Washington Post writer Neil Pearce [summarizes a recent study](http://www.postwritersgroup.com/archives/peir0706.htm) by the Califorina State & Consumer Services Agency:
>The California State and Consumer Services Agency, in a study of 33 green buildings, concluded that their construction costs are slightly more expensive — $3 to $5 a square foot, or 2 percent — than conventional structures.
>But a big difference emerged when the agency factored in reduced costs for energy, water and waste-disposal, plus enhanced employee health and productivity. The estimate: $50 to $75 per square foot savings over the average 20-year life of a building — more than 10 times the 2 percent cost premium for green buildings.
>It seems obvious: the reason only a tiny percentage of new American buildings and retrofits aren’t green isn’t cost. It’s lack of ingenuity or knowledge of new construction techniques — architects and builders wed to the “same-old,” lenders leery of anything unconventional.
>The fault also lies with national leaders unwilling to tell us in clear terms that a nation secure economically and environmentally and against foreign threats, means energy savings across the board — efficient and sustainable buildings included. It’s a message our current president apparently doesn’t comprehend, at least won’t articulate.