Home › News ›

When Going Green Is Less Important Than Saving Green

Posted by: Nate Berg

29 August 2009 - 9:00am

A new HVAC system for a building in Minnesota that was expected to meet high environmental standards was going to come in at almost three times its originally estimated costs. So city officials are delaying.

"That commitment makes Edina just the latest in a string of area cities that are trying to balance costs with incorporating energy-saving and environmentally sensitive practices into new public buildings.

'There isn't a public building going up where you wouldn't take a look at these things,' said Mike Eastling, director of public works in Richfield, where a $12 million public works building with state-of-the-art green features opened last year."

The costs of going green in this instance were too high for the city, which is now delaying the project and bending some rules to try to get the geothermal system in place more affordable. Many other cities across the country are starting to reconsider whether the costs of going green are really too high.

Full Story: Cities weigh green features vs. expense in new buildings
Source: Minneapolis-St.Paul Star Tribune, August 28, 2009
»
Bookmark and Share
“
Short of erasing existing political and jurisdictional boundaries, citizens and officials need to develop the capacity to work across boundaries according to the "problem-sheds" of the land and water issues we face in the 21st century.
”