The classic mantra in real estate is that three things matter: location, location and location. At a “built environment” panel during the recent Cleantech Open conference, we learned that green buildings are no different. Jeffrey Tumlin, a transportation consultant at Nelson\Nygard, noted that transportation to and from can constitute 40% of a building’s total energy usage, “so even the greenest building in a bad location is not a green building.”
In other words, when you build an office park in the suburbs, it doesn’t matter what kind of energy-efficient windows and HVAC you install, because the energy use of everyone driving to work will outweigh the efficiency of the building. According to Tumlin, a basic rehab of an existing building in an urban center – transit, bike and walking friendly – would be far more environmentally conscious than our high-tech suburban office.
Tumlin’s point emphasizes the importance of analyzing full system impacts when determining “greenness.” In the same way that the environmental impact of an electric car depends on whether it is charged via electricity generated from dirty coal or clean wind, the impact of a building depends not just on the power it uses, but the power its occupants use to get there. Time and again during the Cleantech Open conference, examples arose where looking at the environmental footprint of any project depended not just on the project itself, but on the overall ecosystem in which that project is situated.
Related Post: “Data Can Make Us Greener“ (also from the Cleantech Open Conference)
Very good point! Also, I suppose that, if a "green" building is built in a not-so-green location, it will consume more.