If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Daily Caller)   News: DC has perhaps nation's largest number of "green energy buildings." Fark: they use more energy than buildings which did NOT get certification   (dailycaller.com) divider line 58
    More: Ironic, green energy, Environmental Policy Alliance, documentation, U.S. Green Building Council  
•       •       •

1122 clicks; posted to Geek » on 04 Mar 2014 at 7:50 AM (28 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



58 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-03-04 06:51:18 AM
It's a total scam. I hear you get points for painting your building green.
 
2014-03-04 06:59:54 AM
I have been a little suspicious of just what LEED green certification means.

But a report from the Daily Caller and some right wing "environmental policy institute" report?

Yeah, right.
 
2014-03-04 07:25:48 AM
Logically it would make sense for the buildings which use the most energy to be converted to take advantage of modern efficiencies while buildings which use less energy would be lest cost efficient to update.

Since we are dealing with Daily Make Shiat Up here I am going to assume that logic never entered into the creation of the linked article.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2014-03-04 07:35:20 AM
How much is a study by a "free market group" worth?  Especially if it get's an article on the Daily Caller dedicated to it.
 
2014-03-04 08:08:23 AM
But they don't have one powered by an Arc Reactor.
 
2014-03-04 08:12:06 AM

TwoHead: Logically it would make sense for the buildings which use the most energy to be converted to take advantage of modern efficiencies while buildings which use less energy would be lest cost efficient to update.

Since we are dealing with Daily Make Shiat Up here I am going to assume that logic never entered into the creation of the linked article.


This is the first thing that came to mind other than outright fabrication.  The comparison should obviously be power consumption of the same building with and without the modern technology or at least compare it to a similar building with a similar function.
 
2014-03-04 08:12:51 AM
Yeah, stopped reading at "The free-market group." Send me a note when there is actual evidence.
 
2014-03-04 08:13:31 AM
Obvious tag out to lunch?
 
2014-03-04 08:16:33 AM
PNC Bank is building a tower in Pittsburgh that is "Green" but since it's construction from the ground-up I actually think it's going to be pretty efficient.
 
2014-03-04 08:28:32 AM
Office buildings may use more energy than a warehouse of comparable size.

Who knew?
 
2014-03-04 08:29:55 AM

vpb: How much is a study by a "free market group" worth?  Especially if it get's an article on the Daily Caller dedicated to it.


I thought the idea behind ensuring effective government programs was that "a third-party group over which the government has no oversight" (read 'oversight' as 'political control') would be a good thing.

I'm suspicious of a lot of "green" claims (thanks mainly to the no-nukes dipshiats in my midst) but TFA seems to be at cross-purposes with itself.
 
2014-03-04 08:30:19 AM
I always knew that the enviros, I like to call 'em that. were a total racket!
 
2014-03-04 08:30:25 AM

vernonFL: a report from the Daily Caller and some right wing "environmental policy institute" report?

Yeah, right.


But they balanced the article with comment from "LEED Exposed", so both sides had their say.
 
2014-03-04 08:31:27 AM
img3.wikia.nocookie.net

What DC Green Energy might look like
 
2014-03-04 08:32:21 AM
part of leed is also reusing recycled materials in construction and reducing construction waste. while these are good, they wouldn't influence operating energy consumption at all.
 
2014-03-04 08:38:14 AM
Here's something for you guys to consider who are quick to dismiss the article.

What right wing greedy money grubbing corporation wouldn't like to SAVE money by building a green building? That's the point, right? Use less energy both in heating and cooling? That's less money and more evil PROFIT$.

(Besides, from a technological point of view, they're just plain cool.)

So, if they're not as green as they say they are, that's actually news EVERYONE can use. If the right wing rag IS lying about it, how come someone like MSNBC doesn't get on the ball, and call them out. It would be a wonderful scandal, they'd sell lots of airtime and ad space. And it would be wonderful, too.

But, no, lets just ignore it because its evil right wing propaganda straight from the Koch bros or something...

*sigh*
 
2014-03-04 08:38:47 AM
What are the considerations between a smallish building used as a data center with many racks of computers, and a large warehouse-type building storing row after row of inert materials not needing anything more than rudimentary light and heating?
 
2014-03-04 08:47:14 AM

Destructor: What right wing greedy money grubbing corporation wouldn't like to SAVE money by building a green building?


The same conservatives who drive SUVs, fight against fuel efficiency standards, and work to maintain higher pollution emissions in vehicles and powerplants.
 
2014-03-04 08:50:27 AM
So the buildings that need to be the most energy efficient are the ones that are built to be the most energy efficient?  This is your BridgeGate, liberals!
 
2014-03-04 08:53:11 AM
The Lincoln Memorial is 0 EUI, making it the most efficient building in the city.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2014-03-04 08:53:54 AM

Destructor: Here's something for you guys to consider who are quick to dismiss the article.

What right wing greedy money grubbing corporation wouldn't like to SAVE money by building a green building? That's the point, right? Use less energy both in heating and cooling? That's less money and more evil PROFIT$.

(Besides, from a technological point of view, they're just plain cool.)

So, if they're not as green as they say they are, that's actually news EVERYONE can use. If the right wing rag IS lying about it, how come someone like MSNBC doesn't get on the ball, and call them out. It would be a wonderful scandal, they'd sell lots of airtime and ad space. And it would be wonderful, too.

But, no, lets just ignore it because its evil right wing propaganda straight from the Koch bros or something...


It's straight from a "free trade group" so it certainly isn't reliable information.  What else should people do with it?  Take it seriously?
 
2014-03-04 08:55:36 AM
The moon is smaller than the earth, but it's farther away.
 
2014-03-04 08:55:50 AM

Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque: The Lincoln Memorial is 0 EUI, making it the most efficient building in the city.


We could do better.
Solar panels on top.
Trap rainwater in gutters.
And install vents inside to capture all the methane from the sweaty beasts taking pictures in there.
 
2014-03-04 08:56:23 AM

Destructor: Here's something for you guys to consider who are quick to dismiss the article.

What right wing greedy money grubbing corporation wouldn't like to SAVE money by building a green building? That's the point, right? Use less energy both in heating and cooling? That's less money and more evil PROFIT$.

(Besides, from a technological point of view, they're just plain cool.)

So, if they're not as green as they say they are, that's actually news EVERYONE can use. If the right wing rag IS lying about it, how come someone like MSNBC doesn't get on the ball, and call them out. It would be a wonderful scandal, they'd sell lots of airtime and ad space. And it would be wonderful, too.

But, no, lets just ignore it because its evil right wing propaganda straight from the Koch bros or something...

*sigh*


But that would require companies to spend more capital today to make the repairs. Improving the electricity bill 4 quarters from now isn't going to help with investors. Plus If we admit any green benefits we'd be admitting that green technology is good and not a scam. If we do that people might want us to stop pollution or stop using so much oil.

By giving voice to people with bad models of testing we are still validating what they say, and with the number of outright lies coming from the conservatives they would have to dedicate their entire broadcast to slowly explaining the lies. Not to mention the fact that conservatives wouldn't believe it was a lie even though they were walked through step by step.
 
2014-03-04 08:57:53 AM

vonmatrices: What are the considerations between a smallish building used as a data center with many racks of computers, and a large warehouse-type building storing row after row of inert materials not needing anything more than rudimentary light and heating?


There's no difference. At least from TFA, it sounds like they rate buildings on energy consumption vs. physical size.

My first thought was that there are a lot of DC think tanks, design firms, and government offices that use a lot of computational power. Compare that to something like an office building where everyone goes home at night, or an apartment building where everyone goes home during the day.
 
2014-03-04 09:00:18 AM

vpb: It's straight from a "free trade group" so it certainly isn't reliable information. What else should people do with it? Take it seriously?


If I just blew a wad of serious money on an energy efficient building, and it wasn't energy efficient... I would be every so pissed. Wouldn't anyone? Like, lawsuit-level angry. Businesses operate on the theory that they'll make money, not lose it.

Unless, there's like a scandal involved. Like it's "energy efficient in name only" to scam some money out of the government. There's your story, guys (if that is indeed, the case). So, hop to it MSNBC or Huffington Post, or whatever.

Or maybe I just expect too much out of our media... :-(
 
2014-03-04 09:01:11 AM

LasersHurt: PNC Bank is building a tower in Pittsburgh that is "Green" but since it's construction from the ground-up I actually think it's going to be pretty efficient.


PNC's been on a Green building kick the last several years, starting with their First Side center. It's a big PR thing for them, of course, but they see the returns on investment over the long run. Frankly, if a bank is going to invest in capital improvements, as a share holder I'd want to see that the operating costs in the future are minimized.
 
2014-03-04 09:01:55 AM

Destructor: So, if they're not as green as they say they are, that's actually news EVERYONE can use. If the right wing rag IS lying about it, how come someone like MSNBC doesn't get on the ball, and call them out. It would be a wonderful scandal, they'd sell lots of airtime and ad space. And it would be wonderful, too.


They don't want to do that, because they don't want the right wing outlets calling them out on their inaccuracies.

Modern reporting is so full of crap it's not even funny. Everyone is constantly making *substantial* factual errors in their reporting, so calling someone else out is just inviting harsh criticism of yourself. Also, I would bet that most people have never heard of and do not care what the The Daily Caller is. If they ran something on the air, it would sound to most people like they were talking about some obscure blogger.
 
2014-03-04 09:03:19 AM

jaytkay: The same conservatives who drive SUVs, fight against fuel efficiency standards, and work to maintain higher pollution emissions in vehicles and powerplants.


That's because they're fun. It's also fun to drive a sports car that gets shiatty mileage. (Dear God, is it ever fun... must... resist... temptation to buy shiatty sports car....)

What fun is it to work in a fuel in-efficient building? Just laugh as you burn wads of money in your fireplace? There's evil, then there's cartoon level evil.
 
2014-03-04 09:05:54 AM

Destructor: Here's something for you guys to consider who are quick to dismiss the article.

What right wing greedy money grubbing corporation wouldn't like to SAVE money by building a green building? That's the point, right? Use less energy both in heating and cooling? That's less money and more evil PROFIT$.

(Besides, from a technological point of view, they're just plain cool.)

So, if they're not as green as they say they are, that's actually news EVERYONE can use. If the right wing rag IS lying about it, how come someone like MSNBC doesn't get on the ball, and call them out. It would be a wonderful scandal, they'd sell lots of airtime and ad space. And it would be wonderful, too.

But, no, lets just ignore it because its evil right wing propaganda straight from the Koch bros or something...

*sigh*


There are no shortage of news sources that constantly call out right wing propaganda and point out the factual inaccuracies. The reason MSNBC doesn't is that it isn't even newsworthy and would be just one more reason for the right wingers to write off MSNBC completely without paying attention to the actual content.

If you love fox news, I bet you roll your eyes at Media matters links.

Show some real evidence, some study that compares like to like,and isn't funded by industry or political interests. Show that the cert criteria are actually counterproductive, don't just show a derived number and declare victory.
 
2014-03-04 09:09:18 AM
Take the Green Building Council's Washington headquarters. Replete with the group's top green-energy accolade, the platinum LEED certification, the USGBC's main base comes in at 236 EUI. The average EUI for uncertified buildings in the capital? Just 199.

I work in that building! In fact, the Green Building Council used to have an open WiFi that I'd use when I didn't want my IT guys to know I was visiting certain websites.
 
2014-03-04 09:10:09 AM

Fubini: They don't want to do that, because they don't want the right wing outlets calling them out on their inaccuracies.

Modern reporting is so full of crap it's not even funny. Everyone is constantly making *substantial* factual errors in their reporting, so calling someone else out is just inviting harsh criticism of yourself. Also, I would bet that most people have never heard of and do not care what the The Daily Caller is. If they ran something on the air, it would sound to most people like they were talking about some obscure blogger.


I will concede that's a possibility.

However, I think its more likely that there's simply no reason for them to investigate further.

It's not something there subscribers or devotes are interested in. At worst, they'll just find what has already been reported on. It's a crap shoot that they'll find something worthy of contradicting the original story. And there, we agree that they would be inviting harsh criticism.

So, what we wind up with is divided media. Conservatives sit there glued to Fox and the WSJ, while Liberals sit and watch MSNBC and the NYT... Or the Daily Show (ungh).

But enough of this... I'm already way off topic... apologies.
 
2014-03-04 09:11:39 AM
- Are the green buildings less energy efficient than buildings with the identical floor space and usage type (office vs. warehouse)?

- If so, are the occupancy levels identical or very close? If not, is an adjustment made for the occupancy level? If it's a multi-use building, are the energy efficiencies being compared on a like-for-like basis based on the occupancies of differing uses?

- Are these numbers based on a one-time measurement, or are they averaged over a certain multi-year period of comparable usage?

- Are you only looking at raw energy usage, or are you factoring how much energy is obtained through internal re-use/conservation?

Show me the numbers based on my questions and then I'll consider the report credible. Not seeing anything in the article that suggests that the conclusion is based on like-for-like data. If so, I'll revise my opinion that the study is flawed crap.
 
2014-03-04 09:11:50 AM

Destructor: So, what we wind up with is divided media. Conservatives sit there glued to Fox and the WSJ, while Liberals sit and watch MSNBC and the NYT... Or the Daily Show (ungh).


So what you're saying is both sides are bad? Should we vote for anyone in particular then?
 
2014-03-04 09:21:21 AM
First of all, what legitimate private environmental policy group would name themselves EPA. It's a total troll.

Secondly: "The Environmental Policy Alliance (EPA) is devoted to uncovering the funding and hidden agendas behind environmental activist groups and exploring the intersection between activists and government agencies."

As for Center for Organizational Research and Education (CORE, another trollish acronym for a right-wing group), a cursory google search finds this:

"The Centre for Organisation Research & Education [CORE], Manipur, India is representative indigenous peoples` organization based in Manipur, India. The organization has been working in grassroots support and advocacy for the rights of the indigenous and tribal peoples and their organizations in the NorthEast region of India,with particular emphasis on the more than thirty different indigenous and tribal peoples of Manipur."

FWIW, neither of these names autofill in a google search.

Will have to do some further digging...
 
2014-03-04 09:27:59 AM

Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque: The Lincoln Memorial is 0 EUI, making it the most efficient building in the city.


Actually, the building has lights for nocturnal illumination, a visitor center, a small museum, restroom facilities, etc.

So no, its not 0 EUI.
 
2014-03-04 09:29:00 AM

vernonFL: I have been a little suspicious of just what LEED green certification means.

But a report from the Daily Caller and some right wing "environmental policy institute" report?

Yeah, right.


I used to live in a LEED platinum certified apartment. My energy bills were easily half what they were I had experienced anywhere else and was a good 1500 sqft, one month in the spring I had a full months electric bill for $38. Only thing that annoyed me though was the light bulb sockets weren't standard they were what is called GU24 sockets, which exist to force you to buy CFL or LED bulbs. $8 a bulb right now, were about $15 back when I lived there.
 
2014-03-04 09:29:01 AM

Destructor: If I just blew a wad of serious money on an energy efficient building, and it wasn't energy efficient... I would be every so pissed. Wouldn't anyone? Like, lawsuit-level angry. Businesses operate on the theory that they'll make money, not lose it.

Unless, there's like a scandal involved. Like it's "energy efficient in name only" to scam some money out of the government. There's your story, guys (if that is indeed, the case). So, hop to it MSNBC or Huffington Post, or whatever.

Or maybe I just expect too much out of our media... :-(


LEED isn't just about energy efficiency, with only up to 18 of 110 points going to optimizing energy performance in new construction.  The main categories are Location & Transportation, Sustainable Sites, Water Efficiency, Energy and Atmosphere, Materials and Resources, and Indoor Environmental Quality (you can also get points for Innovation and Regional Priority).  You get points for EA for not just reducing energy, but using renewable energy and carbon offsets, so comparing just the total energy use is very disingenuous.  This article is just more of the normal FUD from monied interests.  Hope that helps.  I can't do anything about your herp about the media though.
 
2014-03-04 09:36:24 AM

SmackLT: Show me the numbers based on my questions and then I'll consider the report credible.


Even accepting the premise of the "report" is letting yourself be misled.  In new construction, you could get Platinum LEED certification without obtaining any of the 18 credits (out of 110 possible) for Optimizing Energy Performance.  Total energy usage is a small part of the picture.
 
2014-03-04 09:37:11 AM
The article is derptastic but LEED does have issues. My last employer was in a LEED gold building that had dozens of bike racks in a ditch behind the building. No one ever used them but they got points for having them. The bike racks inside the entrance to the parking deck? Yeah, they got used but the ones down in the swampy ditch? Never saw them used even once. Like any system, people figure out how to game it, then the rules are adjusted and the cycle repeats itself. Still better than not trying.
 
2014-03-04 09:40:41 AM
The most enegy efficient buildings have gravity flow coal boilers in the basement and duct-work that could hide a small child snaking though their paper-thin walls.

I got a study right here that can prove that.
 
2014-03-04 09:47:20 AM
CORE and EPA websites registered in February using domainsbyproxy.

As for LEED Exposed's lead researcher her resume includes Stateside Associates (lobbyist) and Americans for Tax Reform (derp)
 
2014-03-04 09:50:25 AM

jaytkay: Destructor: What right wing greedy money grubbing corporation wouldn't like to SAVE money by building a green building?

The same conservatives who drive SUVs, fight against fuel efficiency standards, and work to maintain higher pollution emissions in vehicles and powerplants.


Heh. We get those guys telling people that they will chop down a tree out of spite during earth day or asking viewers to run their AC higher during larger attempts to reduce energy usage.

Spiteful, hate filled people.
 
2014-03-04 09:56:05 AM

jaytkay: But they balanced the article with comment from "LEED Exposed", so both sides had their say.


"LEED exposed" is a project by the "environmental policy alliance"(In no way intentionally acronymed to mislead) that they cite.  And yeah, it's whole owned subsidiary of a right-wing shill holding corporation called the "The Core Group Inc"(Not to be confused with the several consulting companies with the same name).
 
2014-03-04 10:21:13 AM
Has anyone mentioned that the USGBC (originator of the LEED rating standard) is a private entity yet?  Or that private industry is in large part driving the push for energy-efficient buildings?  That this whole issue hardly fits the "big, bad government making job creators do something stupid" narrative?
 
2014-03-04 10:31:30 AM

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: LasersHurt: PNC Bank is building a tower in Pittsburgh that is "Green" but since it's construction from the ground-up I actually think it's going to be pretty efficient.

PNC's been on a Green building kick the last several years, starting with their First Side center. It's a big PR thing for them, of course, but they see the returns on investment over the long run. Frankly, if a bank is going to invest in capital improvements, as a share holder I'd want to see that the operating costs in the future are minimized.


I work for one of PNC's competitors. Our management has a hard on for getting green. The main reason is future operating costs and the numbers we can actually pull off are staggering. Everything is a target for virtualization and the entire organization has been put on a storage diet. Sure the PR is nice but this has everything to do with making investors happy.

In short, Daily Ballsucker is full of crap. Big business has millions of dollars worth of reasons to get green.

/who doesn't want a lower power bill?
 
2014-03-04 10:32:48 AM

morlinge: So what you're saying is both sides are bad? Should we vote for anyone in particular then?


Trust, but verify. Its okay to be skeptical, very skeptical... But not necessarily out-of-the-box dismissive.
 
2014-03-04 10:35:54 AM
I think I was watching Modern Marvels and they were talking about skyscrapers. They were showing how a lot of the new modern ones are more efficiant because they can have a water feature in the lobby that will help keep the whole building cool in the summer. And the newer ones will have solar panels and/or wind turbines. I think there is even one company that is developing a window that is also a solar panel.
 
2014-03-04 11:10:51 AM

ikanreed: jaytkay: But they balanced the article with comment from "LEED Exposed", so both sides had their say.

"LEED exposed" is a project by the "environmental policy alliance"(In no way intentionally acronymed to mislead) that they cite.  And yeah, it's whole owned subsidiary of a right-wing shill holding corporation called the "The Core Group Inc"(Not to be confused with the several consulting companies with the same name).


Splitters!

www.austinchronicle.com
 
2014-03-04 11:48:30 AM

Destructor: Trust, but verify. Its okay to be skeptical, very skeptical... But not necessarily out-of-the-box dismissive.


A good sentiment. I'm assuming that is directed at the Daily Caller, telling them to verify before posting such a poorly tested observation? And not to the people who know what daily caller is and know that it is a usless collection of partisan hacks.
 
Displayed 50 of 58 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report