[social_buttons]
A recent post by The Green Civil Engineer should be shouted from the rooftops of all green building professionals: Green can SAVE money! And we have proof!
Seriously, the talk everywhere is about how green building costs additional money. Systems, materials, commissioning, and certification costs can certainly pile up. Usually the argument is countered by looking at the life cycle costs of the building, including operating costs (utilities), maintenance costs, and increased productivity through better worker health and mood. Now comes information from a civil engineer out of Tennessee, that provides evidence that green site measures actually cost less than their non-green, traditional opponents.
Bob Faulhaber, PE, LEED AP, (The Green Civil Engineer) provides a couple of examples to illustrate the point:
1. Pervious paving vs. traditional asphalt and catch basins for a parking lot – Savings of $9,400.
2. Raingardens vs. catch basins and detention ponds for a parking lot – Savings of $2,400.
Now, I am not a civil engineer, so I cannot refute any of the assumptions made in the calculations. However, at first glance the news does look good. In another calculation done by The Green Civil Engineer, a savings of $12,580 can be shown when using raingardens in a subdivision, as opposed to curb inlets and detention ponds.
It is this type of news that should be broadcast throughout the green community. This is only a limited number of measures, and there are still some additional costs to building green that cannot be ignored. But these numbers provide a bit of ammunition when debating the “cost to go green.”
“And the costs of the traditional systems above do not consider the long term costs to communities due to the environmental damage and the increased strain on infrastructure and maintenance. Those costs are difficult to measure but are equally important or even more important,” according to Faulhaber. Well said!
Photo courtesy of Dendroica Cerulea through a Creative Commons License.
