Is KB Home commiting a "random act of greenness"?

The Greenwash Brigade

Joel Makower reflects upon the evolving definition of greenwash in a recent post titled, "How Bad is Greenwashing, Really?" He explains how greenwash in the late 80's and early 90's referred to "deliberate and cynical attempts by companies to mislead the public."

Fast forward to 2008, and corporate America has moved beyond abject denial and cover up to a phenomenon Makower calls "Random Acts of Greenness." They recognize that the public is demanding environmental responsibility, and are taking steps to do better (often motivated by the good PR that follows). Now the concern is that 'sustainability' is such a new concept among the general public that we have trouble evaluating the significance of these corporate green claims.

Case in point: KB Home recently announced a company-wide commitment that all communities opening in 2009 will meet "Energy Star" certification.

Is this greenwash?

The cynic in me wants to shake a tsk-tsk finger at them and say, "Great, green suburban single-family home development on green field sites. Big deal. That's like a 'green' 12-mile-per-gallon Hummer with recycled carpet and bamboo trim." It's their urban sprawl development pattern that is unsustainable.

However, this does represent a significant commitment on their part. Energy Star is not the norm. And they're only able to make the commitment because they see a market of consumers asking for green homes. For a business to stay in business, there must be a market for their product. They could commit to only building carbon-neutral, net-zero energy homes on urban infill sites, but they would soon be out of business. The American public isn't asking for that product...yet. Maybe this effort will even drive demand.

I'm inclined to restrain my cynicism and say, "Bravo HB Homes, well done."

July 25, 2008 by Jim Nicolow
5 comments

tags: Energy Star greenwash KB Home

Comments (5)

Janne Flisrand | Respond
July 25, 2008 1:50 PM PT

I have quite a different take on this.

I call greenwash for two reasons:

1: Energy Star is a third-party certified program(which I like), but an unambitious standard.

2: Energy Star is already standard on homes for many production builders (like KB).

Energy Star is - in some states - significantly more energy efficient than code. On a national basis, however, it's merely 20-30% better than most homes. It's difficult for federal standards to keep pace with new practices. We've been learning about energy efficient homes for 40 years, now, and Energy Star is nowhere near as efficient as what can be easily built. European countries have much higher standards (although not necessarily federally backed ones), for example, the UK's Carbon Lite and Germany's Passive House.

Several production builders - the ones who do entire single-family subdivisions - already build tons of Energy Star homes. Codes and use vary by state, but look up your favorite big builder (Centex? Pulte?) in one or two states and see if they're already building hundreds or even thousands of Energy Star homes. Several companies already certify all or nearly all of their homes.

Whether they market them that way or not is another question. KB is in the lead only on marketing what they're already doing.

Harold Satterlee | Respond
July 28, 2008 6:08 AM PT

The "Green" label seems to be more about marketing the same old thing with a some low cost ceremonial add-ons (Like a few more inches of insulation in the attic and energy star appliances) that don't do much more than give the marketer an excuse to charge much higher prices. A true green home would be constructed significantly different to cut energy usage by at least half.

When someone pitches an energy saver product to me, and I object to its super high price, they always come back with "But look how much you are going to save." It is more about taking what I would pay to the utility company and paying it to the green marketer instead. That ruins the savings.

Jim Nicolow | Respond
July 30, 2008 7:26 PM PT

Thanks for the comments, Janne. While I agree that Energy Star represents a modest improvement over conventional practice, I believe that's really the point. Change is incremental and we won't see the U.S. new housing market change over night. According to the EPA, only 12% of new homes met the Energy Star standard in 2007, so I do believe that a large builder's move to build 100% Energy Star homes represents a significant commitment and not just greenwash.

http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?fuseaction=qhmi.showHomesMarketIndex

It's also a question of scale of implementation. A 20-30% reduction in energy use for hundreds of thousands of Energy Star production homes has a far bigger positive impact nationally than a handful (literally) of carbon neutral homes with no market penetration and extremely limited consumer demand. That's not to say that these kinds of homes don't provide tangible demonstrations of the future, but I feel like KB is pushing in the right direction in a proactive but realistic manner that will allow them to stay in business.

Jim Nicolow | Respond
July 30, 2008 7:41 PM PT

Thanks for the post, Harold. Your first comment parallels Janne's, in that you question the degree of change necessary to qualify for green (a 20-30% improvement isn't green, it must be at least 50%). Please see my response to Janne's post on that issue.

Regarding cost, one of our designers is fond of saying "more costs more" which is often true. I don't think we as consumers are accustomed to thinking in terms of cost of ownership and we often see only the sticker price. I remember hearing about a consumer study in the U.S. that went something like this(as well as my feeble memory can recall): Two refrigerators were presented side-by-side. One was $25 more expensive than the other, but it would use $50/year less in electricity. That is, after 6 months of operation, it would pay for itself providing $50/year in savings thereafter. They found that a majority of respondents said they would buy the less efficient model because "it was cheaper."

As energy costs continue to rise, that break-even point for efficiency investments gets closer and closer.

Jody Solell | Respond
August 11, 2008 7:20 AM PT

Jim's last comment about cost of ownership is right on. If builders did more to educate home buyers about the cost of ownership, home buyers could see that the added cost of Energy Star homes is more then offset by the energy savings.
The question is: when will builders recognize this need and start an education effort?
Some builders have said to me that they are in business to sell homes, not educate the public, go figure that response.

Tools

Meet the Greenwash Brigade

Our hand-picked environmental professionals, each part of the Public Insight Network, are on the hunt for "greenwash" as they examine eco-friendly claims by companies, governments and other groups. They ask tough questions about the mainstreaming of green, from the perspectives of people in the trenches who are focused on these issues 24/7.

Jim Nicolow is a nationally recognized expert on sustainable design and leads the sustainability initiative for Lord, Aeck & Sargent, overseeing the incorporation of sustainable design strategies and features into the firm’s design projects. He is a LEED® Accredited Professional with extensive knowledge of the U.S. Green Building Council’s (USGBC) LEED rating system.

Janne K. Flisrand has worked as an affordable housing and urban planning research consultant for five years, primarily supporting local non-profits. Her focus is on transit, transit-oriented design, affordable housing, and sustainability. Currently, she’s the program coordinator for Minnesota Green Communities, a program promoting affordable, healthy, sustainably built housing throughout Minnesota.

Dennis Markatos-Soriano recently completed a Master's in Public Affairs at Princeton's Woodrow Wilson School. He is now launching Sustainable Energy Transition (SET) to help individuals and institutions move from dependence on oil and gas to an efficient use of renewables. Previously, he co-founded SURGE (Students United for a Responsible Global Environment), which aims to bring young progressives together across issues of environmental and social justice throughout North Carolina and beyond. In the summer of 2006, he helped to start a small green company, Greenway Pedicabs, to provide a greenhouse gas-free transportation option for people in the Triangle of North Carolina.

Heidi Siegelbaum is a principal with Calyx Sustainable Tourism and works primarily on advancing sustainable tourism practices. She also specializes in science translation, cross-border indicators with Canada, cross-disciplinary planning and environmental technical assistance to businesses. Previously, she was in-house legal counsel for EPA for industrial chemicals and biotechnology and the senior performance measure analyst with the Washington State Department of Ecology. She is on the technical advisory committee of the Seattle Culinary Academy and a long standing member of the Chefs Collaborative.

NOTE: The opinions expressed by the Greenwash Brigade bloggers and those providing comments are theirs alone, and do not reflect the opinions of American Public Media or its employees. American Public Media is not responsible for the accuracy of any of the information supplied by the Greenwash Brigade bloggers.

Marketplace

The Greenwash Brigade