Green building to remain “unaffected” by the current housing slowdown

Green Building Market to Grow More Than $2B by 2011
GreenerBuildings.com

NEW YORK, Nov. 5, 2007 — A new report from market researcher SBI finds that the booming green building market will continue its rapid expansion through 2011, more than doubling in size to $4.7 billion in the next four years.

The report, “Green Building Materials in the U.S.,” also finds that the market for green building materials has been growing at a rate of 23 percent per year through 2006. Although the growth is expected to slow slightly — growing only by 17 percent per year — but will remain unaffected by the current housing slowdown in the U.S.

The boom has been fueled by a combination of commercial and residential building buyers and occupants, as well as people undertaking DIY renovation and upgrade projects. These groups, the report’s authors find, are now considering energy efficiency, indoor air quality and other measures of sustainability fundamental to occupying homes and offices.

Another prediction in the report suggests that green flooring, whether through sustainable or renewable wood products or other green methods, will leapfrog from the slowest-growing segment of the green building market to the fastest-growing segment by 2011.

The report, which is available to purchase from SBI, also covers emerging opportunities in the green building market, including the expansion of the green residential market, how competing green standards will affect the market, and profiles of the biggest players in the market.

Carbon calculus

The Carbon Calculus – New York Times
By MATTHEW L. WALD
Published: November 7, 2007

CHANGE is in the works that could go a long way toward making alternative energy less alternative, and more attractive to consumers and businesses.

It’s not a technological fix from some solar-cell laboratory in Silicon Valley or wind-turbine researcher in Colorado or the development of some superbug to turn wood waste into ethanol.

Rather, the change would come from Washington, if Congress does what it has talked about and puts a price tag on greenhouse-gas emissions. Suddenly the carbon content of fuel, or how much carbon dioxide is produced per unit of energy, would be as important as what the fuel costs. In fact, it might largely define what the fuel costs.

That could shake up the economics of energy, handicapping some fuels and favoring others. Those that produce hefty emissions, like coal and oil, would likely look much worse. And some — sunlight, wind, uranium, even corn stalks and trash as well as natural gas — would probably look much better. “Carbon-negative” fuels that take carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere as they are made, might even become feasible.