Staying Green Keeps in the Black

"The primary reason to stay green is that sustainable construction methods just make good clean "carbon neutral" sense. It's the world's buildings that are responsible for burning half its energy supplies—supplies that one day are going to run out. Which is why despite arguments over climate change, investment in sustainable building strategies does not seem to be slowing."

No. The primary reason to "go green" is an economic business carrot. It has to make good business sense to augment these changes. No one with any profit minded business sense is going to make changes that cost the company more to operate and the prevailing facts are that most of these touted changes adversely impact the bottom line. If they didn't, those changes would have been implemented long ago.

The problem with the carrot is that few exist in the "green movement". This is why the government employs a large stick to do its bidding. Cap and trade is such a stick.

""global warming," engineers and construction product manufacturers seem as committed as ever in creating buildings that not only sustain themselves, but will produce positive energy."

This is delusional thinking. Engineers are not driving these changes; government is. While the enthusiasm of engineers is legendary, the key drivers for what engineers do is driven by executive management and their leaders in response to the large stick wielded by government.

"Barak Obama spelled out his version of why a commitment to sustainable design remains a global economic necessity: "Changing the way we produce and use energy … will create millions of new jobs, power new industries… and spark new innovation.""

Barak is wrong. Everything has its price. Any job creation will be done off of the backs of the people. We will all pay more, either directly in the form of taxes, or through proxies that will be incurred through our purchasing (both luxuries and necessities).

The "green movement" is not a panacea of new exciting vistas that suddenly appeared at our doorstep (the New World) offering opportunity and bounty. That is a bold faced lie. Everything will add to the cost of doing business on a global scale. Yes, there will be industry that takes advantage o serving this movement, but the clients they serve will incur higher costs of operation. Thomas More wrote a book about this called Utopia.

What no one is telling the people is that these costs will be passed on down the supply chain until it hits the last link in that chain; the people. Every product and service you buy will cost more out of pocket. Everything! Wages will not rise to offset this. This is an economic ball and chain attached to the world GDP, which first smacks us in the face and then extorts us in the wallet.

Finally, I don't think that the debate about moving toward a more sustainable future is really what the issue is here. We all need to be better stewards of the environment. The argument is about how we go about it. In that regard the arguments given to us for why to do this (i.e., the global warming movement) and the proposed solutions (i.e., the stick or Cap and Trade) are cleverly disingenuous and actually contain an ulterior motive. It is this writer's opinion that the author of this post has bought those arguments and solutions hook, line, and sinker, along with too many us.

GA. Wow, I couldn't have expressed the issue any better. Thank you for a rational, sane, realistic view of what has become something of a religion to many people. The notion that "green" technologies will open a cornucopia of business opportunities is only true to the extent that these same technologies will create wealth, not simply re-distribute it. Going green should save money, not expend it. I insulate, caulk, maintain, upgrade my home primarily because the energy savings exceeds the money I spend, not because I reduce my "carbon footprint" or other emotional malarky.