greenerbuildings.com— Going far beyond the organic vegetable garden and playground made from recycled materials, President Barack Obama intends to get the White House LEED certified by the U.S. Green Building Council.
Sep 14, 2009View in Crawl 4
But is it true? All that article says is that ''Putting them back up would be very unwise, based on cost''. Money was spent purchasing the panels and installing the necessary plumbing. Wouldn't it be more cost effective to put the panels back? And of course, is cost the best reason for making this decision? The white house has symbolic significance and keeping the panels in place shows an interest in conservation at the highest levels. Removing them sends a different message.
"Even if greening the White House itself would have just a small impact on the nation's capital, its symbolic importance would be considerably greater."I think it's well worth it.....
It's funny that you slam Huffington Post and me as liberal but the OP links to the New York Times. Yeah it's true that it's what Reagan's Press secretary said. But is it true? This information came before Fox News was even created so I would think that truth for you would be impossible to determine.
@jaxcsLet's think about this... take Solar panels in the beginning stages of the technology (30 years ago is what we are talking), combine that with 7 years sitting in the elements on a room, combine that with taking them off the room letting them sit in storage while you repair it for a while and you have something that from a cost perspective doesn't have much residual $$ value (other than historical). The school they were donated to only got a few more years of service out of it, before they were removed because of age. So yes I'd say that reinstalling the same ones would not have been a smart choice. As for whether or not new ones should have been purchased... in 1986 even the Dems weren't saying crap about trying to reduce energy. The reason they were put up there was because of an oil embargo... it wasn't about clean energy, the embargo ends at the time there wasn't much of a reason politically on either side (repub/dem), or symbolic as the embargo was done so to spend the extra money to get new ones at the time would have been considered wasteful government.Remember this stuff happened 23 years ago, times were a bit different
LEED has a few minimum Program Requirements(MPRs) that include basic items such as compliance with environmental laws, having at least one occupant served by the space, and being at least 250 square feet for a Commercial Interior projects or at least 1,000 square feet for other uses. LEED can be applied to both commercial or residential projects and both new construction or major renovation projects. LEED has different rating systems for different building types. http://www.greenliving9.com/leed-certification-an-overview.html
ericschc1Sep 15, 2009
If its only a "feel good measure", why are you studying for your own LEED certification then?
jaxcsSep 15, 2009
But is it true? All that article says is that ''Putting them back up would be very unwise, based on cost''. Money was spent purchasing the panels and installing the necessary plumbing. Wouldn't it be more cost effective to put the panels back? And of course, is cost the best reason for making this decision? The white house has symbolic significance and keeping the panels in place shows an interest in conservation at the highest levels. Removing them sends a different message.
fairdinkummateSep 15, 2009
"Even if greening the White House itself would have just a small impact on the nation's capital, its symbolic importance would be considerably greater."I think it's well worth it.....
mike17102Sep 15, 2009
Because houses should be more expensive.
jaxcsSep 15, 2009
It's funny that you slam Huffington Post and me as liberal but the OP links to the New York Times. Yeah it's true that it's what Reagan's Press secretary said. But is it true? This information came before Fox News was even created so I would think that truth for you would be impossible to determine.
isgkSep 16, 2009
@jaxcsLet's think about this... take Solar panels in the beginning stages of the technology (30 years ago is what we are talking), combine that with 7 years sitting in the elements on a room, combine that with taking them off the room letting them sit in storage while you repair it for a while and you have something that from a cost perspective doesn't have much residual $$ value (other than historical). The school they were donated to only got a few more years of service out of it, before they were removed because of age. So yes I'd say that reinstalling the same ones would not have been a smart choice. As for whether or not new ones should have been purchased... in 1986 even the Dems weren't saying crap about trying to reduce energy. The reason they were put up there was because of an oil embargo... it wasn't about clean energy, the embargo ends at the time there wasn't much of a reason politically on either side (repub/dem), or symbolic as the embargo was done so to spend the extra money to get new ones at the time would have been considered wasteful government.Remember this stuff happened 23 years ago, times were a bit different
aaditilathiJan 3, 2011
LEED has a few minimum Program Requirements(MPRs) that include basic items such as compliance with environmental laws, having at least one occupant served by the space, and being at least 250 square feet for a Commercial Interior projects or at least 1,000 square feet for other uses. LEED can be applied to both commercial or residential projects and both new construction or major renovation projects. LEED has different rating systems for different building types.
http://www.greenliving9.com/leed-certification-an-overview.html