Anyone out there have any lines they can draw between this ("fashion statement"?) and LEED ? Is Santa Claus REALLY only coming in 2010 to "measure" all our pollution?? Why the sudden worry about greenhouse gases ? I'm glad they're moving in the opposite direction of the Bush Administration, but in the end won't they just cause more friction and paperwork, causing more trees to be cut down, more bureaucracy, more "legislation", in essence more barriers to actually getting anything done? Why can't they set a realistic goal like maybe 25% reduction? Who is going to measure all this stuff anyway? ASHRAE ?? ANSI ? ASTM ?? All of the above ? A million engineering firms ? Is this a quick way to kill all future building expansion by legislating things that cannot be quantifiably measured? Perhaps if we offset the metric tons of pollution caused by moving steel production from Pittsburgh to Mexico and China, and divide that by the square root of the difference in potential energies... I'm sure that a few great engineers could figure all this out... but, again, who is going to measure all this??? Who will be responsible for INSPECTING and APPROVING all this ? How can anyone even deliver lumber to a jobsite unless the delivery truck is solar powered ? Will everyone require a wind-powered circular saw ? What if it's cloudy but no wind outside... everybody goes home for the day? Why not work with Power Authorities & Congress to legislate that " FIFTY PERCENT OF ALL POWER GENERATED IN THE UNITED STATES MUST BE CREATED BY WIND, SOLAR, AND OCEAN-WAVE" (as I believe France or England is in the process of doing) Even this is only creating ocean-floor based stations that can produce 300 MegaWatts each, a LOT less than is generated by normal Nuclear or Coal-fired plants. How can you expect to emit less fossil fuel pollution at the END of the equation? I don't see how, I think it has to start at the SOURCES and trickle down. I do believe that requiring more LEED certified buildings is a good thing, and working both ways would be even better, but it's not realistic to issue this kind of naive blanket goal without some supporting legislation that will force POWER GENERATING facilities to change in the ways necessary for this to be achievable. (Sorry for the long post) Let me know your opinions on this. (Perhaps we could purchase Saskatchewan and cover it with Solar Panels?)
Jan 20, 06 6:13 pm
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.
AIA Strikes Again! ...read this and tell what you think
after you read that, read the one below, be sure to scroll all the way down to see all the comments-
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2005/12/_one_quickly_le.php
Anyone out there have any lines they can draw between this ("fashion statement"?) and LEED ? Is Santa Claus REALLY only coming in 2010 to "measure" all our pollution?? Why the sudden worry about greenhouse gases ? I'm glad they're moving in the opposite direction of the Bush Administration, but in the end won't they just cause more friction and paperwork, causing more trees to be cut down, more bureaucracy, more "legislation", in essence more barriers to actually getting anything done? Why can't they set a realistic goal like maybe 25% reduction? Who is going to measure all this stuff anyway? ASHRAE ?? ANSI ? ASTM ?? All of the above ? A million engineering firms ? Is this a quick way to kill all future building expansion by legislating things that cannot be quantifiably measured? Perhaps if we offset the metric tons of pollution caused by moving steel production from Pittsburgh to Mexico and China, and divide that by the square root of the difference in potential energies... I'm sure that a few great engineers could figure all this out... but, again, who is going to measure all this??? Who will be responsible for INSPECTING and APPROVING all this ? How can anyone even deliver lumber to a jobsite unless the delivery truck is solar powered ? Will everyone require a wind-powered circular saw ? What if it's cloudy but no wind outside... everybody goes home for the day? Why not work with Power Authorities & Congress to legislate that " FIFTY PERCENT OF ALL POWER GENERATED IN THE UNITED STATES MUST BE CREATED BY WIND, SOLAR, AND OCEAN-WAVE" (as I believe France or England is in the process of doing) Even this is only creating ocean-floor based stations that can produce 300 MegaWatts each, a LOT less than is generated by normal Nuclear or Coal-fired plants. How can you expect to emit less fossil fuel pollution at the END of the equation? I don't see how, I think it has to start at the SOURCES and trickle down. I do believe that requiring more LEED certified buildings is a good thing, and working both ways would be even better, but it's not realistic to issue this kind of naive blanket goal without some supporting legislation that will force POWER GENERATING facilities to change in the ways necessary for this to be achievable. (Sorry for the long post) Let me know your opinions on this. (Perhaps we could purchase Saskatchewan and cover it with Solar Panels?)
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.