Okay, so you’ve read about “green”, seen “LEED” signs on the sides on new developments, and think it’s a no-brainer – Go Green! But before you lead the crusade for San Francisco to be the FIRST green city – we are too late! Boulder, Colorado, another terminally cool city, has beaten us to the punch and has become the first U.S. city to enact a “carbon tax” on electricity. This tax helps to support that city’s directive to improve energy efficiency, promote renewable energy, and reduce vehicle use. So, how far behind the curve are we? San Francisco currently has proposed legislation that all new private construction projects over 20,000 sq ft would be required to meet the “gold” LEED standard.
And, what does all of that mean? A “Carbon Tax” is a tax on energy sources which emit carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. LEED: Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design is certified by the USGBC (a non-profit organization comprised of over 12,000 building organizations). And the “ Platinum, Gold and Silver Standard” is a numerical benchmark developed by LEED to measure the performance in six categories: 1) sustainable sites, 2) water efficiency, 3) energy & atmosphere: CFC reduction, renewable and/or reduced energy use, 4) material & resources: local and/ or recyclable, 5) indoor quality: natural light, voc-free paint, 6) innovation & design process.
So, where is the argument? Estimates say that “gold standard” buildings save about 40% on energy costs and 18% on water usage – great, right? Well, the Office of Economic Analysis for the City & County of San Francisco argues that the increased construction cost of 1.8% to 5%, will have a negative impact on our city’s economic growth and will not pay for itself over the next 20 years. The OEA assumes developers will not build due to the higher costs and thus there will actually be a negative impact on our environment. They also argue that a phased-in market-based tax on carbon-producing activities will have a more immediate impact on CO2 reductions.
I say why not both? The goal is to reduce both usage and consumption, why not get to our goal of having a safer, healthier, “greener” city by building cleaner buildings and taxing CO2 producing activities? The truth is, as also brought up in a recent lunchtime SPUR discussion, San Francisco’s 47 square miles are not going to have any significant CO2 impact on the world. We are too small and we spew out an insignificant amount of CO2 on a global level. We don’t matter! Except as an example, as Ghandhi said, “You must be the change you wish to see in the world”
Comments