I’ve been ruining family gatherings with this point for years.  But that doesn’t make it any less true.  There are easy jobs to be found with a little nudge from the government.  What’s the holdup?

While politicians either sit on their hands or openly mock the consensus around climate change, the U.S. Army continues to move forward on its mission to reduce dependence on fossil fuel.  Logic can be a terribly effective tool when you use it.

We are proud to announce that Urban Green Council has issued its 1,000^th GPRO Certificate!

In the 11 months since we launched our first public class, we have trained or are in the process of training over 1,700 candidates in five different construction modules.  We wanted you to hear from our Certificate Holders directly, so we invited a student from each GPRO module to tell us how GPRO has impacted the way they work.

Loretta Tapia, GPRO: FUND

NYC Cool Roofs Site Supervisor, Community Environmental Center, New York, NY

I look at buildings differently.  I better understand the relationships between building systems and their effect on the environment. My job involves painting cool roofs and concentrates on the urban heat island effect, reducing carbon emissions and air pollution while increasing energy efficiency within the building.  We are still learning the effects of cooling roofs and how they prolong the life of vents and machinery on the roof.  I often have in depth conversations with building supers, while inspecting their roofs, which include benchmarking, lighting efficiency, weatherizing, and updating boilers and air conditioners. GPRO has given me a good foundation to build upon in understanding how important it is to do this work and continue to learn and educate others about sustainability.

Ty Stranger-Thorson, GPRO: CM

Area Manager, The Garland Company, Magnolia, TX

The actual way I work has not changed much, but the hard hat stickers and my GPRO credential listed on my LinkedIn page have both raised some questions from colleagues and clients alike regarding my GPRO certificate. This has started dialogue regarding green construction and practice, from the designers to the installers.

The more we are able to spread the word about these types of programs the easier it will be to have our buildings constructed by workers that understand and implement green building practices.

Isaiah Matos, GPRO: O&M

Assistant Resident Manager, Douglas Elliman, New York, NY

The GPRO courses changed various aspects of my life, both professionally and personally. GPRO illuminated a new way of thinking when performing at work on a daily basis. Simple things from the types of products that I purchase for the buildings to the way I manage construction and renovations have all changed. GPRO introduced me to integrated design and thinking, so making simple decisions like changing lamps may have inverse cost effects on the HVAC system, which is something I never considered before. Water conservation can reduce energy use by simply not having to heat and transport as much water as before the reduction. The integrated systems approach has changed the way I make every decision.

GPRO also introduced me to the USGBC and the LEED rating system. The influence of some of the lecturers inspired me to move further into the green building industry and pursue LEED accreditation. As of now I am a LEED Green Associate and I am studying for my LEED AP in Building Operations & Maintenance, which I hope to have before new year 2012.

Bob Hattier, GPRO: EL

NABCEP Certified PV Installer, IBEW Local 134 Chicago, Chicago, IL

GPRO addresses the disconnect that has long plagued green building.  Now with trade level certification there can be a true integrated design and construction process.  In my work I have a new understanding of the other trades’ approaches and strategies used in efficient building, and it fosters communication between us. I look forward to the day when many more are trained and green building is the norm.

Carl Gambino, GPRO: PL

Journeyman Plumber & Instructor, U.A. Local 1 NYC Plumbers Union

The day after the Fundamentals class, when I went back to my job at Tower 1 at the World Trade Center (the project is working towards LEED Gold certification), I looked around and was able to understand so much more about what was being built and why I was being asked to change the way we worked. I also noticed how other trades were contributing to the green building design.

Interested in taking a GPRO course? Our delivery partners in Upstate NY and LaGuardia Community College are both holding public sessions this winter.

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

The results are in!  The American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy (ACEEE) has released its annual State Energy Efficiency Scorecard, and New York has edged out arch-rival Oregon for the #3 slot.  We’re still substantially behind the two big dogs, but there was drama in the top bracket as well, as Massachusetts lapped California to become #1.

How we did it: Of course the first thing you’re wondering is how we managed to outdo Oregon and become #3.  The most likely answer might be that we grabbed free agent David Bragdon, who directed much of the greening of Portland, and brought him here to head up Mayor Bloomberg’s Office of Long Term Planning and Sustainability.  That, however, was a city-to-city maneuver, and the Scorecard, based on statewide performance, shows no indication that it was a factor.  Rather, New York scored 1.5 points higher on “Utility and Public Benefit Fund Efficiency Programs and Policies” and Oregon beat us out by half a point on “Building Energy Code,” leaving us a net lead of 0.5 points. (We were tied in the other four categories.) This is way too close for comfort, and we’ll have to grow the advantage substantially to ensure continued dominance.

The Big Picture: To put all this in perspective, the Scorecard allocates a total of 50 possible points among six categories.  Massachusetts won with a total of 45.5; California was second with 44.0, we were third at 38.0, and Oregon is now fourth with 37.5.  Yes, we would have to span a substantial 6-point gap to compete in the top rank.

How Can New York Prevail? The areas in which we can most easily rack up additional points are the “Utility and Public Benefit Fund” area, where we got 15/20, and “Transportation,” now at 6/9.  Looking at the detailed breakdown of the first category (p. 6 if you’re reading along), we got 4.5/5 for Electricity Program Budgets, but only 2.5/5 for actual Savings.  So we spent the money, but we need meters on almost everything!  And our Gas Program Budgets were deemed weak and only rated 1/3. This stems from all the years when the PSC and NYSERDA functioned off a System Benefit Charge that was initially structured around electric efficiency, and is only now being fully extended to include gas.  We scored the maximum in the other two subcategories for “Utility and Public Benefit Fund,” so no room for improvement there.

On “Transportation,” I’m from New York City, where we probably rate a 9/9, so it really falls to those upstate SUV and pickup truck drivers to give us an assist. But 3 big points are just waiting to be picked up, if only we could extend rail and bus service.

For Building Energy Codes, we only scored 6/7, while four states got 7 and Georgia got 6.5 (?!?).  What was our problem?  Well, to get 7, your code had to exceed the 2009 IECC or ASHRAE 90.1-2007, and the authors deemed that we had only met those codes. Clearly, New York State should adopt the New York City energy code, which by definition exceeds the NYS code, and therefore meets the ACEEE requirements for a 7.  Alternatively, we could plead that since almost half the population of NYS is now governed by the more stringent NYC code, on average the state deserves a 7.  I’m sure a highly-paid lobbyist would be able to make this case clearly to the ACEEE  staff over an expensive lunch.   

California Strikes Back: Clearly outraged at being pushed off the high podium, the California Air Resources Board started the 2012 competition early by adopting a statewide cap and trade system for greenhouse gasses on October 20th. This was a shrewd move by California, since Massachusetts had already scored 7/7 on “State Government Initiatives” and can’t go any higher, while if California can push their 5.5 up to a 7, which this ambitious effort certainly deserves, they can tie Massachusetts on that basis alone.

Race from the Bottom: Three states – Mississippi, Wyoming, and (dead last) North Dakota – have total scores of less than 5/50.  They should consider it a growth opportunity – Alabama went from 3 to 9/50, and Nebraska from 4 to 10/50, earning both of them commendations for “most improvement.” I’m not so sure they deserve praise at this level – some state will always be ranked 51^st (DC is a state in the Scorecard), but even the lowest ranked state could have a score of 20 or 30/50 if they were trying at all.  How about “still fails to meet expectations”?

Full Disclosure: OK, the Scorecard is a little dense, I haven’t read the whole thing, and you probably won’t either.  But it is a lot of fun to dip and skim through, with great gobs of detail for the items that interest you most.  I especially recommend Chapter 3 on Building Codes – a very clear explanation of different vintages of codes from the IEC and ASHRAE90.1, the role of the DOE and ARRA, and all that confusing stuff.

Benchmarking!  Energy Use Intensity!  Just saying them out loud gets me pumped!  In some ways Greenbuild is a full-on geekfest.  The more technical and the deeper into the weeds a session promises to go the more excited most of us are for it to begin.  Today’s lunchtime roundtable on Benchmarking is a case in point.  Measuring your energy and water use.  Reporting it online and comparing the numbers to your peers.  It’s not exactly Cirque du Soleil but if you understand the challenges that confront our building industry you know that just knowing how much energy you use is the first baby step in reforming the performance of our buildings.

The roundtable today brings together experts on the subject from New York City and Canada to compare and contrast the systems used, share the lessons learned in each system and discuss the potential challenges that remain and what can be expected in the near term.  It was an impressive collection of folks, including representatives of the NYC Mayor’s office, US EPA, Canadian Green Building Council, Natural Resources Canada and many others.

The Canadian benchmarking program is similar to the US EPA Energy Star program.  It’s voluntary, for instance, and some of our discussion focused on the impact if NYC’s Greener, Greater Buildings Plan- which mandates benchmarking.  On the one hand, voluntary benchmarking has, of course, low participation.  But mandatory benchmarking, while creating a much greater data pool, may encourage gaming a system that is, by necessity, a self reporting process.  Obviously, because I am familiar with the NYC program I found the Canadian program the most interesting.  They have been through a couple rounds of reporting and are starting to see the returns on retrofits.

Continue Reading

One of the great benefits of climate change is the opening of the Arctic, making available vast new supplies of fossil fuel, most recently highlighted by a substantial mutual exploitation agreement between Russia and Exxon.

Seriously, of course this is awful.  It won’t even lower the cost of fossil fuels significantly because it will be such a small slice of global oil production, and even that slice will take years to serve.   More importantly, when (not if) some pipe cracks open under the ice in the middle of the four-month night, they (whether Exxon, Rosneft, Shell, BP, or whoever) will be totally helpless. Well, I mean the crews on the rig will be helpless. The lads and lassies back at corporate HQ will be doing the usual bang-up job of manufacturing reasons why no one could possibly have seen this coming.

The U.S. should at least try to stop this.  Unfortunately, we don’t have much influence over either Russia or Exxon, and one major reason is that we have no serious national program for reducing fossil fuel use ourselves. We really can’t castigate Putin for their arctic adventures when we recently approved Shell poking a few 4,000-foot holes into the seabed off Alaska’s north slope), and all signs point to our imminent (and tragic) approval of the Keystone XL pipeline to bring very heavy oil from Canadian tar sands to Houston refineries.

If you haven’t noticed (which would be reasonable, considering the scant attention it’s paid in the mainstream media), the Keystone XL pipeline is the reason our foremost climate scientist James Hansen, agitator Bill McKibben, and activist celebrities like Darryl Hannah have been getting arrested in front of the White House. The White House?  Aren’t the good guys in charge? Why aren’t these demonstrators over at the House of Representatives, protesting climate change deniers?  Well, because we seem to have moved from an administration that denied climate change and let oil companies do whatever they wanted to an administration that supports climate science and lets oil companies do whatever they want.

There are two likely explanations for the administration’s lack of resistance to these potentially catastrophic developments.  First, the price of gasoline is heading toward $4/gallon, and anyone opposed to drilling and pipelines is attacked on that basis (no matter that neither arctic drilling nor the tar sands will have any real impact on gas prices.)

Second, in the middle of a deep recession and with staggeringly high unemployment across the country, politicians may have finally realized that voters want them to do something about jobs. Unfortunately, Keystone XL has a well-oiled publicity machine bragging about the 20,000 jobs they say they will “create.”

This analysis is wrong. Simple arithmetic shows that energy efficiency programs aimed at reducing our need for fossil fuels will create more jobs than any pipeline, since the money that will go to Canada to pay for the oil would instead stay within the country and go to workers in weatherization programs, wind turbine factories, or electric car development efforts. This arithmetic was developed by Democratic Party policy wonks over decades, but their understanding seems to no longer be operative.

If this foolishness continues, arctic seals will soon find it much easier to see the oil-soaked polar bears trying to sneak up on them.  On all other fronts, these projects are bad news in both the short and long term.  Oil spills will darken the Arctic, or even Montana, and the ongoing increases in greenhouse gas emissions will ensure that the ice and the food chains we all (seals, polar bears and humans) rely on for our survival will soon be irrevocably altered or gone.

Photo credits: [Keystone Pipeline] U.S. Dept. of State |  [Tar Sands Protesters] Ben Powless / tarsandsaction.org

While not overtly green, this inspiring project in Vancouver is a testament to the possibilities of small scale urban living.  When we talk about density, walkability and access to community services and public transportation most people immediately conjure images of Manhattan or Singapore.  But when your baseline is sprawling suburbs with none of the attributes listed above we can make huge improvements in our land use planning in this country with the sort of modestly scaled infill development featured in this article.

Green building has drifted as far north as Winnipeg. That’s in Canada.