The planned ballpark for the Washington Nationals will be the first baseball stadium to “go green” in that it has passed the U.S. Green Building Council’s “LEEDS” rating system. USA Today  has an interesting interactive feature that allows readers see the different energy efficient parts of the ballpark.

I certainly commend the city for commissioning such an environmentally friendly structure in a form of building that is usually far from energy-efficient. It’s just one more initiative in a long line throughout the country whose main goal is reducing the world’s carbon emissions. However, I wonder how effective all of these new initiatives really are. They certainly are trendy, but their impact leaves much to be desired. When building a new ballpark that is not entirely necessary to begin with, how much energy will these measures really save?

Then again, perhaps this is a bit harsh, at least when it comes to calling a new ballpark unnecessary. There are many valid arguments to be made for a ballpark being a great asset to the community. Still, are citizens really getting their money’s worth when it comes to making this one ballpark ‘green’? I know that every little step is important, but money might be better spent on a more broad-scale environmental initiative than on one ballpark.

In the end, energy-efficient or not, it’s unlikely that this new ballpark will succeed in attracting many more fans to Nationals games, especially once the excitement wears off. Unless the energy they are saving in the ballpark can be magically transmitted to the team, many of the seats may still go empty.