Al Gore is Kinda Cute

I’ve always been a fan of older men. Today I fell for another one, Mr. Al Gore. Al (I’m sure he wouldn’t mind if I called him by his first name) came to DC to give a presentation for the We Campaign. Greenette sent me an invitation, so I clicked through, got my free ticket and headed off to DAR Constitution Hall yesterday along with my 3,699 best friends.

Al’s presentation was truly inspirational (click here for the transcript). With his slight southern accent and relaxed presence, I felt like he was talking directly to me about all the things I CAN do (even though I was waaay in the back). It’s always nice to hear what we CAN do versus things that cannot be done. It was also nice that there was a limited amount of politicking in the presentation (though there were some slightly crazy protesters outside).

Al’s concept was that the US move to use of entirely carbon-free fuel and electricity (bye bye petrochemicals and coal!) within TEN years. His inspiration: JFK’s similarly ambitious dedication to putting a man on the moon in ten years (we did it in just over 8). His arguments for why this is possible were quite compelling: the US has vast renewable resources including sunlight, wind, and geothermal. All of which can be tapped at a relatively low cost, particularly when compared to skyrocketing economic and environmental costs for oil and coal. His arguments for why we HAVE to do it were equally compelling: environment, economy (hello job creation!), national security (no more borrowing money from China to pay Saudi Arabia).

The one thing missing was behavioral change: all this is good, but we need to think about our own personal choices. How do we reduce demand for fuel/electricity? How do we drive less? How do we plan better?

Overall, great presentation Al. I’ll be sure to let my hubby know he has some competition.

Pay as you Drive Insurance

Progressive Insurance is now offering "pay as you drive" or PAYD insurance. Progressive will put a little tag on your car and it knows how often you drive - which, in combination with your safe driving record - determines your premium. Here are some potential benefits from our friends at Wikipedia:

• Commercial benefits to the insurance company from better alignment of insurance with actual risk. Improved customer segmentation.


• Potential cost-savings for responsible customers.


• Social and environmental benefits from more responsible and less unnecessary driving.


• Due to the 24/7 aspects of vehicle location, it enhances security - both personal security and vehicle security. The GPS technology could be used to trace the vehicle whereabouts following an accident, breakdown or theft. [1]


• More choice for consumers on the type of car insurance available to buy.


• The same GPS technology can often be used to provide other (non insurance) benefits to consumers,e.g. satellite navigation [1]


• Social benefits from accessibility to affordable insurance for young drivers - rather than paying for irresponsible peers, with this type of insurance young drivers pay for how they drive.

What interests me about this is the potential companies have to encourage green behavior. Think about it. If you drive less, you not only save gas, but also your premium. For some, this may be enough incentive to get them to bike or walk to work one day a week. It may also encourage parents (paying those big premiums) to encourage their children to drive less. If this product is successful, Progressive will win kudos for setting a new standard for risk mitigation in their industry and for changing their customer's behavior. Wow, that's pretty powerful.

So what other behavior changing ideas are out there?

Image from BBC News

Green Buildings Pay

I was recently introduced to a CoStar report that got me very excited. http://www.costar.com/partners/costar-green-study.pdf It compares LEED certified and Energy Star buildings against those that are not across the US real estate market. The results of the study are astounding... they show that green buildings achieve higher rents, higher occupancy, have lower operating costs and achieve higer prices per square foot. Now what developer or building owner in their right might would choose anything but a green building!

That said, it turns out that one of my esteemed colleagues used this study in a recent presentation to pension real estate leaders and they were not so happy with the methodology used. They felt the analysis was not consistent in grouping unlike buildings together and the conclusions should not be drawn across all regions.

They did provide her with a bunch of additional articles that had similar findings. Here's a excerpt from a UBS study, How Will Green Construction Affect REITs?, they liked.

According to a survey done by McGraw-Hill, there is a 2% higher initial cost to go green, but over the long run, the benefits will outweigh the initial higher construction costs. These benefits include:

Operating costs: Average expected decrease of operating costs between 8% and 9% across the industry.

Building values: Average increase in values expected around 7.5%.

Return on investment (ROI): Average ROI expected to improve 6.6%.

Occupancy ratio: Occupancy rate expected to increase by 3.5%.

Rent ratio: On average, rents expected to increase by 3%.

Please comment and share other good studies you've found.

International perspectives on sustainable corporate real estate

A new global survey carried out by CoreNet and Jones Lang LaSalle has investigated boardroom attitude towards the importance of sustainable corporate real estate solutions. The survey grouped the corporate respondents into 4 regions: Asia, Australasia, EMEA and North America.

Two key findings stood out:

Nearly two-thirds of EMEA respondents view sustainability as "critical now"

The survey found that corporate businesses from EMEA came first with 62% stating that they viewed sustainability as “critical now” and not for tomorrow’s boardroom agenda. This compared to 52% in Australasia, 44% in North America and 42% in Asia.

Asia corporates willing to pay most for 'greener' properties

However, respondents in Asia stated that they were willing to pay the most for ‘greener’ properties. 16% of participants from the region reported they would be willing to pay double-digit increases for sustainable real estate solutions compared with only 7% in Australasia, 3% in North America and only 2% in EMEA. Most respondents across all three global regions believed 5% to 10% reflected a realistic and acceptable cost increase for sustainable corporate real estate.

The above statistics are taken from a Jones Lang LaSalle press release of 5 March 2008.

Are Photovoltaics Part of the Answer or Part of the Problem?

I have always been a huge proponent of PVs. What's not to love really? You have an inert panel, you put it in the sun, and just like magic you get electricity. Well, there is an article in the Washington Post this morning showing some of the down sides of photovoltaic manufacturing, Solar Energy Firms Leave Waste Behind in China.

This article raise a lot of questions in my mind. I am working on a project where we were going to install PVs even though it doesn't provide the minimum 2.5% of our buildings energy to get the coveted LEED On Site Renewable Energy credit. Is it worth putting the PVs on the roof if the manufacturing of them is going to wipe out or poison a Chinese village?

I realize that there are two things we [the people on this planet] are trying to achieve with PVs. The first is to fill the growing energy gap, both because of the dwindling supplies of fossil fuels and the increased demand for energy. But more importantly, in my opinion, isn't it to reduce carbon output and environmental impacts? Why do manufacturers loose this perspective? Why is this there huge disconnect between the profit motive and our ecosystem? Why do manufactures continuously trick us into thinking we are doing something good, while we are poisoning a village on the other side of the world?

I am sure this is not true of all PV manufacturers so if anyone has additional information on who recycles their silicon tetrachloride please let us know. It is clear to me that PVs and other forms of solar energy are a major component to our growing energy needs. This is just one more reason why we as consumers need to be diligent about the cradle to cradle cycle of our consumerism.

If not cost, why not green?

If you haven’t already read it, the Building Design + Construction Green Buildings Research White Paper (October 2007) offers a lot of insight into the sustainable design market, both from design services and owners’ perspective.

For instance, despite much data to the contrary, 78% of the AEC service providers surveyed believe incorporating sustainable or green design “adds significantly to first costs” or believe this perception is a barrier.

BUT only 41% of the owners* surveyed agree with this statement.

Even though studies show LEED certification up to Silver level can be done at 0-2% cost premium:

35% of owners are still willing to spend 3-5% more for a green corporate building,
21% are willing to spend 6-10% more,
12% are willing to spend more than 10%,
15% are willing to spend up to 2%.

Only 6% of building owners aren’t willing to pay any additional costs for green building (11% don’t know). Clearly if over 83% of building owners are willing to pay actual or perceived premiums for sustainable building, this dispels the myth that perceived increased first costs are the number one barrier to green building.

I would love to hear thoughts on ACTUAL barriers, whether it is indeed first costs, perception that building performance won’t justify the add’l expense, building codes or zoning issues, lack of experience in design or construction services, lack of access to materials or technologies, etc.

Thanks

*5000 CoreNet members represent owner’s sample (58% corp. property owners/42% service provider to corp. property owners).