Mythbusting resolution by Green Decoder (and other thoughts on “Green is expensive”)

Green Decoder had a nice start of the year post about cost perceptions and his resolution to do more green outreach and education. Writing about his brother’s incomplete understanding of sustainable building:

Initially, his sentiment on green focused on the negative aspects: expensive, inconvenient, and difficult to do without professional help. I realized I am not doing enough to share my own message of Shades of Green. In our conversation, he quickly learned that going green is not only the big changes, but all the little decisions we make everyday.

I submit my resolution to you. This year, I will spread the message and teach anyone who will listen, and even some that won’t about Shades of Green. This year, I will move shades closer to the green I want to be.

The idea of Shades of Green is appealing, but following a discussion with a colleague earlier last week, we’re left with a question of why the perception remains “Green is too expensive.”

A recent post from 100khouse.com posits one theory as to why this perception continues to hold sway:

Most of the builders and developers reporting high premiums for pursuing LEED are still trying to build the exact same home they have always built. They are simply adding features to make that same house energy efficient, healthy and sustainable. This addition gets expensive. Rather than redesign the house that has been successful for them in the past, they add solar panels, geothermal systems, high end interior fixtures, extra insulation and other green features. The house gets greener. It gets certified, but it also increases significantly in cost. Since the features are add-ons and extras, the price rises as each one is tacked on.

The 100k house is an attempt by Philadelphia developers to build “a modern and “green” house for a measly $100,000.” The website has extensive information about their choices, challenges, and ambitions. It deserves a long look regardless of your property type.