GB: Will the shattered economy help or hinder the new president’s green initiatives?
VJ: This breakdown could become a breakthrough. For 30 years we’ve pursued what I call silly economics, focused on consumption more than production, based on debt rather than thrift.

GB: Short sighted.
VJ: Yes, and now we have an economy that rewards environmental destruction, not creativity—including the idea that you build things cheaply in one part of the world, ignoring environmental impacts, and ship them all the way over here.

GB: The race to the bottom?
VJ: Yes. The basic model needs to change, to improve our quality of life. We need to refocus on thrift—on local production and environmental reparation. Our grandparents would think our current way of life is absurd.

GB: Those are big ideas. How do you put them in play?
VJ: Well, for example, our organization has a proposal called the Clean Energy Corps, a $30 billion revolving loan fund available to cities.

GB: I read about it. Sounds similar to FDR’s WPA of 1935, which put a lot of people to work on highways and other construction.
VJ: Well, in this case, the money comes back. It’s a loan. The cities borrow funds then replenish them with the energy they save due to infrastructure improvements.

GB: That sounds like good news for the construction industry. But will it fly politically?
VJ: What we’ve got to do is stop thinking of this as some treehugger issue. A revolution in clean energy will be the cornerstone of the next American economy. We built the economy on credit cards, but we can rebuild it on manufacturing solar, wind, and bringing healthier foods closer to the plate.

GB: You think Obama will have the guts to act this boldly?
VJ: He’ll have to. He’ll be forced by circumstances into pursuing these kinds of solutions. Every dollar he spends will be watched. That dollar has to bring home values up, air pollution down—and green solutions are the only way to get high value out of a dollar.

GB: It’s a huge job.
VJ: At this point, Obama’s only hope rides on audacity. The existing economy is over. If you look at every dollar sloshing around for consumption, it all came out of houses: 7% was from selling houses at a profit, 3% was from people hocking their houses to buy crap. It was revving up the economy based on credit.

GB: You think Americans will be willing to make the necessary sacrifices?
VJ: As a nation, we have a history of pulling together. We have a new government that’s engaged—not in denial—and a lot of our best minds are just now coming forward, putting on their thinking caps. But we have to make it easier for them. They shouldn’t have to search the whole Yellow Pages to get a home weatherized.

Author Lester Brown’s latest treatise on oil dependency points to a world where energy efficiency is necessary for survival. If that’s true, what role might American home builders play in such a drastically altered landscape? Green Builder asked Brown to clarify a few points.

GB: Your new book argues that the end of the oil age has arrived.
LB: It’s amazing the lack of perspective out there. Goldman Sachs just issued a report where they talk about the future like it’s an extrapolation of the past—like nothing will change. You look at the airline industry predicting all kinds of growth, as if there were no shortage of oil.

GB: What evidence are they ignoring?
LB: Saudi oil production has declined for two years in a row. If they are going down, the world can’t be far behind. I looked at the age of oil fields. The 20 largest were discovered between 1914 and 1979. Food costs are rising. We’re not dealing with linear trends here. We’re dealing with exponential trends.

GB: Assuming you’re right, what’s the biggest change that will affect home builders?
LB: Transportation is key. In this country, 88 percent of us get to work by car, and we consume more gasoline than the next 20 countries combined. A lot of cities have many, many vacant lots and blighted areas that could be developed in an ecological way.

GB: Can even the most ecological city be self-sufficient? That’s a lot of mouths to feed.
LB: Yes. It worries me that during the Great Depression of the 1930s, most people living in cities were one generation removed from rural living, so they could go back and live in the countryside. That’s not true anymore.

GB: What’s the answer? Should people return to rural areas or make cities work?
LB: In a sense, the answer is both. There really is no going back. More than half the world now lives in cities.

GB: How would you design the ideal post-fossil fuel community?
LB: The most efficient community is a Third World village where you pull water from a well in a bucket, then transport by foot, but it locks you into what most of us think of as a very low standard of living.

GB: To maintain a higher standard of living, do we need to redesign what we have now?
LB: To a degree yes, but the thing to keep in mind is that once oil production declines, no country will be able to get more unless another gets less, and no sector will get more. So if airlines get more, for example agriculture gets less.

GB: And the building industry gets less for transportation, concrete, and manufacturing....
LB: No industry will be immune.

GB: Your plan B for saving the planet includes universal education, protecting topsoil, and planting trees. Can builders take action on a smaller scale?
LB: They need to think much more efficiently. Toyota reduced water consumption at their headquarters by 92 percent. That’s an enormous savings in energy, too. We need to think that way about buildings. Build it to be energy-efficient, then power it with green energy (such as wind or other renewables), and you’ve got a carbon-free building.

Pick up any environmental conference program these days, and you’re likely to find architect William McDonough on the keynote page. Green Builder asked McDonough to blaze a path through some of the big questions facing the building industry and the nation.

GB: Our theme for this special issue is “The Green Revolution.” Are we there yet?
WM: When we have five percent of the community on board with the idea, we’ve reached the tipping point. And I think we’re there—or almost there. What you’re starting to see is a confluence of events that will create a perfect storm for the environment—high energy costs, water issues. We’re beginning to see how the choices we make are inexorably linked to quality of life.

GB: The Urban Land Institute has talked about home buyers heading back to the cities. Should builders anticipate a housing “boomerang?”
WM: Like so many things, cities suit people at a certain phase of life. For young people they provide excitement and opportunities. They give elders communities where they can thrive. Suburbs don’t work for people who don’t drive.

GB: But you don’t expect suburban homes to go away?
WM: No. In our middle years, there’s something that happens. We have kids, and we want to be in a place that’s green. But what we will see is much more community-oriented suburban development. Our existing suburbs will be transformed by mobility options—how people get around, and how much they need to get around.

GB:You talk a lot about the life cycle of materials as part of the green solution.
WM: When I was in Germany recently, I talked with a builder who was deciding between a 350-year and a 500-year roof. He says Americans are crazy, investing so much work and money in roofing that lasts 20 years.

GB: Crazy?
WM: Well, we live like nomadic tribes here and treat our homes like tents. We live in them for five years and move on. Durability is a question of the ethos of a culture and the financing mechanisms that we use for our infrastructure. In Europe, the ethos is place-bound.

GB: Do we need to change that?
WM: It’s not a matter of need. I believe the market will change, and people will be offered a change. I believe in market forces; it’s a more natural way to evolve. At the same time we will change as we mature as a culture. The older you are, the less you want a mortgage and maintenance. Society is the same way. The more we realize we are trustees of our environment, the better we will treat it.

GB: You make it sound easy.
WM: One thing that surprised us is how much children are driving the environmental agenda. Parents tend to respond to their children. But here’s a key point: Builders can really celebrate this as a chance for innovation—a chance to show your pleasure in the work you do. If you treat the whole [green] agenda as a delightful prospect, working with highly willing, enthusiastic people, resistance just melts away. Resistance is painful. Why be in pain?

Architect Ed Mazria says there’s no reason to panic about global warming. But correcting the problem should not fall on the building industry alone.

GB: Is what we’re doing as builders “too little, too late” to mitigate global warming, as some experts suggest?
EM: IAbsolutely not. There’s a magic bullet. The answer is no more coal. We could put a moratorium on coal tomorrow and phase out coal-fired plants.

GB: IWhat about the promise of “clean” coal? We keep hearing about that.
EM: There is no clean coal. That is the industry trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the American public. Look at it this way: There is not enough oil and gas left in the world to fuel global warming. Only coal can do that, so we need a moratorium now.

GB: IYou’re more optimistic overall on the environment than some.
EM: That’s because we have what we need to solve the [global warming] problem right now. First, if we reduce demand there’s no pressure to build new coal-fired plants. Second, you can build renewable power plants for about the cost of coal—centralized solar, for example.

GB: IThere’s a lot of talk about nuclear power coming back. What’s your take on that?
EM: We don’t want to even get into the nuclear debate. Why would we go into a technology with inherent problems when better solutions are right in front of us?

GB: IBring it back down to the local level. Where does green building fit in the big picture?
EM: Well, first let me say that you can’t put the weight of what needs to be done on the building sector without giving them incentives. The federal government needs to put money into the building sector to spur green-oriented activity through tax incentives, tax credits, R&D funding. That’s what they did in 1974, during the first oil crisis. Climate change is not a state problem. It’s a cross-state problem.

GB: IWould government backing for green construction really result in energy savings?
EM: Think about this. Between 1973 and 1983, the price of oil went up to today’s equivalent. During that same period, we added 30 billion square feet of new buildings and 35 million new cars, but we were using 3 quadrillions (of BTUs) less energy in 1983 than in 1973. The change happened.

GB: IWhat should a builder new to green practices consider for his next project?
EM: You have three ways to get major energy use reductions: siting, design, and technology/innovation. Design includes things like putting the windows in the right place.

GB: IAnd using good windows.
EM: Of course. Then you add R-value with perimeter insulation for the foundation. So many of these practices are low-cost or no-cost options, such as using a white roof instead of a black roof in a hot climate.

GB: IYou make it sound easy.
EM: Every city is looking at new energy-saving building codes. Every manufacturer is looking at new green products. We can design and build carbon-neutral homes now, even ones that produce more energy than they use. We did it in the 1970s, but we have better materials and information now.

As Dane Parker tells Green Builder, reducing Dell Computer’s environmental footprint meant examining every aspect of its business, from product design to packaging to customer behavior.

GB: What got Dell started down the eco-friendly road?
DP: First, [company CEO and founder] Michael Dell is very committed to the idea. That’s the top-down aspect. But we also got a lot of bottom-up impetus. People had a lot of ideas on how we could save energy and reduce waste. Most of those [suggestions] came from people in Western Europe, not the United States.

GB: A company can be green in different ways. There’s the production phase, but also the end use phase. Which have you focused on?
DP: We look at both of those, plus the supplier end. For example, we tell suppliers that we care about how much packaging they use to ship us materials and that their footprint matters to us.

GB: So you let them know that culturally you have a commitment to being greener.
DP: Exactly. And they are responding.

GB: Are your direct Internet sales greener or less green than the traditional retail model?
DP: We’re actually paying a researcher right now to do research on the direct model. We think it’s going to be less energy-intensive to have the product go right to your house. Now the item goes to a warehouse, where it consumes air conditioning; then it’s moved to a store, which is air conditioned, where it may sit for months; then to your house.

GB: Do you pay attention to those annual ratings of green companies? Dell ranks pretty well in some, but isn’t always at the top.
DP: Those always foster a dialogue, which helps shape our strategy. Why are we not number one? Packaging is a big area for us now. We have a new system where, if you order 10 systems, we can give you 10 in one box. Now instead of 10 pallets, you have two pallets and a lot less packaging.

GB: One area computers are often criticized for is disposal. They contain a lot of metals.
DP: We’re not that far up into the “cradle” phase [which would include mining of materials, etc.], but we’re working on the “grave” phase. We will take back any Dell computer for free and pay for shipping back to our facilities. Then we try to reuse as many components as we can.

GB: What about making computers last longer?
DP: Generally, computers aren’t replaced because they break. Instead, a higher performance level is required, and the new ones are much more energy efficient. We now include a compatibility tool built into each computer, telling you all the things that you can swap out without having to buy a new one.

GB: So you can just swap out inefficient parts for newer ones.
DP: That’s right.

GB: What about consumers? How do you get them on board and caring about energy use and resource conservation?
DP: Well, you need a certain amount of push. That’s one of the things home builders need to understand, too. You can’t depend entirely on market pull. Look at it this way. You can have smarter clients if you educate them about green products, so why wouldn’t you want that?

While she’s cautious not to cross partisan lines, Darlene Williams, HUD’s assistant secretary for policy development and research says green building is way up on the department’s priority list.

GB: Let’s start with the big picture. How does green building play into HUD policy?
DW: Well, we truly have no choice at this point but to focus on those issues. It’s not just about saving the environment, however. It’s about ensuring that our communities will be livable.

GB: I notice on your website that when you offer tips on buying a home, you don’t mention evaluating its energy efficiency. Why not?
DW: Well, that discussion would probably take place during initial counseling sessions with a prospective homeowner.

GB: Will rising fuel costs increase HUD’s emphasis on energy conservation in homes?
DW: Absolutely. The basic cost of everything is going up—gas, food, heating, cooling.

GB: Transportation?
DW: It’s a part of the conversation, yes. In fact, Congress has just directed HUD to do some research on how affordable housing connects with transportation. We have to think green beyond the whole boutique image of this.

GB: You mean to make green more affordable?
DW: Yes. I don’t want to put a person into a new home if they can’t maintain it and heat it and cool it. But we’re limited by budgets. The private housing industry is far larger in scope. They can move faster.

GB: How do you work with small, private builders?
DW: Well, we can partner with them through PATH, for example, to help them offer a better product

GB: Explain your relationship with PATH (Partnership for Advancing Technology in Housing).
DW: PATH is a program we administer. The funding there goes up and down, but not the substance. PATH provides a brand for what we do, but we always have people on board with those skill sets (research and analysis) within HUD.

GB: Tell me specifically what you’re doing to encourage green building in the field.
DW: We’re trying to make green something that’s expected. We have concept homes—in Omaha, Neb.; in Charleston, S.C. We’re encouraging builders in those markets to look at new technologies.

GB: Such as?
DW: The concept home in Omaha, for example, has movable walls and a graywater system. It’s designed for energy efficiency with low maintenance—all in support of the safety of the occupants.

GB: Where do you see HUD steering builders over the next few years?
DW: Oftentimes we look at changing the entire house. But maybe it’s getting builders to start with the little things—having a goal. I put a tankless water heater in my home and found it made a huge difference in my electric costs. Builders can begin to structure these types of innovations into their feature menus for new homes.

Richard Register travels the world looking for better ways to create cities that allow people to coexist with clean air, water, wildlife, and localized economies. Here are his ideas for us.

GB: How do U.S. cities compare with other countries in terms of ecological impact?
RR: Think about this. The government just replaced a two-mile stretch of the Oakland freeway for $1.2 billion. Do you know what the national budget is for Amtrak for the year, which is mass transportation that is so desperately needed?

GB: $1.2 billion dollars.
RR: Exactly. What does that tell you about our backward priorities? We have these economic assets—our tax dollars—being badly misused.

GB: You’ve described cities as living organisms.
RR: Yes, that’s what an ecological city is; you can imagine it being alive, with the organs all close together, keeping things working.

GB: What organs? Are you talking about the arts? Commerce? Culture? Religion?
RR: All of the above. But here’s the question. Can you actually have an ecologically sound city with cars in it? A car weighs 30 times as much as a person. The speed is 10 times that of a person. So if you design a city for cars, you’re designing it with 300 times the [environmental] impact of the same city made for people.

GB: New urbanists such as Andres Duany have tried to make cities more pedestrian-friendly.
RR: They have taken some first steps, yes. But they say the contemporary city has to make room for the automobile. And they constantly notify everyone that they’re not radical.

GB: You think we need to take more radical steps now?
RR: The prevailing thought is that you just tune up the existing system, and it will work better. People think of hybrid cars as “interim” vehicles to drive until some new technology comes along. But you don’t want to make a monster live longer and function better. That supports the auto industry. The best interim car is the one you have. Just drive it less.

GB: If cities become even more desirable, won’t housing values exclude most of the population?
RR: That’s where [proper use of] taxes comes in. We have this myth of any form of socialism being bad. But the truth is our military, our highways—so much of our government is already socialized. We need our taxes being spent by a government that’s investing in Amtrak, in clusters of denser housing.

GB: What can builders do now?
RR: The biggest thing is to start shifting the infrastructure of the city inward, to make it much more mixed-use, with bikes and public transit and agriculture. Diversity plus density I call it “divensity.”

Twenty years working in Louisiana’s petrochemical industry might seem an unlikely background for an environmental champion. But Jerome Ringo saw the pollution created by the production of rocket fuel, gasoline, and plastics, and now, as head of the Apollo Alliance, he wants to make good.

GB: Does green home building factor into your work on environmental issues?
JR: Absolutely. Right now much of the nation is one-dimensional in our energy usage, depending solely on oil. But we need to change that, to build a diverse energy portfolio of solar, wind and hybrid. Green builders are part of that solution.

GB: But green is still such a small part of the overall building and remodeling market.
JR: The public will buy in once they realize the overall impact of green construction on the environment [and] on their finances. But we need to make green more affordable. Poor people can’t afford to retrofit with solar panels. It’s simply not viable. We need to be creative, to supplement people’s incomes so they can afford to go green. We need legislation that takes us in that direction.

GB: But the U.S. Senate just killed an alternative energy bill that would have subsidized alternative energy.
JR: They tabled it.

GB: Ah. So it’s not completely dead?
JR: The American people are aware of the impacts of not pursuing energy self-sufficiency. They get it. The events of the day are moving us in the direction of alternative energy. It’s right in front of us.

GB: When the Senate tabled that alternative energy bill, the Republicans put forward their own plan, heavily dependent on nuclear power. What’s your take on nuclear?
JR: They believe nuclear energy is a quick fix—one that would make us not need solar, wind, and hybrid technologies—but we must pursue areas of energy with fewer adverse consequences. Fossil fuel has been very successful, but look at the price. The permafrost melting in Alaska. Sea levels rising.

GB: You’re working on green building in the Southeast. How’s that going?
JR: I live in Louisiana, and I was an evacuee during both Katrina and Rita. We’ve been promoting the idea that people on the Gulf Coast should rebuild green, which is great, but the reality is that nobody in the Ninth Ward [of New Orleans] can afford to build green on their own. It’s going to take subsidies and initiatives.

GB: Is that realistic?
JR: If we can spend a trillion dollars rebuilding Iraq, surely we can promote an initiative to help level the playing field and build green—at a fraction of the cost.

GB: If you had a million dollars to invest in one technology, where would it go?
JR: Ah. You see, that’s not the right approach. We can’t put all of our marbles in one basket. We need to invest in a general, diverse use of our energy. That’s the way to be most effective. That’s the way to stop thinking one-dimensionally.