EXCELLENT post! This is indeed a scandal and of mammoth proportions. It's good to see Treehugger going after the big fish.

Buildings are the single largest contributor* to global warming. If you combine the embodied energy of building materials such as cement, tiles, glass, iron etc and the energy required to operate residential, commercial and industrial buildings, then buildings are the largest greenhouse gas emitting sector.

* source: Architecture2030

This shouldn't be allowed to go on.

No real surprise. I remember in college watching apartment buildings go up with no insulation in the walls. None at all. I have no idea whether that was legal or not, but it led to your aircon/heating bills to be astronomical, but that was a cost they could push off on the tenants easily.

I really think the problem is that consumers either don't know or don't think to ask for this kind of thing. Not everyone connects their house's architecture to their heating and cooling bill. Rather, they connect it to their thermostat and the age of their equipment. People have a simpler relationship with their cars and are frequently reminded of their miles per gallon when they pay at the pump. Thus, they know to look for a car with good MPG when they're scanning the market.

I think better legislature would be a good thing, but most of the problem right now is the lack of consumer demand. CAFE standards have not changed since the 70's, but hybrids with efficiency way over the 24MPG average have entered the market because consumers know better miles per gallon will save them money beyond the "hybrid premium." If consumers knew that multi-paned windows and good insulation would also pay for itself and help the environment, they'd demand it way more often.

The problem is that the environmentalists that get airtime on daytime talk shows and so on usually devote their time to talk about the things people buy more often, like cars, washers and dryers, refrigerators, light bulbs, etc. A house is a big investment that most people plan on keeping at least 30 years.

It is very true that Energy Star is evolutionary rather than revolutionary. While most homes can not meet even Energy Star requirements, some may far exceed the Energy Star requirement, but not bothered with the paperwork to get the label for the house. Energy Star is only an incremental improvement, but why not just adopt it as the minimum? The vast majority of builders will only build the minimum so keep raising the minimum. Set some longer range requirements such as zero energy in 5 years. No requirements, no improvements. Just look at the CAFE levels without the pressure of higher standards - no improvement

I completely agree with this post, and with Manu's statements. Also agree with Logic's suggestions.

Great post. With increasing urbanization (see State of the World 2007) this will become an even more pressing issue. I hope that high-density projects are more likely to be energy star certified.

Here here. Great post, Lloyd. I'm working in Greensburg, Kansas this summer, pushing for a green recovery from the tornado that completely destroyed the town in May. If we have our way, 90+% of buildings here will be models of efficiency. Of course, it takes a LOT of sharing information, but once people understand the energy savings, even in rural, conservative Kansas, it is a no-brainer. People here are hungry for more information about green building than we can even provide, which is a good sign! www.GreensburgGreenTown.org

I can not speak for new construction.But when i fixed my foundation on my cabin home.I used a massive water tank under my floor.It absorbs the heat from my wood stove.And retains it.It works out quite well.