Maybe Rick Perry has it right. You, Bill P., et al should secede
(again). Here in CA, several private groups have stepped in and created
their own "green" standards & they are being adopted by local
jurisdictions. I have some serious reservations about how well they are
researched/written. Perhaps IBC can do a better/more rational job &
provide a consistent set of standards--I guess we'll see. Meanwhile
you, Bill, & Jim Inhofe can argue for your "god given" right to trash
the planet, but last year we had an election & you lost--get over it.
Chuck Utzman, P.E.
Stan Caldwell wrote:
> Call me old-fashioned. I have always understood that the sole purpose
> of any model building code is to provide a regulatory framework for
> public safety. In fact, the website for the folks behind the IBC
> family of codes is www.iccsafe.org <http://www.iccsafe.org/>. As
> discussed on this Listserv a few years ago, building codes have never
> addressed aesthetics, economics, serviceability, and so forth. Public
> safety has always been their sole focus.
>
> Now, that all appears to be changing. On June 29, ICC announced that
> it is teaming with AIA and ASTM to develop the "International Green
> Construction Code" (IGCC) focused on new and existing commercial
> buildings. In a press release on that date, Code Council Chief
> Executive Officer Richard P. Weiland stated "We believe the time has
> come for us to develop a code that will stand as a useful and credible
> regulatory framework for creating a greener commercial building
> stock." Really, I am not making this stuff up:
>
> http://www.iccsafe.org/news/nr/2009/0629_IGCC.pdf
>
> Now, I have no problem with promoting sustainable principles as long
> as they are based on innovation, best-practices, and proven science.
> My wife and I have recycled everything imaginable for the better part
> of three decades. We recently replaced all three of our big
> residential HVAC systems with new equipment that is so efficient that
> President Obama is funding part of our expenditures with your tax
> dollars. [Note: This is a federal gift, it did not influence our
> purchase decision.] With an incentive from the State of Texas, I also
> recently replaced a few dozen perfectly good incandescent light bulbs
> with dimmer, goofy-looking compact florescent bulbs. Some of the
> engineers on my staff are actively pursuing LEED accreditation. I
> applaud that, as we will better be able to serve our clients who
> voluntarily seek to have their projects LEED-certified. The key word,
> of course, is VOLUNTARILY.
>
> I have two problems with ICC pursuing the IGCC. First, if they are
> truly compelled to venture beyond safety, I would much prefer that
> they focus on serviceability. Issues like floor vibration, for
> example, remain fuzzy areas of structural engineering practice that
> attract unnecessary liability. Second, as one who believes that
> climate science is mostly nonsense, I oppose any effort that will lead
> to sustainability regulations being embedded into the building codes.
> To the extent that sustainability principles have merit, public
> pressure and economic considerations will promote their implementation
> much more effectively than regulation ever could. Yes, I still
> believe in old-fashioned capitalism.
>
> Regards,
>
> Stan R. Caldwell, P.E., SECB
> Proud to be in Texas
> The Carbon Capital of North America
******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
* Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
*
* This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers
* Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To
* subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
*
* http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
*
* Questions to seaint-ad@seaint.org. Remember, any email you
* send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted
* without your permission. Make sure you visit our web
* site at: http://www.seaint.org
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********