Maybe I'm a bit out of the loop, but the approach of IGCC does not fill me with enthusiasm. Having seen ICC at work, during an effort to develop code changes to facilitate a hydrogen economy, I have to tell you that Ben Franklin was right about laws and sausages. The prospect of a group of politically- and industrially-connected code officials telling the rest of us how to design and construct for sustainability holds little appeal.
Contrary to current received wisdom, I believe in regulation. If people are not on-board with sustainability by now, asking them to commit to voluntary compliance is not going to have any more effect going forward than asking bankers voluntarily not to pay themselves obscene sums of money. But ICC is not the right group to lead this effort.
Surely, notwithstanding ICC's behavior
in re NFPA, it would be possible to persuade them to coordinate the rest of their codes with the work of a body more qualified and appropriate to deal with the breadth of issues and intricate shades of grey which characterize the best sustainable design and construction? Otherwise, are we content to allow Code Officials to arrogate to themselves the right to arbitrate on these issues while the scientists, economists, design and construction practitioners and the rest of us sit outside and await their judgment? Such was the choice of NFPA before us in the face of ICC's charter.
Does anyone else share my reservations on this?
-------------------------------------------
Tim Fells AIA
Director, Production + QA
Daroff Design, Inc.
Philadelphia, PA-------------------------------------------