Seeing the seemingly sudden separation of the Passive House Institute of the US and its origin, Germany’s own PassiveHaus Institute, strikes me as curious. I just interviewed Katrin Klingenberg for an article recently published on the three new types of sustainable building.
I’m wondering if the compromised in integrity, as the inhabitat article mentions, had anything to do with the fact that ‘passive’ has become the word de rigueur. That is, it seems today everything is passive.
The article goes on to state, ‘The loss of a US-based certifying agency will certainly slow down the implementation of Passive House in the US for the short term — a huge market which has seen tremendious interest in the building system,’ which is bogus. The sheer number and duplicate responsibilities of the certifying agencies just in the US can more than handle the number of people seeking passive (or other green or sustainable) certification. The article’s author must have had a bowl of paranoia for breakfast. Does author Andrew Micheler know nothing about the USGBC’s LEED program, the NAHB’s program, or the International Living Buildings Institute?