Image by Gábor Molnár.

Eco-friendly practices apply to the full range of contemporary social policy, and naturally that includes housing policy. Buildings, after all., account for some 45% of all carbon emissions, so finding ways to reduce their carbon footprint – through “green” building, for example – has become a top priority for federal, state and local governments. Green building techniques – in the design, materials sourcing and management of new housing – and mandatory certification of their use through the LEED system – are widely recognized as a major contribution to sustainability. As well they should be.

But green building is not perfect. While its impact on conservation is undeniable, concerns have existed for some time about at least one possible downside: By employing certain water conservation methods – all in the name of energy saving – green building has the unfortunate effect of elevating the risk of Legionella bacteria contamination, which, if left unchecked, can lead to a rare and deadly form of pneumonia known as Legionnaires Disease, which can prove fatal in some cases.

How serious is this risk? In quantitative terms, that remains unclear. But it’s serious enough for public health specialists and building design experts to raise the issue prominently when discussing the rising number of Legionella outbreaks reported nationwide – and globally – since the green-building movement began accounting for a rising share of commercial, public and residential housing units being constructed in major metropolises over the past two decades,

In my recent article for Counterpunch, I raised the issue of green building as one of the leading risk factors for the spread of Legionella – because, like it not, that’s what the science shows. But I was not prepared for the firestorm of criticism that the article received for citing this risk. Some commentators on Reddit, where I posted the article simply to spread public awareness and solicit feedback, lashed out at me for suggesting that green buildings had any role in spreading Legionella. One critic called the article a “hit piece” and suggested my main motivation was to attack the credibility of green building and of sustainability generally. Others questioned whether there really was a rise in Legionellea, as I claimed, citing official surveillance data and media sources. One self-proclaimed water safety expert even went so far as to call me an “irresponsible” journalist engaged in deliberate and dangerous “fear-mongering,” he said.

Many journalists like myself are accustomed to such attacks, which generally occur on the margins, but apparently this one found favor in the upper ranks of Reddit, which has long been accused of currying favor with Democratic constituencies and of censoring those they deem outside the bounds of “acceptable” policy discourse. To my shock and dismay, Reddit, without warning, decided to spike my article and effectively banned me from posting any more articles in the future. My article had already appeared on 10 different sub-reddits including those dealing with public health, infectious disease outbreaks and emergency room admissions, as well as subreddits for individual states like Minnesota and Maryland that have experienced significant Legionella outbreaks of late. In the space of just three days, more than 400,000 curious “Redditors” had viewed the piece, and some 40,000 had commented on it, in many cases, relaying stories about relatives and friends who had died from Legionella poisoning, and in other cases, lambasting public health authorities for consistently minimizing the disease threat, leaving ordinary citizens – especially those 50 years old or more – at risk of death or illness. Reddit, in its evident disregard for free speech, or just discomfort with unfamiliar but well-grounded arguments, decided that my piece was simply too threatening to to remain posted for further comment.

It’s important to recognize that the basic science behind the green-building Legionella risk is both elementary as well as irrefutable. Legionella thrives in water systems that are left stationary for relatively long periods, and where the water resides at a relatively high temperature, high enough to breed the potentially deadly bacteria. I cited this science in the article and hyperlinked a single source, but I might have cited several additional sources, if only to deflect such rabid criticism of the basic science. One I might cite here is a succinct white paper prepared by an Australian home safety firm, Enware, back in June 2017, entitled “The Downside to Green Development.” The form applauded the use of sustainability benchmarks much like the LEED system in the US Green Star in Australia – but stated flatly that these standards completely overlooked the Legionella risk:

While the performance of a building is a priority across all levels of Green Star, these benchmarks have created unforeseen consequences for the wellbeing of building users by failing to demonstrate an understanding of the knock-on effects when a building is not managed correctly. The current water efficiency solutions under sustainability benchmarks, combined with a lack of information available within building management services, have created environments perfect for the growth and transmission of Legionella bacteria.

Developers, architects and engineers need to more closely consider the functional use of the facility to ensure bacterial risks in the water system and its management are fundamental elements of the design brief (p.1).

Why hasn’t the green-building-Legionella link come up in ongoing policy discussions about ensuring housing sustainability? The obvious, if cynical answer, is that it’s simply inconvenient politically – and could also entail costly design adjustments, possibly threatening the profit margins involved. Sustainability advocates would rather downplay or simply avoid the current evidence in the interest of promoting eco-friendly solutions that admittedly, are too often disparaged by critics, especially on the right. Why give conservatives ammunition of any kind to shoot down otherwise constructive proposals for making life better for residents, especially in minority communities, which are too often exposed to toxic housing conditions? Besides, how big a bacterial health threat – quantitatively – does green-building actually pose, in fact – and how often? It’s understandable that green-building advocates might want to dodge the issue – it’s certainly expedient – but blithely moving ahead with policy solutions in the face of a well-documented countervailing downside would seem unwise over the long haul. Doesn’t pose a liability risk?

An alternative solution for green builders might be to confront the issue head-on – with strategies for remediation and alternative building construction. Right now, it seems, green builders are more likely to suggest that the issue is simply a red herring. Some green-builders have even gone into complete denial and deflection mode suggesting that green-building actually minimizes the risk of Legionella – a fanciful claim. On the other hand, it may be that some enlightened green-guilders are looking proactively at design and management solutions that could minimize the Legionella risk in the future. More power to them if they are, but there is little evidence thus far that most green builders have risen to this challenge.

And why would they? Currently, there are very few state jurisdictions that require the implementation of mandatory water management solutions to minimize the risk of future recurring Leonella outbreaks. Most of these guidelines are voluntary and reactive, not preventative. The main reason, of course, is the likely cost of mandatory surveillance, flushing, and cleansings of prospectively contaminated water cooling towers and HVAC systems that are so often the source of the problem. Many green-builders, anxious to “virtue-signal” their business commitment to sustainability, are not going to freely submit to costly regulatory guidelines freely, unless absolutely compelled to do so. Green “washing” – putting a happy sustainability “face” on otherwise lucrative business opportunities – is widespread these days, as a strategy for winning government contracts and for achieving positive PR and brand recognition. Many seemingly eco-friendly companies do it, and green builders are certainly not immune from this all-too-pervasive syndrome.

Of course, policy makers need not and should not succumb to these market-based pressures in the private sector, but as I mentioned in the article, neither of the two recent presidential administrations has insisted on stronger Legionella control standards. Trump, no friend of the environment or sustainability generally, seems anxious to decimate federal health agencies altogether. Biden, by contrast, did include extensive tax credits to green-builders in his Inflation Reduction Act, a positive sign generally. However, there’s no evidence that attention to the attendant Legionella risk that might come with a massive federally-subsidized expansion of green-building was ever broached, or that Legionella control conditions were included in the legislation. It’s been left to professional safety experts and trained scholars to raise their concerns and to document the risk. but few if any policy-makers are currently listening, it seems.

I am not an environmental scientist and while I write regularly on public health issues, my formal training lies elsewhere. I would encourage others with deeper knowledge and professional experience with these issues to write about them – and even submit an article to Counterpunch for future publication. I do know that several commentators that have long experience in water safety management

affirmed the concern I expressed that green-building might be a hidden – if inadvertent – risk of considerable proportion in the green-building movement. There are other risks that have received virtually no attention from the policy world. For example, reductions in sulfur dioxide, an achievement of Clean Air initiatives, has also inadvertently heightened the risk of Legionella, according to numerous authoritative and published scientific reports. This is another of the “perverse and paradoxical” outcomes of well-intentioned and otherwise worthy sustainability initiatives.

The upshot? Nature has her own logic, and it’s up to policy activists to understand and account for this logic in their proposals for a better world. “Follow the science” isn’t just a sword we brandish at our opponents, it’s a credo that we must embrace ourselves, uncompromisingly, regardless of where the chips may sometimes fall.

The post Green-Building and Legionnaires’ Disease: A Reply to Critics appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

From CounterPunch.org via this RSS feed