More Building Matters
Not long ago, in the dark ages of the 2000s and early 2010s, that novel concept known as greenwashing was still relatively easy to nail down. That’s because those who perpetrated this form of malpractice, while sophisticated in their messaging, also happened to be industrial actors (e.g., Dupont, BP, Exxon-Mobil) for whom any attempt at corporate altruism seemed laughable. If it walked and talked like a duck…, you know the rest.
Yet in the last few years, greenwashing—strictly, the act of making false or misleading claims about the environmental benefits of a product or practice—has become harder to define; the gray areas have infested what was previously a black-and-white issue.
Nowadays, as evermore industry leaders and policymakers have borne witness to the acute and violent impacts of climate change, we have entered a new reality, one in which greenwashing is less an act of gaslighting than it is a form of selective storytelling.
More specifically, it has become a question of methodology: how we calculate carbon emissions, how we define ‘net-zero,’ and how we quantify the net benefits of off-site renewables, among other metrics.
In short, if you’re building a building and calling it ‘zero emissions’ while not telling the whole story, you now run the risk of being labeled a greenwasher. That seems to be the gist.
A (green?) tower rises in NYC
Last month, in a moving piece for The Architect’s Newspaper, architecture critic Fred Bernstein spent some time digging into dual claims made by JP Morgan Chase and design firm Foster + Partners about the bank’s new headquarters at 270 Park Avenue.
The 60-story glass-and-steel tower, according to the architect’s website, will be 100% powered by renewable energy sourced from a New York State hydroelectric plant; AI and machine-learning systems will optimize…
Weekly Newsletter
Get building science and energy efficiency advice, plus special offers, in your inbox.
This article is only available to GBA Prime Members
Sign up for a free trial and get instant access to this article as well as GBA’s complete library of premium articles and construction details.
Start Free TrialAlready a member? Log in
3 Comments
Great article as usual! Although I would still lean towards their communication/marketing falling into the greenwashing category for how thoroughly cherry picked the information is, that doesn't mean the project itself isn’t a big step in the right direction.
As much as Developers are the easy scapegoat for all of the world's problems, for most of the article you’re referring to claims made by the Architect, not the Developer. The subtitle may be a bit more accurate to say, “How we hold Architects, Developers, and Builders accountable for their sustainability claims is critical, up to a point”
That's a fair point. Although in fairness to the author of the original piece in AN, he accurately points out that the architect and client are pretty much in lockstep with their messaging. So calling one out equates to calling em both out.
When it comes to greenwashing, the “net zero emission” concept that’s most trendy nowadays is a much-exaggerated claim and it comes at the top of my list. On a cold winter night or hot muggy summer evening, when energy demand is peaking and renewable generation at its lowest, the vast majority of the consumed electricity still comes from non-renewable sources.
I can’t think of any material good that we consume that doesn’t involve some unsustainable use of natural resources and greenhouse gas emissions in the supply chain. Some materials and energy sources are less bad than others and that’s certainly worth considering, but none of it is “environmentally friendly”.
Log in or become a member to post a comment.
Sign up Log in