'Certified' green!

Every now and then a building raises its proud mane over the rest, claiming to be a green building. This fad has caught up to such an extent as to muddle the green concept. What exactly is a green building? In simple terms, one that is environmental friendly and built sustainably. Often these vital issues are not adhered to. Environment friendly also should mean friendly to its occupants. Many are not! As to sustainable, often materials used are costly or complicated and energy intensive in manufacture. Their impact is not lasting. Etc etc.

Which is why architects at TED do not think much of most green buildings. They suggest that the buildings should include expected urban growth in their design so that they can evolve.

Health of occupants is often ignored. For instance, LEED certification which has emerged as the green standard of approval for new buildings in the US, ignores factors relating to human health, particularly the use of potentially toxic building materials.

In its objective to encourage saving energy by making buildings more airtight, Leeds has had the effect of more effectively trapping the gases emitted by the unprecedented number of chemicals used in today’s building materials and furnishings. It places no weight on human health factors in deciding whether a building meets its environmental and social goals. Air quality has to be a deciding factor in the considerations, or else occupants will be turning green at the gills!

All the more reason why the body sets the standards must be a neutral body with no 'vested' interests, right? In India, the IGBC rating (backed by CII) does mention air quality and health of occupants. So also does GRIHA from MNRE and Teri. The former is more closely tailored on the western concpet of per capita energy consumption, while the latter goes by climate in India and does not promote glass and air-conditioning equipment. Would be interesting to see how the health standards are monitored.