The Green Debate

To be, or not to be… Green.
This is a topic that has been bothering me for awhile, and I thought I’d make a post on the blog to get other people’s opinions on it. Being “Green”, “Sustainable”, “Smart” are all buzzwords lately, and for as many words as there are for it, there are ideas on how to “be,” whether it’s good environmental design, or the use of “smart technology.” I guess this is more geared to smart technology, ranging from solar panels to computerized building systems, as I hope that good environmental design should always at least be considered. I’ve heard time and time again in crits that “the technology just isn’t there yet”, or “let’s just wait until technology gets better.” These are just a couple of quotes from practicing architects. As up and coming architects whose jobs will be to specify the use, or gently urge our clients to use these technologies, we need to decide for ourselves if the benefits outweigh the costs. As the generation that has been given the job of “saving the planet,” do we just “wait for technology to get better” or do we use these technologies knowing that they won’t pay off, but maybe it will push technology just a little bit further with each project? Sure, the cost effective answer is to wait -- wait until technology gets better and cheaper. The problem is that this same answer was used 30-40 years ago during the energy crisis of the 70s. We waited. Not until technology got better, or cheaper, but until the problem got worse. So, do we wait? Do we hope that the problem goes away for the next 40 years until our kids are old enough to be faced with the problem? I took a little bit more biased position than I intended, but I want to hear other thoughts. Are there good reasons to wait?
--Jason Epley, M. Arch. Student