“Greenwashing” and the Need for Third-Party Green Certification

In an interview published in the July/August 2011 issue of Green Building & Design, designer John Cantrell of HOK Atlanta comments,

“There’s more greenwashing than ever before because everyone’s trying to innovate.  As designers, we have to be knowledgeable about the compositions of these so-called “sustainable” products because people trust our opinions.  What’s starting to surface is the importance of third-party certifications.  I believe that verification is one of the most important parts of this process, and I am always pushing for third-party certification even in selection and specification of our materials and assemblies.”

Mr. Cantrell is most certainly too generous in his assessment that the rise in greenwashing is purely the result of a drive to innovate, particularly if you accept the pejorative definition of greenwashing as, “the act of misleading consumers regarding the environmental practices of a company or the environmental benefits of a product or service.” 

Regardless, the point about the importance of third-party certification is dead on.  Consider this sign, observed in May 2011 at Riverfest in Little Rock, Arkansas:

Greenwashing?  It’s certainly a possibility, but since no one – not the state or local government, and not, to my knowledge, any private entity – is in the business of certifying and verifying these claims, they can be made at will and with little regard for accuracy or veracity. 

The problem is compounded by the fact that the proponents of false green claims do not have much to fear by way of liability.  The biggest stick against greenwashing in Arkansas is the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, which generally prohibits false, deceptive, and unconscionable practices in business, commerce, or trade.  A green claim about a product or service, made with the intent of distinguishing the product or service from one not supported by a green claim, falls into this category.  But here’s the rub: as a private citizen, to bring a claim under the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, you need to have suffered “actual injury.”  Generally, this means money damages, though there is good law suggesting that other types of injury – personal injury, for example – would also suffice.

Consider this hypothetical, suggested by the Riverfest ride photo: of all the rides at Riverfest, you are swayed by the green claim, part with a dollar or two, and ride the ride powered by vegetable oil.  The claim turns out to be false; the ride is diesel powered.  Have you been deceived in business, commerce or trade?  Absolutely.  Have you been actually injured?  Sure, to the tune of a dollar or two.  Are you really going to sue over that injury?  And, perhaps more importantly, are you going to be able to find a lawyer willing to take a case with almost no damages?  The choice is yours, but I suggest that your time, energy, and money are better spent elsewhere.  (There is also the possibility of a class action, but it suffers from the same problem of de minimis damages.) 

A lawsuit is simply an inefficient, and inelegant, solution to the greenwashing problem. 

This is not an improbable hypothetical.  Take a moment today – fifteen minutes is probably enough – and count the green claims you see during that time.  At the same time, count the number of those claims that also claim to be verified by an independent third party.  The gap will be obvious.  As will the solution. 

(The “third party verifications” may be false as well – but that is a subject for another day.)

(Department of Read this Cool ‘Zine: www.gbdmagazine.com)

(Department of Definitions: the quoted definition of “greenwashing,” and numerous other materials regarding greenwashing, can be found at www.sinsofgreenwashing.com)

The Case for Adopting the 2009 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC)

Last April, at the Little Rock Downtown Partnership annual luncheon, I heard “sustainability” referred to as the result of the process of thoughtful place-making.  In contrast, at least some local policy makers – for example, the members of the Little Rock Sustainability Commission – conceive of “sustainability” as a process.  Others distance themselves from the “true believers” and wade into the fray with a purely economic perspective. 

I appreciate this polemic because it is thought provoking, but the reality is these viewpoints are not mutually exclusive.

The question of whether Arkansas municipalities should take the next step in improving residential energy efficiency and adopt Chapter 4 of the 2009 International Energy Conservation Code (acronym alert: IECC) is a perfect example.

Arkansas currently operates under the 2003 IECC for residential construction.  (In this regard, it keeps company with Nebraska, Oklahoma, West Virginia, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.  With the exception of Vermont, which follows the 2004 IECC, all of the 42 states that have adopted the IECC use either the 2006 or the 2009 version.)  The 2009 IECC is substantially different from the 2003 IECC, and these differences are specifically intended to improve energy efficiency.  According to a 2009 study by the U.S. Department of Energy, “Impacts of the 2009 IECC for Residential Buildings at State Level,” “important new requirements” in the 2009 IECC include:

• A requirement that duct systems be tested and sealed, and air leakage minimized;
• Half of the lighting “lamps” in a building must be energy efficient;
• “Trade-off credits” are no longer available for high efficiency HVAC equipment.  For example, under the 2006 IECC, use of a high efficiency furnace could be traded for a reduction in wall insulation.  Such trade-offs are eliminated under the 2009 IECC;
• Vertical fenestration U-factor requirements and maximum allowable solar heat gain coefficients are reduced;
• Insulation requirements are improved and increased;
• Better air-sealing language;
• Controls for driveway/sidewalk snow melting systems; and,
• Pool covers are required for heated pools.

Obviously, more efficient sidewalk snow melting systems, basement insulation, and heated pools are not going to drive improved residential energy efficiency in Arkansas. The improvements in duct and HVAC efficiency, building envelope tightness and air sealing, and window and insulation requirements are the meat of the coconut for those in the Arkansas sustainasphere.

Against that background, lets dissect the case for adopting the 2009 IECC.

In 2009, the U.S. Department of Energy analyzed the impact of the 2009 IECC in Arkansas.  The DOE study found an average savings of $242.00 per house, per year for homes meeting the requirements of the 2009 IECC.  Here is a table summarizing the savings:

Annual savings of $242.00 might not, at first blush, blow your skirt up.  But consider: if the average life of a home is 30 years, not adopting the 2009 IECC will result in homeowners paying an additional $7,260.00 in energy costs over the life of the home. 

There are additional economic considerations.  First, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act – commonly known as “the stimulus” – requires states that receive stimulus funding to adopt the 2009 IECC.

Second, adoption of the 2009 IECC will stimulate job creation and growth.  The new requirements for air duct testing and sealing, and for general building envelope tightness will translate directly into a need for quality third-party testing, inspection, and compliance professionals.  In simple terms, this means more home energy raters, auditors, inspectors, specialists, and consultants.  These are skilled positions.  Once created, they should become permanent parts of the sustainable economy.

But more than pure economics, adopting the 2009 IECC can be seen as an integral step on the path to sustainability.  Green building technology is rapidly evolving, and the only surefire way to ensure that Arkansans are provided with affordable, reliable, and sustainable energy is to adopt and enforce updated building standards based on current technology. 

In the final analysis, if Arkansas is going to become a true leader in sustainability, the state is going to need to make substantial improvements both in the quantity and quality of its sustainable systems and in the way in which those systems are coordinated.  A theme that unites both needs is the creation of a culture of sustainability.  In simple terms, Arkansans need to get into the habit of thinking and acting sustainably in all aspects of their lives.  As I’ve previously written, a compelling argument can be made that Arkansas public policy supports energy efficiency and sustainability, even if that policy lack cohesiveness.  Adopting the 2009 IECC is not only consistent with that public policy, but it pushes it down to a level that can have a real impact on the everyday lives of Arkansans.

Indeed, because Arkansas is not going to shun federal stimulus funds, adoption of the 2009 IECC is inevitable.  So the real question is this: why wait?