I’m not aware of what long term economic/environmental & social/cultural impacts went into determining how much the royalty fee should be increased, but in general I support such actions. While I know many in the building/construction industry will disagree, there is a growing recognition that we must do a better job accounting for the true financial costs of the environmental and social/cultural impacts our actions have - short term and long term.
One example of this that takes a long term view is the social cost of carbon (SCC - http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/EPAactivities/economics/scc.htmland http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/ljohnson/omb_issues_call_for_additional.html), the government’s very conservative estimate of climate change damages resulting from carbon pollution, given in dollars per ton of CO2.
A more short or medium-term example of this are efforts to provide quantitative estimates of the performance/productivity and health impacts the built environment has on occupants (http://www.slideshare.net/marcel.harmon/creating-environments-that-promote-efficiency-and-sustainability, http://www.slideshare.net/marcel.harmon/healthy-schools-lecture, http://www.slideshare.net/marcel.harmon/the-commissioning-agent-as-anthropologist-part-1, http://www.slideshare.net/marcel.harmon/the-commissioning-agent-as-anthropologist-part-2).
The negative reactions to such broader, more comprehensive assessments of human activity are understandable - it impacts the financial bottom line for many companies and individuals. But its the only way to ensure a long term viability of not just our physical environment, but also for society as a whole.
No comments:
Post a Comment