|
 Mr. Hal Levin
Research Architect, Building Ecology Research Group, Santa Cruz, California
B.A. B. Arch, UC Berkeley. 26 years consulting, writing, and lecturing on indoor environmental quality. 40 years of climate-sensiitve, environmentally-responsible design. Internationally recognized authority. Fellow ASHRAE. Fellow ASTM.
Broad-ranging experience in building-related environmental issues – including both indoor air quality and the impacts of buildings on the larger environment and sustainability. Consultant to architects, building owners, corporations, individuals, and to state, federal, and foreign governments. Known internationally for pioneering work in indoor air quality and the connection between the indoor environment and sustainable buildings. Recent focus on standardized methods for emissions testing and specification of low-emitting materials and on rigorous, science-based, data-driven methods for evaluating building environmental performance.
Brief description of presentation:
So-called "Green buildings" simply "improve" building environmental performance when compared to "normal" or typical buildings being built contemporaneously. Sustainable buildings must be based on a far more rigorous definition of sustainability including identification of targets for resource consumption, pollution releases, and land encroachment that are calculated on the basis of Earth's local and global “carrying capacity” (or “ecospace”).
The assessment of building or community environmental sustainability must begin with the identification of environmental goals starting but not limited to the environmental problems and concerns that are being addressed. Then, by prioritizing these problems, a self-consistent approach can be taken to the inevitable tradeoff decisions that characterize building and community design. The priorities will vary over time and in diverse locations as a function of recognized local conditions and environmental problems, so they must be revisited periodically and reviewed for each project and application. But they must reflect a broad, intermediate term (20 - 50 year) plan that moves society at the local, regional, and global scales toward long-term sustainability.
Few existing design guides and tools -- including rating systems and other tools -- actually identify the environmental problems that are the focus of concern and for which the building or community design is intended to minimize negative impacts. Instead, they simply tend to represent expert judgment about the best available current solutions. In most cases, the solutions are categorized and organized separately within the rating system and no overall integrated rating, scoring, or other process for making trade-offs is included. This is the case for the U.S. Green Building Council's LEED rating system: it lacks a basis for making tradeoffs or even any explicit articulation of the environmental problems presumed implicitly to be addressed. In fact, it represents little more than professional judgment regarding "good" design solutions to minimize negative environmental impacts. The result is that separate design measures are encouraged and awarded LEED "points" even though they may actually conflict and/or exacerbate one environmental problem while attempting to mitigate or avoid another. Designers and their clients often use the rating system as a framework to determine the least economic cost to achieve a particular LEED rating level. This has not only resulted in failure to integrate design features into a meaningful overall environmental concept and plan, it has also undermined the potential recognition of the needed research on the fundamental issues that must be addressed by sustainable designs.
Life cycle assessment and environmental footprint approaches generally avoid the shortcomings of rating systems although they often include implicit valuation or prioritization of different environmental problems. But making identification of the environmental problems of concern explicit initiates a dialogue that produces increased awareness by participants and reduces the likelihood that important problems will go unaddressed.
The Dutch have produced numerous useful tools for assessing the environmental impacts of buildings, policies, and programs to achieve sustainable communities, and they have also produced many examples of environmentally-responsible design. Unlike LEED and other rating systems, many Dutch tools and guidance documents begin by identifying environmental problems of concern and establishing goals or limits for environmental impact that are calculated to result in improved sustainability from a comprehensive perspective. The presentation will review some landmark Dutch tools including the basic framework for Life Cycle Assessments (LCAs) from Leiden University, LCA software for products in general (PRé), and for housing (EcoQuantum), and many examples of their application. In the early 90s, Milieudefensie (Friends of the Earth/Netherlands - FOE/NL), Opschoor, and the Dutch (RMNO) developed a comprehensive and realistic model for assessing sustainability. The model has been used in the Netherlands as an example for calculations to inform community planning policy and practice. Additionally, by using the framework, Milieudefensie produced worked examples that in themselves have been used as a model for "Sustainable Plans" for many other European countries, for Europe as a whole, and for other countries around the world. The pioneering work of the Dutch has been too little appreciated and is almost unknown in America. This presentation will attempt to highlight the outstanding contributions made by the Dutch and compare them with American efforts to build "green" buildings. Finally, we will recommend a path for American integration of the Dutch work to improve the environmental sustainability of our building and community designs. |
