What are the benefits of a greener home?

The difference between green and conventional buildings is that green buildings offer healthier and more comfortable interior spaces, and include measures to reduce a building’s ecological footprint.

Energy, water and resource efficiency – This reduces pressure on scarce energy resources and decreases the greenhouse gas emissions implicated in climate change. Efficiency also applies to waste reduction and recycling that alleviates pollution and eases pressure on landfill sites. Greater efficiencies also lead to cost savings.

Energy use: The construction and operation of buildings consumes over 60% of the electricity and 35% of primary energy used in the US, according to the US Green Building Council.

Health – A healthy house benefits its occupants and the environment. It responds to evolving household needs using a simple, sensible approach to construction, renovation and day-to-day operations.

Emissions: The energy use associated with buildings accounts for about 30% of total greenhouse gas emissions in the US. - US Green Building Council

Approximately 11% of BC’s annual greenhouse gas emissions are attributed to the operation and maintenance of residential and commercial buildings. - Mind the Gap: A Blueprint for Climate Action in British Columbia. Pembina Institute, November 2007

Environmentally friendly design – By incorporating green into the design process, construction and retrofits can dramatically reduce their construction and operating environmental impact.

Materials consumption: Worldwide, buildings consume 25% of the world’s harvested wood and utilize 40% of all materials produced in the world. New home construction consumes 40% of all the lumber and plywood used in the US.

The supply chain of a modest 1,700 square foot home requires over an acre of forest to be cut down and generates 7,000 pounds of solid waste; the cement in the foundation alone contributes about 10 tons of carbon dioxide (CO2, a greenhouse gas) to the atmosphere. - US Green Building Council

Livable communities – Greener buildings can contribute to greener communities by having lower water demands and producing less wastewater than conventional buildings, thus reducing demand on municipal services. See the greener community page for more benefits and information.

Cost and value – According to the McGraw-Hill Construction 2006 Green Building SmartMarket Report, homeowners believe green building will show decreases in operating costs between 8 and 9% across the industry and result in average increases in building values of around 7.5%, with an expected 6.6% improvement in return on investment.

In August 2007, Built Green™ BC estimated green homes cost 4-6% more to build than conventional homes.

Studies reinforcing the increased value greener dwellings have over their conventional cousins continue to be released:

• March 26, 2008 - A study by CoStar Group has found that sustainable green buildings outperform their peer non-green assets in key areas such as occupancy, sale price and rental rates, sometimes by wide margins.
  
  The results indicate a broader demand by property investors and tenants for buildings that have earned either LEED® certification or the ENERGY STAR® label and strengthen the business case for green buildings, which proponents have increasingly cast as financially sound investments.
  
  According to the study, LEED® buildings command rent premiums of $11.24 per square foot over their non-LEED® peers and have 3.8% higher occupancy. Rental rates in ENERGY STAR® buildings represent a $2.38 per square foot premium over comparable non- ENERGY STAR® buildings and have 3.6% higher occupancy.

• SEATTLE, July 1, 2008 - Analysis shows that new environmentally certified (ECert) or green homes in King County sell in up to 18% less time and for 28-37% higher value per square foot. ECert homes are built to a higher standard than local building codes require. These better-built homes offer a variety of potential benefits, including increased energy efficiency, water conservation, improved indoor air quality, environmentally preferable materials, and reduced construction waste.
  
  A report by GreenWorks Realty shows ECert homes built in 2007 and later accounted for 16.7% (single-family) and 18.7% (condominium) of sales in King County in a nine-month period ending May 31, 2008.
  
  That data showed that new-construction ECert single-family homes sold in 18% less time, sold for 4% more, and were 25% smaller than non-certified homes. Smaller-footprint homes require less energy and natural resources to build and maintain. Priced per square foot, ECert homes were 37% more valuable.
  
  New-construction ECert condominiums sold for 3% more and were 20% smaller. Priced per square foot, ECert condos were 28% more valuable.
  
  Ben Kaufman, Founder of Greenworks Realty notes that in areas outside of Seattle, where there may not be such a strong building program, builders may be losing value at the point of sale if they do not educate their buyers as to the benefits of the green features in the home for sale.

Will customers pay a premium for green products in harsh economic times?

Bob Lurie, Director and Managing Partner of Monitor, a global strategy consulting firm that helps clients build sustainability into their growth and competitiveness strategies says, “Focusing on whether or not customers will pay a premium for green products brings with it a number of constraining assumptions: 1) that green products do not have any tangible benefits for customers other than making them feel good about helping the planet, and 2) that green products are more expensive to produce than non-green products. But for businesses that understand customer insight and innovation, these assumptions are simply not valid.” (Full Article)

McGraw-Hill Construction’s 2009 Green Outlook shows green building has grown in spite of the down-turned market conditions.

“In 2005, green building was a small, burgeoning market, approximately 2% of both nonresidential (commercial and institutional) and residential construction, valued at a total $10 billion–$3 billion for nonresidential and $7 billion for nonresidential. Since that time, green building has expanded rapidly due to a number of factors such as growing public awareness of green practices, heavy increase in government interventions (see page 35 for details), and recognition by owners of the bottom line advantages (see page 9 for details). In fact, green building has grown in spite of the market downturn. Green seems to be one area of construction insulated by the downturn, and we expect green building will continue to grow over the next five years despite negative market conditions to be a $96-$140 billion market.”

More information on costs is available in The Costs and Financial Benefits of Green Buildings, presented to the California Sustainable Building Task Force in October 2003.

More information on value is available from the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors in an article entitled “Green Value - green buildings good for business.”

The Canadian Green Building Council offers a report that outlines the benefits of green buildings in Canada. This Business Case for Green Buildings also addresses the challenges and barriers facing the green building industry, and provides information on the growth of that industry in Canada.