Last week, the discussion of more stringent minimum performance requirements for buildings was bracketed by a pair of comments that were almost certainly missed by the vast majority of people in this country, whether they are much interested in the subject or not.
The first comment found its way into the weekly column of a business writer for a daily newspaper in a familiar Southwestern city as he was discussing the endless and highly predictable hand wringing taking place there over impending state regulation changes that will soon be ramping up energy efficiency levels for buildings, much to the "dread" of those in the development and building community.
He quoted one of the oft-retread and oft-repeated, but still highly popular, excuses cited by industry spokespeople as they shamelessly search for skirts to hide behind while groping for anything on which to attach an anchor for the status quo. Right on schedule, the old tried and true "bad timing" whine was taken for another lap around the track of public discourse.
Along the way they mixed in a dose of another favorite complaint, accusing decision makers of "kicking the industry while it's down" and the writer also reported that some in the industry viewed the initiatives as evidence of "the power of the green lobby." Hinting that lawsuits could be in the offing, one spokesperson pointed out that "a lot of the provisions exceed federal mandates."
There was no mention in the article whether the spokesman had acknowledged the fact that those same federal mandates are minimum requirements and that any jurisdiction has the right to aim higher if they feel that doing so would be in the best interest of the majority of its citizens.
Similarly, there was no observation of the fact that when building permits were being issued at an all time high just a few short years ago no industry spokespeople stepped up to suggest that it might be a good time to increase performance requirements while everybody was riding fat and happy on the gravy train.
Curiously, the piece did include a quote from the city's chief building official in reference to the municipality's energy conservation code (even more stringent than the impending state regulation), which he admits is not always achieved on new construction projects, either commercial or residential. He was quoted as saying, "If we can't meet that [the city code's goal of 30 percent over federal mandate] without causing great consternation in the industry, we may have to tweak it."
Such a blatant expression of pandering to special business interest must be particularly hard to swallow for folks trying to make a difference in a state that consistently ranks near or at the bottom (as in 45th through 50th) of practically every meaningful list measuring quality of life in categories ranging from average household income, to high school graduation rates, to drunk driving fatalities, and many more than we can list.
Heaven forbid that any regulation-be it local or statewide-in a place such as that, should exceed the absolute lowest common denominator!
Meanwhile, the local building industry lobbied hard for the extension of a partial moratorium (50%) on impact fees set to expire next month. The moratorium, though highly contentious when passed in 2009, has proved to be a "game changer" in the effort to entice builders to locate new projects within the city limits rather than seeking cheaper alternatives beyond the city's boundaries.
Under terms of the moratorium, green building projects-those that meet certification standards of the local building association's green building program or LEED-were given a tremendous boost because they have enjoyed a total waiver of impact fees, certainly a huge incentive for local developers and builders to go the green route. The city council took up the measure last Tuesday and, in an act of compromise, voted to extend the moratorium for an additional six months.
While this and countless other public policy dramas were playing out around the country in local and state forums, the International Code Council (ICC) raised a sail in an ongoing effort to move the ship of sustainability out of the harbor and into the open water of jurisdictional choice.
In a weeklong set of open meetings conducted near Chicago, the Public Comment Hearing Committee, whose members had been seated to discuss and make recommendations on the more than 1,400 initial public comments which had been received by the ICC on the first draft (Public Version 1.0, March 2010) of the International Green Construction Code (IGCC), worked through a mountainous schedule. Considering each comment that had been submitted, along with hours of additional verbal input from representatives of interested parties (including trade associations, product manufacturers, government agencies, professional groups and a wide assortment of others), the committee methodically ground its way through seven arduous days of deliberations.
On Saturday, which marked the eighth morning, seeing the light at the end of the tunnel a day sooner than expected, the Committee completed its work by chewing through a final set of general comments, heaved a collective sigh of relief and then sat back to consider what had been accomplished. Their efforts, all of which had been webcast live, had moved the proposed IGCC a step closer to completion, though there will be two additional future comment periods and respective hearings to process them (in May and November of 2011) before ICC will offer the final version for adoption in early 2012.
The committee members were then asked to offer any final thoughts on the progress that had been made. Several expressed their gratitude for being included in the process and their satisfaction at having not only preserved but refined (and quite possibly improved), the original document.
Reflection by the group was sober but hopeful, as best summed up by committee member Chris Mathis who concluded his personal comments by reminding everyone of a well-known Chinese proverb:
The best time to plant a tree is twenty years ago. The second best time is today.
I have yet to come across a single industry that doesn't claim to be the most over-regulated, most persecuted industry in history. While there are always pioneers in every field who never tire of reaching higher, sadly, they are the exception. They are outnumbered by those who not only eschew raising the bar but who actually fight against any change to the minimum requirement that will cause them inconvenience or cost them a penny.
They say that perfection is the enemy of the good. There is never a perfect time; there never will be. We need to stop dragging anchors and hoist more sails.
Posted: 8/30/2010 12:57:44 AM by
Heather Wallace | with 0 comments
On day 80 of the BP Gulf oil spill, while we tried to forget that an additional million gallons of crude oil-give or take-belched from that underwater theater of horrors into those once rich blue-green ocean waters; on the same day that at least two additional American service members and numerous civilians were lost in the oil wars in Afghanistan and Iraq; on the same day the United States and Russia announced that they were trading busted spies with one another in a surreal and almost comical sequel to the Cold War, right out of some otherwise compelling and complex novel by John Le Carre'...
Countless Americans held their collective breath while they strained to be among the first to hear where the current king of the NBA hardwood will be collecting his millions next year. Ultimately, thousands of faithful hearts in Cleveland were shattered while New York, Chicago, and other hopefuls were left waiting, embarrassed, and bitter, at the altar of unrealized future championships.
Meanwhile, slipping beneath the headlines almost as silently as it had drifted through the overnight starlight, the first successful 24-hour-plus flight of a solar-powered, piloted aircraft concluded rather inconspicuously on a sunlit morning at a Swiss airfield. Many had said it couldn't be done.
It wasn't the first time the "experts" were wrong. On an otherwise apparently unremarkable December morning in 1903, after two failed attempts, Orville Wright took a 700 pound aircraft, known as the Flyer, on the first successful, sustained, piloted, heavier-than-air flight in history ... for all of twelve seconds. The following year, with his brother Wilbur at the controls, the first flight of more than five minutes was completed.
Perhaps it was because professional basketball was still decades away that the exploits of the Wrights made a bigger splash and lasting impression than we will likely record for the designers, builders, crew and pilot of the solar aircraft. Project co-founder, Bertrand Piccard, declared "there is a before and after in terms of what people have to believe and understand about renewable energies," adding that the flight was proof that new technologies can break the dependence on fossil fuels even though many claim it can't be done.
The project team will next set its sights on a trans-Atlantic crossing before attempting a round-the-world voyage in 2013, with limited stops. Whether or not those attempts are successful, there is no way to know if their story will be the top news of the day. After all, perhaps some big sports blockbuster or a sleazy revelation about the private life of an entertainer, a pro athlete, or maybe a politician, will lead the evening headlines. And even if they do make the lead story, there will be plenty of folks who will have predicted that they would fail and who are not interested.
Unfortunately, we live in a world mostly comprised of spectators. For them it is easier to comment on the lives of others and prognosticate the failures of those who dare to attempt-or, in other words, to predict what can't be done rather than imagine what is possible. Most of all, they can't be made to look beyond their own limitations or to dare to risk failure in a cause larger than themselves, which may be why we settle for the world as we know it rather than demanding the world that could be.
There are lots and lots of things we can do. We can instigate, educate, and try to motivate. We can illuminate, legislate, and regulate. But there is one thing we absolutely cannot do. We can't make them reach for the skies because we can't make people care...
Posted: 7/13/2010 3:57:22 PM by
Heather Wallace | with 0 comments
The fact is, if you measure in miles I happen to live about as far from the Gulf Coast as a resident of the lower forty-eight can. But because I have a number of friends and colleagues who make their homes and earn their livelihoods in that part of the country, particularly in Louisiana and Florida, and because we currently have active projects in both of those states, I spend more time in that region than one might expect.
My own involvement in the rebuilding effort following Katrina came as a result of introductions to members of the building community in New Orleans who subsequently connected me with local elected officials, government employees, members of non-profit organizations, business leaders, utility company representatives, and lots of just plain folks who had a stake in what was going to happen next and how it would shape their collective future. Over time, I was privileged to work with many of them in educational events, planning meetings, and charrettes.
Images of devastation in the weeks after the storm are still vivid in my memory ... miles of residential streets marked by sprawling craters that could swallow cars whole, endless mud and debris piled high where the sidewalks should have been along both sides of avenues, RVs and small buildings sitting atop other buildings, the shredded skeletons of trees that had once shaded the boulevards, and, seemingly everywhere, the greasy toxic stain from the unimaginable flood of filth that left its high water mark on houses, commercial buildings, highway abutments, and utility poles.
It was a combination of those experiences and witnessing the determination of my new acquaintances there over the next year that led me to successfully lobby to have the site of the 2008 National Green Building Conference relocated to New Orleans, despite the protests of a legion of skeptics who, citing crime and the limited progress of rebuilding efforts at that time, warned that no one wanted to go to there, especially for a conference about sustainability. All those who supported the move were vindicated when the conference attracted its largest attendance ever, a record that is still intact.
For many it remains the annual event's most talked about and memorable location ever, but perhaps more important, the conference helped not only to channel badly needed dollars into the economy there at a critical time but also to focus the discussions of sustainable building and development in the single location of the country that needed them most.
While the so-called elected leadership at all levels of government-local, state and national-squabbled, sniped, and postured, some of us found ways to make whatever contribution we could toward an eventual recovery and positive outcome. The sum of hundreds of such efforts, when added to the sheer will of those who refused to leave the region or entertain defeat, resulted in the undeniable resurgence of the Crescent City and much of the surrounding region.
In the first weeks of 2010 the unbridled joy of long-suffering Saints fans spilled over into Mardi Gras, and residents must have felt that they had finally begun to turn the corner and stand in the sun. The afterglow of the celebration was shattered as suddenly as the drilling platform itself when the Deep Water Horizon exploded, instantly claiming the lives of eleven, and unbelievably marking the beginning of another dark chapter in the lives of countless others.
Today, almost two months after that unthinkable event, thousands of gallons of crude continue to erupt from the ruptured underwater well every day, millions of nature's creatures are threatened and dying, and billions of dollars in damage to the environment, the economy, and all those who depend on the Gulf's bounty for their very survival are being tallied in a dizzying calculation that is hard to keep up with.
On any given day we see sickening images of tortured wildlife, spoiled marshes, wetlands and beaches, empty marinas and idle shrimp boats. We hear the pleas of families in distress, desperate business operators, and tormented local officials begging for assistance and answers-any answers-to the questions of how they can possibly manage to make it through to the other side of a disaster that is still unfolding.
On the evening news I watch and listen as a bizarre scene plays for the cameras. Governor Charlie Crist is on a Florida beach with Jimmy Buffet. Crist is declaring that the beaches are clean and the hotel rooms and restaurant seats are ready and waiting. He makes it clear to all that "we are open for business." I almost expect an 800 number to appear on the screen and hear "operators are standing by!"
Meanwhile, Mr. Margaritaville stands lamely alongside looking somewhat sheepish. I can't help wondering if he may be trying to figure out a re-write of that lyric about "all those tourists covered with oil".
Governor, we understand that before you are called on to direct those skimmers that will try to intercept at least some of the crude that is headed your way you must first try to skim as many dollars as possible off anyone who might be willing to bring them across the state line, but do you have to be so damned transparent about it? Could you at least mention something about the environment and any concerns you may have?.
Immediately afterward we are treated to a commercial featuring BP chief executive Tony Hayward looking most sincere while the images behind him show clean sand, clean boats, clean booms, clean birds ... hell, even clean cleaners. Is it just me or does anyone agree that his message might be a little easier to believe if it was being delivered by somebody without so much recent negative television exposure and, pardon me while I momentarily abandon political correctness, a somewhat less British accent?
One day we see and hear the governor of Louisiana, Bobby Jindal, pointing to a hapless pelican that cannot even attempt to flee from the rust colored tide of death that bathes the beaches of his state. We share his anger at the words of the embattled oil company CEO who had earlier told an interviewer that he "wants his life back." In the next breath he is bemoaning the administration's decision to temporarily suspend the issuance of new offshore drilling permits. He declares that we don't have to choose between protecting the environment and continuing to chase the almighty oil dollar. I don't know, Governor, under the circumstances we might have to think about it.
The next day we hear the President of the United States, fury flashing in his eyes, declaring that he does not want to find out that while the oil company is spending millions of dollars putting a public relations campaign on network television and in full page newspaper ads-and is showering its shareholders with billions of dollars in quarterly dividends-that they are simultaneously "nickel and diming" fishermen and others in the Gulf region who desperately need financial help to get through another day.
At the same time, reporters are pointing out that the flow figures the U.S. government has been publishing as the supposed total estimated range from the well may actually only be the low range estimates. Since the fines on BP are predicated in part of the size of the spill there are billions of dollars at stake. Has anyone stopped to take a headcount in the hen house today?
But something bigger is wrong with all of this. Something is missing. Why are we not seeing and hearing the President Obama and Governor Jindal together, fighting this catastrophe shoulder to shoulder? Whose handlers have decided it is not politically expedient to be seen as allies in this battle? Did they each decide that the other is too toxic to be in the same camera shot with? Or is it just politics as usual, both trying their best to appear leader-like but carefully positioning so as to avoid any oil linking them during the inevitable blame-fest to come?
Gentlemen, I have news for you. Increasingly we could not care less about the politics of the situation. For us, it is personal. We are not worried that you might get tar on your wingtips or oil stains on your suit pants. In fact, we wouldn't mind seeing the bunch of you roll up your sleeves and get your hands dirty for once.
When you were running for office you made sure those voters you were courting saw the outcome of the election as something personal. You told us it was not about politics, rather it was about something more important. You made us trust you enough to let you take a turn at the controls.
Set the politics aside and show some leadership. It has never been more personal.
Posted: 6/8/2010 9:56:18 AM by
Gibson Ó hEalaigh | with 0 comments
The funerals in West Virginia coal country had barely slipped from the daily headlines when another fossil fuel disaster projected itself onto our computers and television screens. We found ourselves staring into a river of crude oil spewing from an almost mile-deep well head in the Gulf of Mexico as it embarked on its inexorable journey to our southern coastline, leaving in its wake a trail of death to every living thing it touched. The rush of anger and disgust that swept over many of us was accompanied by an overwhelming sense of helplessness, which came from feeling that all we could do is watch this newest desecration of our environment unfold (while it simultaneously deals crippling blows to entire economies and communities there), and with it the sickening realization that the only people who can possibly put an end to this ongoing eruption of destruction, are those who allowed it to happen in the first place.
In the midst of this debacle we learned of another coal mine disaster, this time in Russia, which not only claimed the lives of miners working their daily shift but, perhaps even more cruelly, also those of rescuers who went into that gaping grave in a long-shot attempt to save their brothers.
The sickening black smoke from the fires still burning in that coal mine and on the surface waters of the Gulf combine to create a perfect backdrop for the farce being played out on Capitol Hill as members of Congress beat their chests and perform for the cameras in the latest act of their recurring sitcom (or is it a tragedy?) about how they are protecting and serving those who elect them.
In this newest episode we are treated to a command performance of the oil industry executives as they roll out their rendition of "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil," although in between scenes the excuse making and finger pointing there is more reminiscent of the Three Stooges than serious thespians. The lives of those lost in the rig explosion hardly seem to merit a footnote as all sides jostle for the best possible position.
Meanwhile, as if we are playing an endless game of Russian roulette—mindlessly loading another round into a fresh bullet chamber—we go about our business as usual, repeatedly filling our gas tanks with expensive liquid that we turn into poisonous exhaust gases, running our lights and appliances with electricity mostly produced by incinerating the dirtiest combustible material around … dutifully paying up our tribute to greedy exploiters (including many who are known to support our sworn enemies with the very profits they milk from us) who have systematically brainwashed us into believing that the world cannot operate without their products.
In the first half of the 19th century whale oil was the highest quality lamp fuel and lubricant known. Demand for it was so great that profits from that industry (the so-called "golden age" of American whaling ran roughly from the 1820s up until the start of the Civil War) are largely recognized as the source of funding that made possible the expansion of the nation into the West.
The whaling industry did not meet its decline because all the whales had been slaughtered, although that almost certainly would have occurred if left to the whalers themselves. The average whaling voyage had reached three years in duration at its peak (one was recorded at an astonishing 11 years) and the American fleet alone once numbered more than 750 ocean-going vessels that literally sailed the seven seas. More than 20,000 seamen were directly engaged in whaling and more than 70,000 people directly depended on the $70 million industry for their livelihoods.
In 1859, a Pennsylvania well driller in search of water struck petroleum instead and that event, along with the outbreak of the Civil War, in which the vast majority of the whaling vessels were destroyed, led to the realization that a more plentiful —and therefore cheaper—type of fuel and lubricant was ripe for the plucking, and soon people began to light their lamps with kerosene and lubricate their machinery with petroleum products. Those who wrung their hands and warned that the economy would collapse if whale oil and the industry built around it should disappear were soon forgotten, and the rest, as they say, is history.
The introduction of the petroleum age fostered another significant advance in technology. For a considerable period of time, the external combustion engine represented the most efficient and versatile source of mechanical horsepower available in the world. Steam locomotives, still the darlings of railroad aficionados and nostalgic hobbyists, burned giant quantities of coal or wood as they drew the immense loads of commerce back and forth across the continent while steamships, depending on those same solid fuels, ferried passengers and freight up and down great rivers and over the vast oceans with speed, endurance, and predictability.
External combustion technology even took a victory lap in personal transportation for a time as a version of the renowned Stanley Steamer (during 1897 and 1898 over 200 were produced and sold, more than any other car company) set a world speed record for automobiles in 1906, at a blazing and amazing 127 miles per hour. Their eventual obsolescence came about because they could not compete with the fuel efficiency and power delivery of internal combustion technology, despite their desperate attempts to woo back the car-buying public through early fear-based advertising campaigns designed to plant confusion and safety doubts about the "internal explosion engine," a strategy which sounds strikingly familiar to those employed by detractors of emerging energy technologies today.
The use of the steam engines did not fade away because they didn't work. They were simply replaced by more advanced, convenient technologies and efficient energy sources. The mass use of whale oil for lighting and lubrication did not end because the last remaining whale had been hunted down and brutally harpooned … that act has apparently been left to the modern day whaling industry which continues to relentlessly "harvest" this "resource," mostly for pet food and use in cosmetics.
We won't simply wake up one day and realize that the last trainload of coal has been burned at a power plant, putting an end to the blackening of the skies and stockpiling of toxin laden ash in open heaps and lagoons. Nor will we suddenly switch from petroleum-based fuels to propel our implements of transportation and recreation … planes, trains, automobiles, and the rest. These changes don't happen in the blink of an eye, or without the will to make sacrifices.
But in the scheme of things, which is more relevant: how fast we get there or when we start? There is an irony in the magic of overnight delivery. It doesn't provide you with fewer deadlines, it just lets you postpone them longer. The first step in any journey is the most important.
More than two decades after the wreck of the Exxon Valdez, oil that spilled from its hold is still being cleaned up in Prince William Sound, and some of the most important environmental and commercial species that were previously found in great abundance there, such as the valuable herring, are no longer residents in that region. After weeks, the oil is still gushing from that BP well on the floor of the Gulf. Can we even begin to imagine how long that disaster will haunt us? On what day do we intend to start?
Why is it so difficult to get people to admit that we not only have the ability to make intelligent decisions and effect positive change in the way we conduct our lives, but that it is our moral obligation to do so? We know how to reduce the environmental impacts of our industries, our transportation, and our built environment. We are not forced to continue to pass the poison for the sake of profit.
By mindlessly going along with the status quo that we have fostered and which we continue to finance with our purchases, we not only endanger the miners who would make their way into the darkness of the hole and those who risk their very lives on drilling rigs throughout the world, nor are we simply threatening entire species and ecosystems that have taken millions of years to evolve and reach natural balance, we are engaged in something far more inexplicable.
We willingly keep that loaded gun to our own heads, in effect, holding ourselves, and future generations, hostage … to our greed, our stubbornness, and our laziness.
Posted: 5/14/2010 6:11:57 PM by
Gibson Ó hEalaigh | with 0 comments
Riding with the Bogeyman
This endeavor we have chosen to pursue, which is simply to provide balanced information and (hopefully) useful options to our readers, can sometimes be a frustrating and seemingly thankless exercise.
For example, in response to a specific electronic invitation that we extended last week, for our readers to attend a free webinar on renewable energy options, which, by the way, has been viewed by more than 555 visitors so far, we found ourselves being scolded by one recipient who wrote: "I hope that you will involve the builders in the deliberations and decisions before you force your 'costly' green ideas on them!" Hmmm…
Maybe I'm a little slow on the uptake, but I honestly had not realized that by making an informational webinar available, completely without charge, to anyone who wants to voluntarily watch it, we would be forcing anything on anybody. And I am not really certain just what "deliberations" and "decisions" were being referred to but if someone can tell me where they are taking place I'll try to get there right away.
Our unhappy reader went on to say: "It is not possible to pass all new costs on to the buyers. This is a poor time to lay more costs on the building industry with the economy as it is and the escalation in energy, labor, and material costs!"
Even I am aware of the ongoing and punishing economic crisis we are all facing, and I agree that not every cost can be passed on to buyers but I have to ask, when have the costs of labor and materials not been of major concern to builders? As for the costs of energy, it seems to me that information about renewable options is especially timely and appropriate since the price and reliability of energy is a topic of concern to virtually every household in the country, particularly in the wake of the series of winter storms that recently knocked out power to hundreds of thousands—even millions—of utility customers, sometimes for days on end.
I don't know, maybe we should instead be suggesting that builders get rid of that high-priced indoor plumbing and expensive air conditioning that they have been including in their projects. Saving those big dollars would surely make them easier to sell, right?
All sarcasm aside, a century or so ago we might have easily found ourselves having a similar disagreement about whether or not we should provide free information to people who wanted to learn more about that "new-fangled stuff," known as electricity, which was beginning to find its way into homes and buildings across the continent.
There were certainly many who resisted that revolutionary technology, some because they were simply too lazy to learn anything, and some whose own ignorance and trepidation caused them to discourage others from exploring this new energy grid idea on the basis of increased expense and because it could be dangerous in the wrong hands.
Sadly, fear is a powerful force, a fact that is not lost on those who seized on the opportunity to try to intimidate consumers as part of their recent efforts to derail, or at least delay, the start of the proposed Homestar initiative that is currently being deliberated in Congress.
Homestar, also known as Cash for Caulkers, is described as "proposed new legislation to create jobs in existing industries by providing strong short-term incentives for energy efficiency improvements in residential buildings. The program will move quickly, with a minimum of red tape, and will act as a bridge to long-term market development of existing industries."
Although the program is supported and endorsed by more than 700 companies and organizations through the Home Star Coalition, not everyone is totally enamored with the proposal. Many people in the United States see the initiative as yet another frivolous spending spree on the part of the administration, even though the entire $6 billion proposal is equivalent to less than one week of the borrowing and spending that the government exercises on an ongoing basis to support the oil industry, even as we head back toward $4 per gallon gasoline prices with the summer driving season approaching.
The Homestar program was originally hailed on March 2 in an official statement by the NAHB, as having the potential to "be a real shot in the arm for the housing industry," adding that it "will help put America back to work and help families save on monthly energy bills." It went on to site the organization's own economists as estimating that "every $1 billion in remodeling and home improvement activity generates 11,000 jobs, $527 million in wages and salaries, and $300 million in business income."
"Making the existing housing stock more energy efficient is one of the most effective ways to achieve national energy conservation goals," according to NAHB, whose spokesman then went on to add "This can be an important step in reducing the nation's dependence on foreign energy supplies."
The underlying meaning of that final quote became much more transparent as additional written comments emerged from the organization espousing contentions which were subsequently reiterated over the past two weeks in Congressional hearings in which the spokesmen for NAHB cited concerns about a lead-based paint regulation of the EPA, the Renovation, Repair and Painting Rule (RRP), which was passed during the previous Administration and is slated to go into effect on April 22.
With a goal of reducing human exposures to lead, it will require that contractors, including plumbers, carpenters, painters and other trades people who disturb paint in homes, child care facilities, and schools built before 1978, must be certified by EPA in order to legally perform the work. Homeowners and others hoping to take advantage of the financial incentives offered through Homestar should be using only EPA-certified workers.
According to EPA, lead exposure can cause reduced IQ, learning disabilities, developmental delays, and behavioral problems in young children. Lead-based paint was used in more than 38 million homes before it was banned for residential use in 1978. Landlords, property managers, and their employees are responsible for ensuring compliance with the rule. Residents/homeowners who hire non-certified workers for their pre-1978 dwellings are apparently not subject to fines, but the remodelers themselves could be.
Citing Census Bureau data, NAHB points to the fact that of approximately 120 million existing homes in the United States, roughly 65% (78 million) were built before 1978 and would require a remodeler to be lead-paint certified in order to work on those projects. The association has been claiming that there are only 14,000 certified lead-safe workers, although according to USA Today, EPA says that it had actually trained 50,000 by March 15 and expects to train another 50,000 by the April 22 deadline.
In a statement to USA Today, NAHB suggests that because "consumers don't know about the rule … they could be tempted to hire less expensive, untrained workers." I suppose it is possible to support that leap in logic to some extent but it is an entirely moot point for the owners of the 35% (42 million or so) of existing homes which were built since 1978, and it also assumes that any remodeler who has the certification for handling lead-based paint is automatically going to charge more for the work than one who is untrained, and that the typical consumer would be "tempted" to hire an uncertified remodeler even if they are aware of the risks.
Interested parties who were in attendance at the latest set of Congressional hearings on this initiative, reported that NAHB's position was "severely marginalized" when their statistics were openly challenged by certain congressional members.
The organization, which has opposed the lead-based paint regulation from the beginning and remains the only group to speak against the Homestar program in the hearings, finds itself further isolated by the fact that many stakeholders believe the Association is engaging in disingenuous rhetoric in a thinly veiled attempt to forestall the actual enforcement of the EPA regulation. The leaders do this to buy time to position their own organization as an approved trainer for the requirement, a move that stands to net NAHB significant dollars over time.
Proving that the old adage "the perfect is the enemy of the good," the unfortunate employment of contradictory messages, and the strategy of using scare tactics designed to serve narrow special interests by planting seeds of confusion and concern with consumers, will only produce paralysis and result in delaying the launch of the Homestar initiative at a time when the benefits to consumers, product manufacturers, and those who would perform the work could not be more essential.
In spite of the building organization's carefully crafted public relations spin to the contrary, actions such as these further erode what little remaining faith and trust the population has for the residential construction industry, prolongs the abysmal energy performance of our nation's existing housing stock, and guarantees the continuation of the associated high energy costs for American families, not to mention our dependence on foreign energy sources and outdated technologies.
Just as renewable energy technologies are not the silver bullet that will end our energy issues, the Homestar initiative is not a perfect solution. It is only a temporary boost that will hopefully carry over to a more enduring set of policies and a more sustainable built environment.
Let's be the first to stop the game playing. The training "pie" is large enough to go around. Members of the industry have had enough advanced notice of what they need to do. The time has come to quit using the "bogeyman" we call "change" to frighten consumers, to stop being terrified by progress, and get on with discovering the future. It is past time to stop making excuses and perform to the level of excellence we are capable of.
Posted: 3/23/2010 2:45:33 PM by
Gibson Ó hEalaigh | with 0 comments
