tulips,
I'm sure there will be a career for you; however I would agree with the builders when they say it is expensive!!! I think all of us want to be "more kind" to our planet and we can all do it in some ways when we build but to totally build "green" you are going to spend major money!!! Just my 2 cents.

in high end markets it will be around for a long time, in mid to low end it won't catch on as the buyers just don't have the funds for it.

keep in mind that many people remodel to go green, so you would have that market as well. you just need to see what the real interest in it is in YOUR area.

There are many ways to build green without gettin caught up in the "go green" hype that companies who produce as well as developer/builders who use these products as a sales ploy. Simply recycling packaging materials such as cardborard, plastic wrappings, metal bandings as well as scrap materials such as copper/pvc cut offs, wiring,metals and woods all make a small contribution. Finishes that are water based or no v.o.c, products that dont off gas, better insulations such as radiant barriers all can be incorporated in a build w/ research and taking responsibility on your own and acting on it. It doesn't have to break the bank if you know what to look for in energy saving and resourceful materials. We are building as green as possible w/o breaking the bank, but i agree to completely have a total green build is cost prohibitive for most. Consulting could be a good way to steer and educate folks on how to discern what is effective and what is hype. Overall, homes have been being built far more efficient than in the days of old well before the "go green" campaign came along.

"Green" Building is already a mainstream thing. Look at the way "standard" homes are built today:

I-Joists are standard and use mostly small growth tree material. 20 years ago, they were a new product.
Vapor Barriers are code now and reduce HVAC loads.
Can you buy a single pane window?
HVAC Efficiency standards have risen.
MDF for trim? You'd have trouble finding a house without MDF in it.

20-30 years ago, these were cutting edge, expensive technologies. Now they're standard.

What's going take off as the new "Green" practices?

Spray Foam Insulation probably won't. 2x6 construction with properly installed R-20, housewrap and good caulking during construction provide almost the same benefits at a fraction of the cost.

More engineered lumber will be used, concrete and metal houses will become more and more popular for their ability to withstand Mother Nature. We have I-joists, GluLams, LVLs and the next is Engineered wood studs.

HVAC zoning and efficeincy will continue to improve and become less costly. Hey, even Goodman has a 16 SEER dual stage AC unit.

Only Green Techniques with a measurable pay off will stay around. As energy prices rise, the energy efficeincy will play a bigger role in buyer and builder decision making. Concentrate on the techniques that don't cost much, just some forethought and effort by the builder.

We're in the process of designing a super insulated passive solar home. However, I am under no illusions that this will be a "Green" house. It will be an EnergyStar house, but I doubt it will meet the LEED for Homes criteria for many reasons.

Primary reason: we're building on a rural lot, one which will require an SUV to access (dirt roads for several miles). Two big faults right there.

Second reason: it's a very large house for our small family -- much larger than I (and our architect) expected, but we have certain design criteria to meet which influences the size and arrangement of the house. Oversized dwellings are most definitely not green.

Third reason: there are only two builders in the area with EnergyStar building experience, so they charge a premium on the structure and the mechanicals. Because of this, my interior finishes will likely be very nearly "tract house" grade until I can afford to replace them (see "larger than expected house"). This means nasty glues and non-locally-sourced items, big no-nos for a "green" house.

Having said all that, I think that familiarizing yourself with the LEED for Homes criteria will go a long way to help you help your clients in figuring out the "greenest" way to build or remodel their homes.

The next thing you might consider is learning about the relative costs/benefits for each technology. For instance, even if the solar water heating credit goes away, it can be very cost-effective to install a system (even in a remodel). For example, the other day when the air temperature was 0 degrees, my friend was preheating his water to 60 F just by the sun hitting his roof. That made his gas water heater not have to work so hard.

Spend some time on the green building talk forum (I don't think I can post a link to it, but google it) -- there's lots of discussion of the various technologies and links to more information.

Hope this helps

Here is a link that might be useful: LEED for Homes

Keep in mind that "green" is all relative. One person's green, is another person's obnoxious wasteland. There isn't a magic place where one is or is not "green". Many people think that that "energy efficient" is green - which isn't usually the case. Don't confuse "energy star" with "green" as the philosophical differences there are significant.

For example, which one is greener. The small family living near the water and generate their entire electricity usage using hydroelectric (or wind) power but had single pane windows, no insulation, R10 hvac, etc. Or the house that was built in suburbia with recycled materials, super insulated but still on-grid ? Like I said - A) green is relative B) don't confuse energy efficiency with green.

In regards to engineered lumber. While a portion of that is "recycled" material, it isnt always necessarily "greener" than plain dimensional lumber. The primary driving factor right now is the large lumber companies are driving codes and everything else to engineered lumber. The prices for engineered lumber can be significantly higher than non-engineered. What they are doing is forcing code to require engineered lumber and the way to do it is forcing a particular design spec. Since you can't really design spec dimensional lumber - you're only real alternative is engineered. Because engineered lumber has reproducible performance characteristics that are consistent which dimensional lumber can never/rarely be assured of.

Out here in Seattle, we have "Built-Green" certification in levels. Depending on a check list you can qualify for between 1 to 5, with 5 being the highest level. We fairly easily qualified for a 3 level. We never plan on moving, but in the real estate market, it looks good to have that in your listing. We just wanted the energy savings that went with that over the long haul.
My thoughts- a lot of these cutting edge built-green ideas will become common pracitices, but building efficiently will not go out of style.

What great responses! From what I'm hearing, perhaps familiarizing myself with both new construction and remodel "green" techniques would be the best route. The comment to remember that "EnergyStar" is not always green is very timely. Hmmmm...food for thought.

As resources become more scarce and expensive, and "green" more commonplace, I think the cost obstacle will fade, and it'll be normal, even required, to build greener. But I agree w/sierraeast that a lot of what's going on now is hype. The magazine Mother Earth News has had info on green building for many years. Also, I think one thing people can and should be doing is making sure the houses they build are built to LAST. Too many new houses now have problems that result in early deterioration. There's nothing green about having to redo or fix a nearly new house, and wasting all those materials.

Actually green has little to do with redo/fixing of materials. It's more tied in with eco-friendly, toxicity, and impact on environment (and a host of other factors). At its extreme - green can be as environmentally non-invasive/toxic as using earth, straw/vegetation and round wood that is locally harvested (fsc certified). Now, how sustainable is that ? probably very sustainable but at the same time it probably suffers from longevity. However, if you use longevity as a measuring stick then you should use concrete and steel which are both considered high energy products. That isn't to say its bad, just that you have to amortize or work that energy cost back over the span of its lifetime to determine its eco-footprint.

Like I mentioned earlier - there is a lot of relativity in green. Are you talking sustainability, longevity, energy efficient, eco-impact ? And something you think is green is totally irrelevant or eco-wasteful on someone else's radar.

And yes, please please do not equate energy star as being "green". Energy star is a government crapshoot to try and be a bit more efficient with a branded label that people can market off of. You can build a 2 story 25000 sq ft home with one person with all the concrete, steel, glass, copper, and have huge open verandas that the AC/heat runs out of all year with $20,000 electricity bills. But if you put in nice windows, insulation, appliances, and properly installed ducts you can be labeled an energy star home. How green is that ?

LEED is a step in the right direction but even that has its issues. It unfortunately credits things for certain things that doesn't make everyone on a level playing field (or discredits). It's also trying to define things in a certain way but at least its a step in some definable direction which is more than just "Green".

If you're trying to get into green space, I'd highly suggest you study the LEED fo Homes from the USGBC. It will (for better or worse) be the next "label" that people in the "green" space will try and throw around.

i believe "green" is the newest way to separate people from their money. it's very fashionable and though i'm sure there must be products out there that are worthy of the term there are also many that are not. stamp it "100 percent recycled materials" and there's a hefty premium to be paid but no one talks about the impact on the environment from the manufacturing of the product.
i was looking for an interesting tile for my laundry room and found a great looking composite with specs of glass inside. it cost $38 a square foot. well guess what? if anyone is thinking green is going to become common practice someone needs to figure out that it's just not an affordable option for a lot of people. as a matter of fact, it's downright infuriating.

I absolutely agree that "green" is the latest way to separate people from their money, and I'm sure very shortly to separate us from more of our freedoms.

I couldn't agree with a statement more than this one:
"Only Green Techniques with a measurable pay off will stay around. As energy prices rise, the energy efficeincy will play a bigger role in buyer and builder decision making. Concentrate on the techniques that don't cost much, just some forethought and effort by the builder."

My advice would be to focus on energy efficiency and alternative energies. Honestly I can see a big career in being an owner's rep during a build... you could be the person watching over the GC to be sure they do all the things they're *supposed* to be doing, like housewrap and caulking and proper insulation and water protection techniques.

anthem said: there is a lot of relativity in green. Are you talking sustainability, longevity, energy efficient, eco-impact

And how about "effect" on human health? For instance, all those recycled, resin-impregnated, formaldehyde off-gassing wood wannabees that pass for trim and cabinetry.

A "movement" that ultimately places inanimate objects, plants and animals at its zenith while considering humans as dispensable despoilers isn't one I care to join.

But since there's lots of money to be made at the less extreme end, why not go for it.

Worthy,

I agree that human toxicity is also a factor as well. I think if you move up that same post, that first paragraph was all about toxicity to health and maybe we should use earth/straw, etc. I just forgot to relist it when making my point. . .

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I couldn't agree with a statement more than this one:
"Only Green Techniques with a measurable pay off will stay around. As energy prices rise, the energy efficeincy will play a bigger role in buyer and builder decision making. Concentrate on the techniques that don't cost much, just some forethought and effort by the builder."
And I couldn't disagree more. You are mis-interpreting "green" with "energy efficiency". See, your interpretation of green or what will stay around is what you think financially makes sense. That isn't "green". No one said green was financially relevant or responsible. If you notice, most people who build eco-friendly houses spend /more/ than those building comparable eco-unfriendly houses. So, why is it that people think that it has to be a measurable pay off for things to stay around ? Now you can argue things that aren't "measurable" as being justifiable, but thats not following your definition.

I can reasonably be certain that eco-friendly will generally almost always cost more than the eco-unfriendly method. Since that isn't generally measurably better than the eco-unfriendly - why is it that it is such a big trend and will continue to be ?

Now, I'll be the first to say that I'm not in the eco-friendly camp. I do believe in energy efficiency and will do what is better for the environment if it doesn't put me out in another way. But I do know what is driving the green revolution - and cost effectiveness and energy efficiency isn't it.

tulips

Green building - which I would include energy efficent building techniques - is catching on and will not only be mainstream soon, it will become a necessity as the cost of fuels continue to increase. Remember when people said that hybrid cars would not last (GM - can you hear me)?

There are up front costs - but builders should be offering green options for those who want to pay the extra money for these items. People who have allergies will pay extra for green materials and filtration systems. People who are worried about rising monthly fuel costs will consider paying the higher up front cost for energy efficient building to keep the monthly payments down. And then there are those who will go green just for green's sake.

I think the builders who offer these packages - as options - can distinguish themselves from other builders who don't. Somebody has to explain the cost difference of the options, the benefits and where the break even points are. Maybe a consultant gig would work - the challenge is getting enough real world experience to backup the advise and designs you would charge for.