggest the slightest hint of change to the status quo, decrying any such undertaking as guaranteeing a stampede to complete slaughter, an all or nothing proposition.

This is the situation we find ourselves facing when it comes to the ongoing, politically motivated battles in Washington over the 2012 U.S. federal budget and the larger issue of how to get at least an initial loop over the horns of our unbelievable national debt. Sure, all the beltway buckaroos talk a good story around the campfire but it doesn't take long to identify the vast majority of them as dime store cowboys once the ridin', ropin' and brandin' starts.

Of course, there is no way I can employ all these mental images and metaphors of the Wild West without including another quote from Will Rogers. Perhaps the one that best fits the present fiasco goes:

"Alexander Hamilton started the United States Treasury with nothing, and that is the closest our country has ever been to being even!"

While we can point to periods when there have been exceptions to his assertion, the sad truth is we have never been farther from "being even" than we are today. Not ever. And yet, it is almost impossible to find any person or group willing to step up and volunteer to put some skin in the game, even though to do so could open the door for some badly needed cooperation.

A glimmer of hope came in the recent communications from AARP, one of the most powerful forces in American politics, who suggested that they were willing to soften their traditional stand enough to at least discuss changes to retirement age standards and benefits. They know the writing is on the wall for Social Security and the undeniable truth is that we are a rapidly aging society. These and other stark realities have forced us all to look around the corral for some ways to cull the herd.

The real trick is in getting the sacred cow ranchers to shine the light on all the facts, not just the ones that serve their own select purpose and goals. For the real estate industry, this might mean putting all the cards on the table when it comes to the discussion of the mortgage interest deduction (MID), long considered untouchable by many.

Rogers' priceless observation on economists, "an economist's guess is liable to be as good as anybody else's", might lead us to the conclusion that the explanations of the impacts of the MID on the housing industry depend on whose economist you consult. And the answers may take on a bit more clarity, even for those of us who are part of the vast "uninformed and unwashed", when we actually see all of those cards on the table face up.

Industry groups trumpeting the results of homespun "surveys" designed to prove that Americans almost universally demand complete preservation of the MID may actually offer little more than proof that we have to be wary of "lies, damn lies and statistics". In part, the answer is always shaped a great deal by how the question is asked.

I suppose it is entirely reasonable to expect most "likely voters" (I'm uneasy with this label because it makes me wonder whether it then automatically includes a disproportionate percentage of people who have mortgages to pay) to respond that they support the MID when it is served up as one size-fits-all, simplistically crafted as an ominous threat to Mom, apple pie and the American Dream.

But would the results read a little differently if those surveyed were given a set of options that included not only the blanket "assault-on-the-middle-class" version, as posed by industry, but one which broke out the various nuances such as which income levels benefit the most, who does and who doesn't actually employ the MID, and the carefully avoided parts of the policy that allow tax breaks on second homes, including (if you know how to play the game) recreational vehicles and house boats?

I'm suggesting that if you hand pick your subjects and put the right spin on the device to get the results you are seeking, your survey may be about as meaningful as asking a barber if you need a haircut. Seems to me, the outcomes of these conveniently-timed exercises are more than a little predictable. Besides, flirting with the truth seems a poor substitute for taking ownership of it.

The point of all this is that if we have any real hope of beginning to resolve the social, economic and environmental issues facing us, or for finding ways to remove some of the hostility that permeates so many layers of discourse in our society, including the political arena, then somebody is going to have to take a chance, make a leap of faith, and offer to be the first to shoulder an even bigger share of the load, at least to get things started in the right direction.

Rogers may have said it best:

"You've got to go out on a limb sometimes, because that's where the fruit is."

Pardon me, American policymaker, "Do you have any Grey Poupon?" Or maybe your preference is good ol' French's Classic Yellow?

Either way you may want to stock up on your favorite, so you will have something to help you choke down that heapin' helpin' of baloney that you're about to be served over the coming weeks and months by the special interests who are doing everything in their power to prevent adoption of updated energy codes that promise to significantly increase performance in new homes and other buildings.

They are pulling out all the stops in a desperate effort to protect the lowest common denominator and preserve the status quo of mediocrity. In fact, in a couple of places there are attempts under way to actually roll back energy requirements that have already been adopted on a statewide level.

All of this is happening in spite of the fact that we are seeing oil prices rise dramatically in response to concerns over potential interruptions to production that could occur as a result of all the current political turmoil and uncertainty in the Middle East. But all this debate over energy policy hits a lot closer to home than many people realize.

The winter storms that have rocked the country over the past several months serve as dramatic reminders of how little margin for error we have in our ability to keep our homes comfortable and safe. The well-documented storm that hit the Dallas region just before the Super Bowl spawned multiple ripple effects that illustrate my point.

Rolling brown-outs to the power grid as a result of the storm in Texas created shortages of electricity that forced the shut down of natural gas to vast areas of northern New Mexico due to lack of pressure. Shortly after, I received a note from homeowners we built for in 1992 (at an elevation of over 6,000 feet) that read in part:
"Thank you so very much for designing and building us a house that really performs even after almost 20 years! We just had a loss of natural gas service that lasted over three days. This was during some of the coldest weather ever for N.M. The first night it got to minus two (degrees) here. During this time, the indoor temperature never went below seventy. In fact, in the daytime it was in the upper 70s. And there were no burst water pipes.
We think at least four features of the house made it possible to stay here and be comfortable. First off, we started off with a warm slab from the in-floor heating. Secondly, the days were sunny and we got good solar gain because of the passive solar design of the house. Next, the house is so well insulated that it didn't lose much heat. Finally, we kept the fireplace going through the night, and it just cranked out the heat.
At first we kept it going during the daytime but it got too hot for us! So, the gas company guys were here about a half hour ago to check and light pilots and we're good to go. ... but we are really impressed with this house and our relatively easy experience compared to what we have seen and heard in the media about the more than 30,000 homes without gas in the state."

Yet, some builder groups, trade associations, and their lobbyists would have you believe that energy efficiency is not an issue of family security, merely an expensive luxury.

They are feverishly circling the wagons, marshalling their forces, and preparing to invade Capitol Hill, State Houses, governors' and mayors' offices in every region, county commissions, city council chambers, and building departments across the land; in short, every forum where they can attempt to sabotage efforts to adopt improved energy performance standards for buildings and homes, now and into the foreseeable future.
In all likelihood you'll be offered an appetizer featuring equal parts designed to evoke sympathy (as in, "This is kicking the industry while it's down!") and outdated, inflated industry metrics contrived to position "affordability" as a strictly first-cost calculation. They will try to convince you that affordability is totally incompatible with higher energy performance, suggesting that it's an either/or proposition, when, in fact, this assertion cannot be further from the truth.

Monthly energy cost is finally being recognized as the third largest expenditure, only behind mortgage principal and interest, in the housing budget for the vast majority of American homeowners, and it is second only to the actual rent payment for families who rent their homes.

Not long ago I had an opportunity to discuss this topic with a group of high school students in Oklahoma. When I asked them if they had ever been part of a kitchen table discussion at home about whether the family would have to choose this month between keeping the heat on or buying all the groceries they needed, about 90% of the hands went up, a sad commentary on the disgraceful performance of our housing stock and the industry that delivers it.

You can bet that the delectable main course you're about to be served comes with a generous side dish of familiar fear tactics designed to exploit your legitimate concerns over further erosion of jobs, lost public revenues, falling home ownership rates, and perceived threats to every sector and level of the economy. The recipe is a tried-and-true favorite, artfully prepared to mask the sour taste of disappearing, easy profits without actually revealing them as the main ingredient.

It will be shamelessly ladled up with the suggestion that all builders everywhere agree with this well-rehearsed and choreographed song and dance. I beg to differ. On a recent visit to North Carolina, well-known and highly-respected builder Chad Ray volunteered the following:
"We averaged 15 homes a year from 2000 through 2008. We normally built 7 or 8 specs a year and 7 or 8 presale customs. With the downturn came a blessing that people still sought us out in 2009 and 2010 to build their custom homes. We only built eight houses each of those years. Seven were green customs and the other (8th) was a spec. If we hadn't committed to building green years ago, that reputation would not have seen us through in surviving the last two. Green building is the reason we can make a living in today's world. I believe it will be the reason our industry survives moving forward."
Predictably, the dessert portion of this prix fix menu is the old standby, mom and apple pie, topped with the industry version of the "American dream." To help wash it all down, you'll be treated to copious amounts of "greenwash"-flavored Kool-Aid, the artificial flavoring specially formulated to try to convince you that the building sector is leading the way toward sustainability when, in fact, virtually even the smallest step of progress has been a battle, with much of the mainstream industry still having to be dragged kicking and screaming all the way.

Fortunately there are some notable exceptions, and they are not only small to medium sized building companies. A number of the high-production national builders have begun to embrace energy performance as a powerful differentiator in their keenly competitive sector. In fact, one top ten builder, Meritage Homes, which is building communities in several states, has committed to build all its new homes to at least Energy Star and to even higher standard performance levels in many cases.

Despite all this, the stale buffet is being served up with a straight face even though architects, designers, general contractors, builders, specialty/trade contractors, product manufacturers, and professionals up and down the supply chain are proving every day, in all parts of the country, that meaningful improvements in energy efficiency and building performance are not only imminently achievable but are also cost effective.

Furthermore, the special interest mantra ignores the vast community of building owners and home buyers who consistently identify unpredictable, escalating energy costs as their number one concern. Perhaps even more disingenuous is the ongoing deliberate avoidance of the fact that energy is more than a luxury that cannot be ignored any longer, and that reliable, affordable energy costs are a major uncertainty to home owners and renters alike.
Sadly, those who only serve their own self interests to gain short term profits would have us all picking up the tab for decades to come, and they will continue to perform at the lowest allowable level. Policy makers have an opportunity to truly provide a better future for us all by helping to assure that we build in the most responsible way.

Be careful what you're willing to swallow, and you won't need any spicy condiments to make it palatable.

Would it be fair to suggest that some things just aren't working out the way we intended? If so, what can we do about it? Anything? And how much of "anything" is needed to create a critical mass? What does fifty-six have to do with it? Well, it may not be a magic number, but it's not a totally random one either. Bear with me and I'll try to explain...

Surely we were all equally "surprised" by the news that Congress has received its lowest approval rating ever, according to a recent Gallup Poll. We are beginning to realize that lame "duck" is far too generous a description for the current crop of impostors who are either bitterly cleaning out their desks or already working on their next re-election campaigns.

We continue to receive our daily ration of posturing and dose of rhetoric as the Administration and "leadership" of both Houses artfully choreograph a bizarre set of dance steps to give the appearance that they are working together toward addressing the nation's growing list of man-made disasters, led by a debt that has reached almost $14 trillion.
Meanwhile, lobbyists who pander for the whole range of special interests skillfully wrangle the sacred cows of their masters through the narrow loopholes of exemption and across the treacherous slippery slopes of real compromise, making sure to circumvent all those quicksand puddles of the dreaded "common good" that line the trail. You have to believe that at least some of these cattle barons realize that not only is the entire herd being systematically rustled but that the deed to the ranch itself is now being held in the vault of a foreign bank.

When we descend somewhat from those lofty heights of Capitol Hill and look more closely at some of the contributors to our national paralysis we perhaps begin to reluctantly recognize the tracks of our own participation in the expanding debacle. The combination of apathy and complacency, when added to the deliberate deception of seasoned manipulators, has left us all more than a little complicit, even if we're not totally cognizant.

In the building arena we have continued to go along with the strait-jacket "one-size-fits-all" advocacy of the trade associations, even though the 800-pound gorilla, having lost more than a third of its members, has been reduced to something far less imposing and formidable. The decades of serving up hypocrisy and spin, the erroneous assumption that an organization can be all things to all people, and the refusal to evolve with the times have marginalized the neighborhood bully and reduced him to a desperate jester.

When an organization refuses to entertain the notion that the pathetic 2% participation by its members in its political action fund may have more to do with what it is advocating than with their temperament or frugality (even though a well-paid outside consultant came to that conclusion as well), one gets a pretty clear signal that somebody is not listening.
Simultaneously, after a meteoric rise to national prominence and masterful penetration into the public policy arena, the new kid on the (green building) block, with its fire-hose gusher of "rating systems" (cleverly touted as standards) and its startling income growth (now in the tens of millions of dollars annually), is experiencing some of the bitter harvest sewn by its own bureaucracy, its technocratic arrogance, and its condescending "we know what's best for you... and everybody else" attitude and demeanor.

After all, when the status of a member is determined by the size of the check that has to be written it's not hard to understand that the little guy, the individual, cannot help wondering whether he or she matters at all. Perhaps that is why the organization recently was forced to extend the voting period to elect its new national board members because the modest requirement for 10% membership participation (a pesky inconvenience imposed by its own bylaws) had not been satisfied. In other words, more than 90% of those eligible to vote for the candidates who would "lead" the organization have apparently either been sufficiently disenfranchised or are simply too disinterested to bother.

If you're still here you are no doubt wondering what this has to do with fifty-six...
For the better part of two years a small group of us has been gestating the idea that the building sector needs an alternative organization where our opinions can actually be heard, where our ideas do actually count, where we can speak with a common voice (even when we don't completely agree), where we can make a meaningful commitment to a more sustainable future.

What we came up with is the Green Builder® Coalition, a non-profit, grassroots group of individuals who are determined to make a difference, who are looking for personal empowerment, who are willing to make a personal investment, who believe that we all have a stake in the relationship between the built environment and the natural environment, and who are willing to embrace some personal responsibility for the outcome, not only in our own self interest but for that of future generations. We are not a trade association, nor are we trying to represent any extreme positions. We are simply dedicated to transparency, honesty and a level playing field.

Almost two and a half centuries ago, a diverse group of fifty-six individuals made a commitment that carried with it much more serious (and potentially far more grave) consequences than what we are now suggesting when they signed a document called the Declaration of Independence. Fifty-six people put a lot more on the line than just their signatures and, as a result, they changed the future.

We believe it could happen again. Fifty-six may not seem like a big number, but it is a pretty good place to start.
Please visit www.greenbuildercoalition.org to see what we've been up to. We are anxious to hear from you.