Rob Moody didn’t set out to be a builder. After graduating from college with a biology major, he began work as an environmental-science teacher in Asheville, N.C. On weekends, though, he spent long hours fixing up the classic shingle-style home his family had owned for nearly a century. Then, after seven years in cinder-block classrooms, he decided to make a change. “My love for old houses fell together with my love for the environment,” says Moody, 34, who launched The EcoBuilders to construct environmentally friendly houses. Today Moody’s foremen drive pickup trucks that run on used grease from fast-food fryers. And whether he’s building new homes or renovating old ones, he insulates them to the hilt, uses sustainable materials and recycles so much debris that he requires only the smallest Dumpsters. Clients love the approach. “We doubled production last year, and we’ll probably double again this year,” Moody says.The predominant color in the building industry right now is red, not green. America’s housing markets remain in free fall, as the foreclosure crisis continues and more homeowners discover their mortgage debt exceeds the value of their house. Last year the average home builder laid off a quarter of its employees; this year the industry estimates it will sell just 632,000 new homes, its lowest total since 1992. But amid this gloom, there’s buzz about consumers’ shifting demand toward “green homes”—and how builders with this expertise remain busy despite the bust. In a 2007 survey by the National Association of Home Builders, home buyers said they’d be willing to spend an additional $8,964 on a home if it could cut their utility bills. Throughout the industry, there’s a sense that consumers have finally reached a tipping point. “It’s taken almost as a fait accompli, that green building is where the market is headed,” says Michelle Moore, senior vice president at the U.S. Green Building Council.For all the professed consumer interest, though, the average home buyer knows little about green building. That’s partly because it’s a broad concept with several components. The most obvious attribute is energy efficiency. For some buyers, that means investing big money in fancy geothermal or solar technologies—but more often it simply means being diligent about using good insulation, efficient appliances, superior windows and designing the house to take advantage of the sun. Green houses also conserve water, often by using specialized plumbing fixtures. For some builders, going green also means limiting waste, sometimes by using “panelized,” factory-built walls or recycling wood from older homes. Inside, green homes often feature sustainable materials, like countertops made from recycled glass.

For a public tired of stories about the latest health scare, green homes have another allure: they’re often healthier. Since these homes are built more tightly than drafty older homes, many builders install systems to bring in—and filter—fresh air. Green builders typically use paints that are low in volatile organic compounds, and avoid the carpeting, adhesives and varnishes that often give new homes their distinctive smell—and that have been associated with health problems. When George and Dorrie Sieburg hired Moody to remodel their Asheville bungalow in 2005, this approach was a big selling point. “At the time, we were pregnant, and we wanted to build as green as we could to make sure it was safe for our child,” says George, whose wife is expecting again.

As with many innovations, some of the biggest gains in efficiency come from using old-school materials that have been slow to catch on. Consider spray-on foam insulation, which fills and seals wall cavities better than the fiber glass used in most residential construction—but at twice the cost. As energy costs rise, however, more buyers are opting for it: sales of Icynene, the leading brand, grew 22 percent annually the past three years. When Jacob and Alecia Sessums added a master suite to their Asheville home, they opted for foam insulation, a multizone heating system and a superefficient tankless hot-water heater. As a result, their gas bill dropped from a high of $400 a month to $37. Says Alecia, 32: “For people in my generation, [going green] is the way you have to do it—there’s not a choice.”

For darker shades of green, homeowners typically take more-radical action. In Grapevine, Texas, the home Ross and Tami Bannister moved into last fall is so tight, “it’s built kind of like an ice chest,” says Ross, who marvels at how infrequently the heat kicks on even on the coldest days. While their house is filled with sustainable products, its most innovative functions involve water. Out back lies a 10,000-gallon tank that collects rainwater from their roof; the water is filtered and routed inside for household use. On the roof, solar panels heat their water. Ross says people are sometimes surprised to hear about the home’s advanced technology, since it’s hidden beneath the bones of a classic Texas farmhouse. “It wasn’t like we built some sort of George Jetson-looking future house,” Ross says. That’s partly why their custom builder, Chris Miles of GreenCraft Builders, fields five calls a week from prospective buyers.

The biggest energy-savers can still require big investments. A photovoltaic solar system, which generates a home’s electricity from the sun, can cost $40,000. Likewise, a geothermal system—which uses pipes to send water underground, where the heat stored by the earth’s subsurface is converted into energy to heat and cool the home—has long been a budget buster. But as energy costs rise, the return on investment does, too. Last fall, when Shirey Contracting remodeled Sean and Lynn Dillon’s home in North Bend, Wash., the couple spent $34,000 on a geothermal system. That’s more than twice the cost of an ordinary heating and cooling system, but Sean figures it will pay for itself in six years. Along the way, they’ll feel good about reducing their carbon footprint.

Builders are working hard to educate consumers about why such expenses can be worthwhile—and why a lot of green innovations can be done for relatively little money. New kinds of certifications will also help consumers understand the paybacks. In December, the U.S. Green Building Council began offering LEED certification (it stands for Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) for homes; last month the National Association of Home Builders announced plans for its own green certification. Both use point systems that tally up a new home’s earth-friendly attributes and award different levels of certification. In theory, a certified home will be easier to resell down the line, but green-building advocates also hope that the new yardsticks will make consumers pay more attention, the same way Consumer Reports and J.D. Power and Associates rankings became big influences on car shoppers a generation ago. Says home-building consultant Sara Lamia: “People will see how the house they’re living in is costing them money, and it gives consumers a reason to buy a new home.”

At times such chatter about how a shift toward green building might lift this moribund industry sounds like so much wishful thinking. So far most of the biggest builders are experimenting with only the most basic green innovations (like using Energy Star appliances); most of the greenest builders do only a tiny number of custom homes. “The smaller you are, the more your numbers might mislead you to thinking this is what matters,” says Ivy Zelman, an industry researcher. Some environmentalists apparently believe builders are putting green labels on homes that aren’t really environmentally friendly—an attitude that appears to have motivated arsonists who torched a neighborhood of newly built trophy homes outside Seattle last week, leaving signs saying BUILT GREEN? NOPE BLACK!

It’s also apparent that some green innovations are used side by side with products that aren’t so earth-friendly. At the International Builders Show in Orlando last month, the plumbing company Kohler showed off ecominded low-flow shower heads and bathroom faucets—but across its booth, it also displayed gigantic water-hogging showers and whirlpool tubs nearly large enough to hold residents of Sea World. Likewise, if you build a green home in the exurbs but still drive an hour to work, has your carbon footprint really decreased? These are questions Danielle and John Arnett have considered. Next month they’ll break ground on a 4,600-square-foot home in Colleyville, Texas. They hope to include loads of green technologies—perhaps even solar panels and a wind turbine—but they’re still building a house that’s nearly twice the size of the average newly built U.S. home. They admit a smaller house would be greener, but in their neighborhood, where nearby homes range from 6,500 to 12,000 square feet, they say their new house will be downright cozy. “It sounds crazy … but it’s really, really relative,” says Danielle, who notes they reduced bedroom sizes in an attempt to downsize the design.

If there is a downside to this trend, it may be the growing number of green homeowners who’ll brag about low utility bills the way golfers boast of low golf scores. But for builder Rob Moody, whatever motivates people to desire better-built homes, he’s not complaining. “People know it’s good for their pocketbook, they know it’s good for the environment, and they like the badge,” says Moody, who was in New Orleans last week working with ABC’s “Extreme Makeover: Home Edition” on an earth-friendly project. Green homes may not spark the building industry’s recovery, but in a world whose energy problems aren’t going away, they certainly can’t hurt.

“Decline in Home Prices Accelerates”
—Page One headline, the Wall Street Journal, Feb. 27

Gloom. Doom. Calamity. Home prices are tumbling. We’re bombarded by somber reports. But wait—this is actually good news, because lower home prices are the only real solution to the housing collapse. The sooner prices fall the better. The longer the adjustment takes, the longer the housing slump (weak sales, low construction, high numbers of unsold homes) will last.

It’s elementary economics. Pretend that houses are apples. We have 1,000 apples, priced at $1 each. They don’t sell. We can either keep the price at $1 and watch the apples rot or cut the price until people buy. Housing is no different.

Even many economists—who should know better—describe the present situation as an oversupply of unsold homes. True, there is about 10 months’ supply of existing homes, as opposed to four months a few years ago. But the real problem is insufficient demand. There aren’t more homes than there are Americans who want homes; that would be a true surplus. There’s so much supply because many prospective customers can’t buy at today’s prices.

By definition, the “housing bubble” meant that home prices got too high. Easy credit, lax lending standards and panic buying raised them to foolish levels. Weak borrowers got loans. People with good credit borrowed too much. Speculators joined the circus.

Look at some numbers from the National Association of Realtors. From 2000 to 2006 median family income rose almost 14 percent, to $57,612. Over the same period the median-price of an existing home increased about 50 percent, to $221,900. By other indicators the increase was even greater.

But home prices could not rise faster than incomes forever. Inevitably the bust arrived. Credit standards have been tightened, and the (false) hope of perpetually rising home prices—along with the possibility of always selling at a profit—has evaporated. For many potential buyers prices have to drop for housing to become affordable.

How much? No one really knows. There is no national housing market. Prices and family incomes vary by state, city and neighborhood. Prices rose faster in some areas (Los Angeles, Miami, Phoenix) than in others (Dallas, Detroit, Minneapolis). Some economists now expect an average national decline of about 20 percent. The Federal Reserve estimates that owner-occupied real estate is worth almost $21 trillion. A 20 percent reduction implies losses of about $4 trillion.

The largest part would be paper losses for homeowners: values that rose spectacularly will now fall less spectacularly, back to roughly 2004 levels. That’s still 30 percent or so higher than in 2000. But hundreds of billions of dollars of other losses are already being suffered by builders (from the lower value of land and home inventories), mortgage lenders (from defaulting loans), speculators and homeowners (from lost homes). Mark Zandi of Moody’s Economy.com estimates that mortgage defaults this year will exceed 2 million, up from 893,000 in 2006.

To be sure, all this weakens the economy. No one relishes evicting hundreds of thousands of families from their homes. Eroding real estate values make many consumers less willing to borrow and spend. Some economists fear a vicious downward spiral of home prices. More foreclosures depress prices, increasing foreclosures as people abandon houses on which the mortgage exceeds the value. Losses to banks and other lenders rise, and they curb lending further. Particularly vulnerable would be Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two government-sponsored housing lenders. (Their vulnerability emphasizes the need for Congress to pass legislation strengthening regulation of Fannie and Freddie.)

Up to a point there’s a case for providing relief to some mortgage borrowers. In many cases everyone would gain if lenders and borrowers renegotiated loan terms to reduce monthly payments. Losses to both would be less than if their homes went into foreclosure and were sold. The Treasury has organized voluntary efforts. Some measures being considered by Congress might help (for example: overhauling the Federal Housing Administration). But other proposals—particularly empowering bankruptcy judges to reduce mortgages unilaterally—would perversely hurt the housing market by raising the cost of mortgage credit. Lenders would increase interest rates or down payments to compensate for the risk that a court might modify or nullify their loans.

The understandable impulse to minimize foreclosures should not be a pretext to prop up the housing market by rescuing too many strapped homeowners. Though cruel, foreclosures and falling home values have the virtue of bringing prices to a level where housing can escape its present stagnation. Helping today’s homeowners makes little sense if it penalizes tomorrow’s homeowners. An unstoppable free fall of prices seems unlikely. Slumping home construction and sales have left much pent-up demand. What will release that demand are affordable prices.