The New York Times carried a remarkable, front-page piece this weekend on the severe health risks of a chemical called normal propyl bromide (nPB), a substance known for many years to cause nerve damage, infertility and cancer.  Commonly used in aerosol form in furniture adhesives, the focus of the piece is on the mendacious practices of Royale, a foam cushion company with a long history of exposing their employees to the stuff, and the ineffectiveness of OSHA in either limiting the general use of nPB or disciplining Royale for their myriad infractions.  The Times also frames the issue in terms of unintended consequences- OSHA banned the use of something called trichloroethane (TCA) because it damages the ozone layer and companies began using nPB instead.  Leaving aside the horrifying callousness of certain business managers-  one is quoted as saying, “There are people lined up out there for jobs. If they start dropping like flies . . . we can replace them today”- one wonders how we got ourselves into a situation in which the various impacts of every chemical deployed have to be chased down by government agencies and employees.  The article reads like a keystone cops version of regulatory malfeasance.  Employees tell their bosses that nPB makes them sick.  The employees (and their doctors) tell OSHA that nPB makes them sick.  OSHA doles out fines that are so small the employers hardly notice so they continue to use nPB unabated, even as multiple employees are left unable to walk, have children, or get another job.  For me, the moment of highest tragi-comic value in the story is when Mid South Adhesives, the company that makes the nPB-based adhesive, tells Royale to stop using their product. But they keep selling it to them, and Royale keeps pumping it into their employees lungs because, hey, it’s legal.

All of this has direct bearing on the building industry, where the vast majority of materials include substances with a huge variety of severe health impacts, from cancer to arsenic poisoning to lung diseases.  A recent study by Perkins + Will found 374 substances in common building materials that are linked just to asthma.  It is just this sort of staggering data that has led to the development of the Perkins + Will Precautionary List, the Living Building Challenge Red List, and for organizations like the Healthy Building Network to focus on eliminating the “worst in class” substances commonly deployed by the three-billion dollar building material industry.  To date, the focus has been on simple transparency of what is actually in building materials. Astonishingly, most manufacturers are unable to tell you what’s in their products.  No one has ever asked them.  So programs like Declare are aiming to rectify this lack of knowledge.  Which is all well and good.  But maybe we should ask ourselves a different question.  Like, why is it the victims’ responsibility, the people getting sick, to PROVE that a specific material has led to their specific illness?  Shouldn’t the folks that are pumping the carcinogens and toxins into the system be required to, you know, stop doing that?  Why isn’t it the responsibility of manufacturers to prove to us that they’re products won’t make us sick?  As Michael Braungart once said to me, “If it causes cancer, and shows up in breast milk, surely we can all agree this is a bad thing?”

We’ve been nibbling away at the periphery of this system for a long time.  Decades of banning the very worst substances, limiting the use of a few others, replacing a small percentage of raw materials with salvaged and recycled stuff- all of this has had an impact, in some cases dramatic.  But we still are left with a system that enables the use of truly horrible substances, stuff that we’d never be exposed to in a just and equitable world.  Helder Camara, the Brazilian Archbishop and champion of social justice for the poor, is famous for saying, “When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why they are poor, they call me a communist.” Perhaps we need to be asking similarly fundamental questions about how we make things, in the building industry and beyond.

Postscript: Ian Urbina’s piece in the New York Times, referenced above, clocks in at more than 5,000 words and clearly involved a huge amount of research and interviews of dozens of people.  Although he soft-pedals some of the conclusions that might be drawn from all this work, the piece is a clarion call for the kind of long-form investigative journalism that seems imperiled these days and which our society needs as much as ever.  The message I take from this is that paying for online content (as the NYT requires after a few views) is very much worth it and we should all be prepared to do so more often on the internet.

I attended Greenbuild for the first time in 2004 when it was hosted in Portland and it was truly a revelation.  I understood for the first time, in a really tangible way, that I was not alone in my interest in healthy, energy-conserving buildings and communities.  Having felt like a pretty lonely voice at various architecture firms over the years, this was enormously empowering.  At that time, there were also very few places you could learn about products or systems that were greener than the rest.  The floor of that showroom was where I first learned of the existence of Icestone countertops, tankless hot water heating, biodegradable textiles and a host of other amazing materials that few if any architecture firms had in their materials libraries.

Sadly- it was also the first time I would run into the forces of darkness and their heavily funded program to retain the status quo (in which we DO NOT ask questions and we continue poisoning our environment and ourselves.)  This came in the form of a booth for the Vinyl Institute.  Back in those days most manufacturers had not invested heavily in marketing for Greenbuild.  Booths were mostly scrappy affairs, high on content and low on glitz.  In the middle of the floor, however, the Vinyl Institute had erected a gleaming white rectangular space, with a staff in pristine white uniforms.

It was like a set from 2001: A Space Odyssey and was almost as creepy since it included no products or materials- just disconcertingly cheerful staff handing out white postcards with their pitch for using vinyl in buildings.  Written by what must be the most brazen PR team in history, I kept this comical brochure on my desk for years.  The debate about whether LEED should reward buildings that avoided vinyl was brewing and the brochure was full of vague language asserting that vinyl created “healthy” buildings because the surface was easy to clean of germs and bacteria- totally ignoring the up- and downstream impacts of polyvinyl chloride.  It was mealy-mouthed stuff but the best part was the asterisk at the end of a paragraph, which referenced the following caveat: “This is not meant to be a technical document.”  I was very glad to have THAT cleared up.

Sadly- almost ten years later the debate about vinyl and many other materials rages on.  The most recent evidence of this battle is industry pressure on the Government Services Administration (GSA) to include other rating systems than LEED in their performance standards.  Eco Building Pulse notes the efforts of a group called the American High Performance Buildings Coalition (AHPBC) to influence the public comment process.  Certainly this is a decision that should be reviewed.  Green Globes is a much better system than it once was, and as code standards like IGCC and ASHRAE 189.1 are developed, the GSA and others should look into whether and how to incorporate them.

But I think we are allowed to question the motives of a group like AHPBC professing deep concern for the environmental impact of our buildings that is funded by the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, the Adhesive and Sealant Council, the American Chemistry Council, and the aforementioned Vinyl Institute.

Among other complaints, the AHBPC is opposed to the inclusion of the European REACH standard in LEED v4.  One of their prominent spokespersons, Craig Silvertooth of the Center for Environmental Innovation in Roofing, has even said that the materials standards proposed in LEED v4 “prohibits the design and construction of energy-efficiency, safe buildings.”  Because, you know, they don’t have any of THOSE in Europe.  Many positions of the AHBPC seemed predicated on a willful misunderstanding about the role of voluntary, market leadership guidelines like LEED and minimum threshold codes for things like life safety.  They also have failed to understand that not getting credit for something isn’t the same as that thing being prohibited.  You can pack all the non-FSC woods you want in your LEED Platinum building- you’re just not going to get the FSC credit.  It must be frustrating to them that LEED is structured so reasonably.  The real problem seems to be that they just don’t want anyone, ever, pointing out that lots of their materials contain toxins and carcinogens, or that their extraction processes are deeply harmful to the regional ecology.

In related news, Lloyd Alter over at Treehugger does some digging to discover who is funding the Taxpayers Protection Alliance, another group that seems determined to undermine LEED, and finds deep connections to major players in the far-right conservative universe, including Dick Cheney.

As a proponent of LEED and as someone who disagrees with everything I have read about the positions of AHBPC and TPA, I actually find it heartening to learn that Dick Cheney may be our enemy.  From a purely objective perspective, having someone as prominent as that as a detractor is clear evidence that the green building community is an important movement making real impact.  Big enough to be noticed by the biggest players is a good thing.  It is also evidence that those of us who disagree with folks like AHBPC and TPA need to remain vigilant, engaged and determined.  We are what stands between progress and a harsh reversion to the status quo of 20 years ago.

There is no doubt that we need to transform our entire consumer process.  The question is: How?  Most of the focus is on simple reductions in the amount of consumption, but folks like Michael Braungart of Cradle to Cradle fame are imagining a different path.

There are many ways to look at this issue but the first step is understanding the scale of problem we are dealing with.  The environmental impact of our consumption is staggering, but rather than bury you in the raw data on our depletion of global resources and our poisoning of the planetary ecosystem, I will simply point to some of Chris Jordan’s photographs- among the most effective means of communicating the terrifying scale of our impact that I have seen anywhere.   I’ve posted these before on this blog, and if you have visited the offices of Urban Green you’ll see some of these hanging on the walls.

The image above looks like blurry grey pixels but is actually a composite image of 426,000  cell phones- the number that are “retired” every single day in the US alone.

Again- the above looks like colored pixels but is actually a composite of 38,000  shipping containers- the number that move through U.S. ports every 12 hours.

It’s clear, I think, just from looking at these images that something has to give.  The planet simply can’t produce enough precious metals, fossil fuels, wood pulp and other raw materials to sustain this wild orgy of consumption.  If the photographs aren’t compelling I recommend you spend a few minutes with Annie Leonard’s short movie, The Story of Stuff.

So what do we do?  Those of us that care about this subject spend most of our time getting people to use less- a simple message of conservation.  It’s a natural response to the problem of over-consumption- but maybe there’s another way to frame the problem.  As William McDonough (co-author of  Cradle to Cradle) has said, being “more efficient” with resources is like a driver whose destination is Mexico finding that he is heading north toward Canada and responding by driving slower.  You haven’t really corrected the fundamental problem.  You need to turn the car around, 180 degrees.

In terms of our material cycle this would mean rethinking what we mean by “resources” instead of simply displacing a small percentage of raw materials with down-cycled product waste.  (The classic example here is turning copy paper into newsprint and newsprint into cardboard and . . . . cardboard into landfill waste.  You’ve spared using raw wood pulp twice, which is great, but that is all.)  In nature, these questions have been answered.  Millions of years of evolution has produced almost perfectly balanced ecosystems in which all waste is essentially food for the rest of the system.  A tree falls in the forest.  Whether anyone hears it or not, it is now food.  The tree is not sent to a landfill.  It is not shredded into 10,000 tiny pieces and distributed around the globe so that it is unrecoverable as a nutrient.

Along these lines, Michael Braungart has an article on the Ellen MacArthur Foundation website encouraging us to treat CO2 emissions, that bogeyman of global warming, as a valuable resource.  Now, the message from Braungart isn’t that we shouldn’t be trying to curtail our CO2 emissions- but that in the absence of federal and global leadership in this arena there is no reason we shouldn’t be finding ways to encourage industry to use those emissions.  And there are uses for CO2.  Examples Braungart provides include industrial greenhouse agriculture that introduces huge quantities of CO2 as a nutrient for plants, and similar applications of CO2 to support the growth of algae for biofuels.  As our political system remains ineffective in the face of such a complicated set of problems, reorienting our thinking along the lines promoted by McDonough and Braungart might be just what is required.

Greenbuild kicked off on Wednesday with a great welcome from San Francisco Mayor Edwin Lee and an inspiring presentation about the USGBC’s Center for Green Schools.  Arguing that “where we learn matters,” Geraud Darnis (President & CEO, UTC Climate, Controls & Security, and Urban Green 2012 Gala Honoree) and Rachel Gutter (Director, Center for Green Schools at USGBC) spoke about the educational and social benefits of healthy schools. We worry about what our children eat and what they watch on television, but we often neglect to think about the buildings in which they learn. The Center for Green Schools is trying to change that.  In New York, Urban Green Council’s Emerging Professionals have been involved in sustainability-focused curriculum development at a Manhattan green school under the GELL program, so we’re well aware of the benefits of this type of work.

No presentation about green schools is complete though without a video of adorable children in day-lit classrooms. Gutter obliged and, by the end of the video, the audience at the Opening Plenary seemed fully convinced by the tiny voices that told us  ”where I learn matters.” Now with a young child of my own, those cute little kids totally got me – I was ready to to run out of the conference hall and get to work designing and building a great green school for every child everywhere!

That sentiment would have to wait though, because Rick Fedrizzi was next. I’ve heard USGBC President and CEO Fedrizzi speak on several occasions, and even had a chance to chat with him at Urban Green’s Gala.  Had he not founded USGBC, he could have been a motivational speaker. Fedrizzi’s talks are often inspirational, but this speech at Greenbuild was one of the most rousing I’ve seen.  He seemed fired up and ready to go in a new way. Fedrizzi called on the green building community to collaborate more with other groups and to talk not just to each other, but also to those outside of our circle. Here I was reminded of Urban Green’s conference, Cooling on Climate Change. This concept was exactly what we were arguing there; panelists spoke about climate change messaging and how to better communicate with those concerned about carbon pollution versus those indifferent about mitigating or adapting to a changing climate.

Fedrizzi linked the green building movement to social justice campaigns from women’s suffrage and civil rights to today’s gay rights and marriage equality efforts, all of which required hard work, lots of discussion, and time. Like these movements, widespread acceptance of healthy and sustainable building is not a question of if but of when. The USGBC leader argued for collaboration and, referencing Majora Carter’s sentiment about improving one’s neighborhood, stated “you don’t have to leave this country to build a better one.”

That’s good news and it’s up to us to make the change we want to see.  As we learned at Cooling on Climate Change, to do so requires that we speak about the issues we are concerned about to a variety of audiences. Fedrizzi also reminded us that our mission (healthy buildings, neighborhoods, and cities) is not only a just cause, but also supports a strong economy and offers a sound business case. He called on us to get to the hard work of reaching out and making green building standard building and left us with this mantra to remind us why we are working so hard: “We are right.”

Friends tipped us off to a study recently featured by the Garrison Institute. Researchers from Fraunhofer’s Center for Sustainable Energy Systems found that user-friendliness and energy savings don’t necessarily go hand-in-hand with programmable thermostats. They called these results “both surprising, and suggestive.” (The presentation can be found here.)

Surprising? Not really. Anyone who has every tried to convince their family to try CFLs, or heard their friends discuss how they leave the AC on all day so their home will be cool when they return in the evening, knows that the ease of making a simple change often has little effect on getting people to do it. . Even when people care about and understand the importance of energy savings, they still forget to turn things off when they leave the room. It’s not at all surprising that they don’t set a programmable thermostat, no matter how intuitive it may be.

But suggestive, yes. The presentation covers the three basics of behavior change: motivation (the user wants to change something), ability (the user has the power to change it), and a trigger (they are reminded to actually do it). Programmable thermostats supply the ability, but not necessarily the motivation or the trigger.

In the end, the authors come to the correct conclusion themselves, in the very last bullet point of a 25-slide presentation: “Have technology replace motivation and triggers.” Automation. That’s right, humans, you’re being taken out of the loop and replaced with a computer. Nowadays, occupancy sensors can tell a smart thermostat when a room is empty, and the thermostat can use that information to control AC units, radiators, and lights.

While convincing occupants to manually program their thermostats is a long shot, using occupancy sensors successfully is a slam dunk; current technology can automatically set back heating and cooling temperatures when spaces are unoccupied. These devices originally came from the hotel industry, but are well suited to offices, dorm rooms, small apartments, and any space with single-room HVAC zones, making them a great fit for vast swathes of New York City real estate.

For wall- and window-mounted AC units and for radiators, these devices have been shown to have a 2-3 year payback in NYC. About half the savings is in the heating bill and half in the cooling bill – savings that can amount to up to 30% of the total in the first year after installation.

Using a passive infrared sensor to detect when the room is occupied, the devices don’t turn off accidentally when an occupant is sleeping or still. When a room is empty for a certain time, perhaps 15-30 minutes, they set back the temperature for energy savings. Good ones can also be programmed for an even deeper setback after 24 hours of vacancy, assuming the occupant is gone for the weekend or on vacation. Savings are guaranteed, regardless of occupant behavior or whether they care about energy use.

When the room is reoccupied, the control turns the heating or cooling on again to return the space to the desired setpoint. In summer, occupants may notice the temperature is not what it was when they left, but since the AC is already blowing cold air, they are generally satisfied. The AC may cycle on occasionally to prevent humidity from building up that could cause mold or other issues. In winter, the heat turns back on again as soon as a person comes into the room, and the unit maintains a specified minimum temperature even during long vacant periods.

Three things to look for when you’re shopping for occupancy-based HVAC controls:

1)   Recovery-time based setbacks. Rather than set back a fixed amount (say, 10°F), a good system will let you set the amount of time it will take for the room to reach a setpoint after it’s reoccupied (say, 10 minutes). A microprocessor decides how much to let the temperature “drift” during vacancy periods, so that a shaded room on the north side of a building might be set back more deeply than a sunny south facing room. This allows for the greatest energy savings – and the least discomfort for the people in the space.

2)   Networked controls. Modern units will “talk” to a central system, with a dashboard allowing analysis and control of units remotely. This allows management to troubleshoot problems before tenants complain, for even greater energy savings and fewer maintenance headaches. For example, AC units that run 100% of the time but can never bring the room to setpoint probably need maintenance. (Or, the window might be open. Luckily, these systems can be “interlocked,” so that the AC turns off automatically if the window is open).

3)   Good smart thermostat design. Yes, the study shows that people don’t use their programmable thermostats, even if they are easy to use. But in occupancy-based systems, the automatic controls do the energy-saving heavy lifting. A clean interface and easy-to-understand controls make it easier for a tenant to turn the AC and heat on and off, and set their desired temperature. That saves everyone headaches.

This technology might be difficult to implement in single-family homes, large apartments, or anyplace with a central system serving the whole space. In that case, homeowners might use something like the Nest Learning Thermostat, and commercial owners might try a computer-based Building Management System (BMS) or Energy Management System (EMS).

But for simple spaces with simple heating and cooling systems, bring on the robots.

Green codes continue to fly off the City Council’s legislative shelf like bagels on a NYC morning. We can’t even keep track and we helped draft them!

Last Wednesday, the City Council gave New York a New Year’s present by prohibiting the sale, offer for sale, or installation of carpets and carpet cushions that contain volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in excess of the Green Label Plus standards from the Carpet & Rug Institute. Implementing the Task Force proposal Health & Toxicity 1: Limit Harmful Emissions From Carpets, we believe this law is another first in the nation for a municipality. While many jurisdictions have standards on paints and coatings, carpets haven’t received the same attention.

But they should. For those who aren’t familiar with VOCs, they are a class of carcinogenic chemicals behind “new car smell” that cause a host of health problems ranging from respiratory ailments to major organ damage. While paints and coatings off-gas VOCs very quickly, it takes longer for carpets to release their VOCs thus increasing the likelihood that end users will be impacted. Interestingly, the vast majority of U.S. carpet manufacturers meet the Green Label Plus standards — the problem is with imported carpets. So, in one package we have a new law that improves the health of New Yorkers and also increases the competitiveness of American carpet manufacturers.

For ongoing updates on the status of the GCTF proposals, check out our Codes Status Report.

Back in 2007, in the world of high rise construction, Franco was the kingpin of New York City concrete.  His price to supply concrete to big construction projects reliably beat his competitors and he seemed to be getting rich doing it.  You didn’t want to ask too many questions.

At the time, I was working for one of NYC’s leading construction management companies and circulating within the concrete industry to build support for better concrete washout water management.  The rinsing of concrete trucks and equipment at construction sites generates highly corrosive water that flows down the street and into the sewer.  During rain events, these sewers empty into the East and Hudson Rivers as combined sewer overflow (CSO) events.  Other cities and states had more stringent rules about discharging concrete washout water in areas where it could harm people and enter waterways, but in New York City, the Department of Environmental Protection just required the water to be filtered through filter fabric or hay bales, in an attempt to reduce the amount of concrete hardening in the sewer and clogging drains.  Filtering was only partially effective at that and did nothing to address the public danger and environmental impact of the water’s chemical makeup and alkalinity, which is comparable to Draino®.  Draino is a product that used to be used to unclog waste pipes until it was found to corrode right through the pipe.

All the concrete trade organizations and manufacturers my colleagues and I met with agreed the practice was polluting, and even the manufacturers seemed surprised the DEP was allowing it.  When asked why the practice persisted, the manufacturers explained, “so long as the city isn’t making the waste water our problem, it’s not in our financial best interest to claim it.”  The most cost effective and environmentally preferable means of handling the washout water generated by rinsing the chute of a mixer truck, which is the primary source at most construction sites, is to capture it off the bottom of the chute with a pail, and return it with the truck to the concrete manufacturer’s own plant for treatment.  All concrete batch plants have wastewater treatment systems, and as the Cement League commented, “It make sense – a construction manager buys the concrete, not the concrete truck and equipment.  Therefore, any waste generated in maintaining this equipment should be the supplier’s.”  Franco, however, added one more kernel of insight: “I have beautiful trucks.  I’m not going to hook or attach anything to them unless some code requires me to.”

Technically, New York City already had a law on the books prohibiting corrosive water from being discharged down the sewer.  But because the manufacturers resisted claiming the waste water as their problem, construction sites were limited to two options: letting the water evaporate onsite in bins or sending a wastewater pump truck around to the site daily to suck it out of a dumpster and take it to a special waste water treatment plant.  The first was only possible at World Trade Center-sized sites and the latter was a logistics hassle, expensive and generated additional vehicle miles (environmental impact), so no one did it.  To get Franco and his kin to play ball in managing the wastewater in the most cost-effective and environmentally preferable way for a project, a better code would be required.

Which is exactly what the City Council passed today. Effective July 1, 2012, NYC will have a new building code prohibiting concrete washout water from entering sewers and catch basins.  Most importantly, the code offers special dispensations to mixer trucks so that the water from rinsing their chute is returned to the originating concrete plant with the truck. Read Urban Green’s detailed summaries of the laws here.

Let’s just hope Franco doesn’t chip the paint on any of his trucks when he installs the tank racks.

* Editor’s note: This name is a pseudonym.  We were concerned “Franco” might knock on our door looking for Charlotte.

Photo credit: Daniel X. O’Neil

Today brings another burst of Green Codes activity with the enactment of three new laws by the City Council. Urban Green played a critical behind-the-scenes role, working with the City Council, Mayor’s Office, and real estate industry for months to build support for these latest initiatives.

Thanks to today’s laws, there will be less soot in buildings due to better filters on large new ventilation equipment (Int. 592); grey, caustic streams of concrete wastewater from construction sites will no longer be filling the streets (Int. 576) [Read more about this one on Charlotte Matthew's post here]; and most new roads, driveways, and parking lots will contain 30% recycled asphalt (Int. 578). You can read our detailed summaries of the laws here.

Compared to major legislation we’ve helped develop, like the Greener Greater Buildings Plan, these bills are relative small fry. But bit by bit the codes are being improved, and collectively the Green Codes Task Force is having a major impact. With our advocacy, the Council has now passed 19 Task Force proposals, with 10 others enacted by other levels of government or in progress.

We can’t talk out of school, but I strongly encourage you to watch our newsletter and emails in the coming weeks for more good news on the codes front.

And if you value the critical work we’re doing on codes, I hope you will consider making a year-end tax-deductible contribution to our Advocacy Fund.

The headlines wrote themselves, “For the Birds” etc.  But it is seriously good news to see that the USGBC has begun to recognize bird-safe building design as a worthy category of recognition within the LEED framework.

Untold numbers of migratory birds are killed each year flying to the bright lights of night-lit skyscrapers where many become confused and too tired to continue, or are thrown off their path.  And many more die by simply flying into our massive glass facades- whose reflections they cannot “see”, it looks like more sky to them.

Henceforth, projects that  undertake measures with regards to facades and both interior and exterior lighting can receive points via the LEED Pilot Credit Library.

If the measures prove effective the pilot credit could possibly become an official credit within the relevant LEED standards. A small step toward greater recognition of the interdependency between our built and natural environments.

FURTHER READING:
Lights Out New York: Save Energy, Save Birds [8.3.11]
Urban Green Council spoke with Dr. Susan Elbin, Director of Conservation and Science at New York City Audubon, about Lights Out New York.

Photo credit: Claudio Gennari

Ellen is the Director of Construction Education at Urban Green Council, and runs GPRO: Green Professional Building Skills Training. GPRO is a series of courses and certificate exams that teach the people who build, renovate, and maintain buildings the principles of sustainability combined with trade-specific green construction knowledge.

Here at Urban Green Council we LOVE data!  At Greenbuild last month Harvey Bernstein, VP of Industry Insights and Alliances at McGraw-Hill Construction, released a new study on the Workforce and Green Jobs.

The upshot is that in construction, green jobs are growing at a faster rate than non-green jobs. Green training is considered valuable to contractors, trades and A/E professionals and is becoming more widespread throughout the industry.

How big is this industry anyway? Globally, construction in 2011 is projected to be a $7.2 trillion industry, representing 11% of global GDP. In 2020 this is expected to rise to $12 trillion (13.2% global GDP), mostly in emerging countries.  Projections for the next 9 years are for growth in single family homes and commercial construction but flat for institutional projects.  As we all know too well, construction and design jobs in the U.S. have been generally declining since 2008, but the good news is that green construction has been rising as a segment of the market.  This year, green jobs make up more than 1/3 of jobs in the A/E and contractor communities.

Is there a shortage of green-qualified construction workers? 69% of AEC firms expect work force shortages of qualified construction workers during the next decade.  The MH survey tried to determine the reasons why.  Major reasons cited are:

• Lack of interest in the construction industry among high school students because its perceived as not being high-tech enough
• Retirement of senior staff
• People leaving the workforce during the downturn and concern that they won’t return
• Licensed trades (MEPS) expect the worst shortages.  Contractors expect shortages in carpentry, millwork, electricians, concrete/cement workers, HVAC workers and boilermakers

What does green really mean?: The survey asked what “green” meant to each individual.  Top responses included: energy use reduction, reduction of use of natural resources, and installation of renewable energy (this response was higher for trades).

Is specialty knowledge valued? Formal training is prized by the trades and by decision makers.  80% of trades surveyed said that unions and associations were highly valued sources of training for trades.  Happily we seem to be moving towards higher levels of teamwork in the industry – the survey reported that General Contractors are looking to improve their collaboration skills and value employees who are proficient with technology and have good people management skills.  From the perspective of A/E firms, GC’s and subcontractors, certified employees help them win projects and increase competitiveness across the board.

What are the benefits of green training as seen by those in the industry?

• More job opportunities: Training is key to getting and maintaining better jobs. 30% of green job workers said they needed major training when they started, and most reported that formal education and training programs will continue to be needed. 71% of hiring decision-makers believe that having green skills increases an individual’s competitiveness

• Higher compensation:
  • 58% of the entire survey estimated a 4% higher salary for green skilled workers;
  • 38% of trade contractors said they valued green skills at 7% or higher salary;
  • 14% of AE firms said they valued green skills at a 10% or higher salary

• More job security and opportunities for advancement. Trades (carpenters, HVAC/boilermakers, electricians, concrete/cement masons and plumbers) are expected to see the greatest growth in green jobs. The survey found 15% of trade jobs today are considered green jobs, and this is expected to increase to 25% in three years.

• Outside sources of training are surpassing on-the-job training for green skills.  The number of people who responded that they can get training on the job was lower as compared to those who stated a need for outside sources of training as more specialization and technology takes effect – this response rate was similar for trades and AE professionals.

How many green jobs are out there? One oddity of this survey is how it defined “green jobs”:  Green construction or installation job in building construction involving installation of a uniquely green system or requiring different skills to meet green goals.  This definition does NOT include administrative or non-construction professions such as manufacturing or producing green products.   Hmm…and I thought I had a green job.

• Of the design professionals surveyed:  there was a steep increase in those that stated that more than 50% of their projects are green.  The rate of increase is less steep for GC’s but still climbing.
• Of the responses from the unemployed (mostly architects): 17% are seeking an exclusively green job, 60% are seeking a green job and 31% said they were not as interested in non-green jobs.

Photo credit: Linh Do