eLifespaces

Recently, a joint effort by two electronic industry groups released a “Home Technology Green Certification Reference Guide.” The report covered 17 different certifications programs, outlining their respective geographic constraints, dwelling type eligibility, independent testing, and costs. Ironic that this formalized structure (self authenticated in its importance) has been embraced by so many, so many willing to pay the price tag for certifying themselves.

Business Week’s Michael Arndt (Gehry's Take Two on LEED Architecture) writes that Frank Gehry (an instructor this term at the Yale School of Architecture) dismissed efforts to win a leadership in energy and environmental design certification because of the posturing around the LEED seal of approval. Continuing, he stated that he had never designed a building just to gain a LEED tag. Citing from the article, “I’m not against LEEDs at all,” Gehry said. “I think it’s wonderful. I think we’ve got to do this.” However, “it’s become ‘fetishized’ in my profession. It’s like if you wear the American flag on your lapel, you’re an American. That’s what I was trying to say. You get people who are holier than thou. I think architects can do a lot, but some of what gets done is marketing and doesn’t really serve to the extent that the PR says it does.”

Kudos Messrs. Arndt and Gehry. We agree.  Shouldn’t we be doing this (“green stuff”) regardless of having others certify that we are in fact doing it! Our very definition of green [defined > In our becoming more and more cognizant to the effect we (the human race) and our lifespaces are having on the planet, adaptation of new behaviors are learned for the preservation of life] reveals that 'green' motives are selfish and self serving. Actions are louder than words… we should be doing these things.

And for goodness sake, the thought of praising and recognition for these efforts speaks multitudes (and in not a complimentary fashion) about our prior actions.