Sustainable buildings cannot be sustained by subsidies

A lot of good things have been done to improve the quality of living and sustainability of the resources that we use to build our homes.  Homes are becoming increasingly energy efficient - reducing both their consumption of energy resources and the harmful effects of poor air quality (allergens, mold, rot, etc).  Green building is heading in the right direction, but it's important to make sure that it is not being propelled by a superficial force.

As a believer in free market economic principals, I am leery of any program or initiative that is dependent on public funding for any significant part of its sustenance.  This is for two reasons – 1) I don’t think people should have to pay for other people’s homes and, 2) public funding is very unpredictable.  The two are co-dependent, but the second is my point of emphasis.  For green building to be sustainable it needs to be able to operate and continue independent of political agendas.  As the political biases of government change, so too do the programs that they support.  A person’s reason for wanting an energy efficient home – either new or remodeled – should be for health of occupants, the cost savings on energy consumption, and a desire for environmental stewardship.  It should not be because someone else is going to pay for it in part or in whole.

I am not opposed to public funds being designated for assisting green building initiatives in the community.  Green building is a relatively expensive practice, at least for the initial investment, and many people cannot afford the upfront costs to enjoy the long-term benefits.  But we are not doing any favors by subsidizing the industry.  What incentive is there for companies to make their practices and products more affordable when they are already being guaranteed by public funds?  Newer, smaller companies struggle to bring their cheaper and often better products to market against government contracts.  It is also impractical to demand that builders conform to standards set by many who have never participated in the building of homes, or even studied building science.  What sounds good in a meeting and what looks good on paper is often impractical in the field.  If regulations are not practical in the field, they will get altered or skipped altogether and we are no better off than we were at the beginning.  The more we draw from private firms and businesses with building experience the better the solutions will be.

Economic theories and political persuasions aside, I want to see the green building industry succeed.  Not primarily to make money off of it or use it as a marketing gimmick as many do, but because I have seen the harmful effects of poor building practices on families, particularly resulting in poor air quality.  And I have seen the health and wellness benefits that green building offers to all those who dwell in its actualization.  Add to that the additional benefits of lower energy consumption and good stewardship of the environment and I don’t think that there is a better way to go.