I have been reviewing the 2012 Credit modifications over the last week or so, and I will try to produce some coherent and constructive comments in the official comment feedback before the 14th. But, I must say here that I'm deeply disappointed in the USGBC. These modifications to the MR Credits appear to have been developed and written by industry, either directly or via their consultants, rather than by qualified sustainable design professionals. I mean no insult to industry and I greatly value their participation in the process of evolving LEED, but I DO want to see it EVOLVE, not get dumbed down so that it provides an huge opportunity to greenwash, and get the stamp of USGBC approval for doing so!
Briefly:
LCA: Great idea, and I would LOVE it if there were a magic LCA tool that I could use and trust. But, that magic tool hasn't been invented yet for designers/specifiers to utilize. And, "Manufacturer-declared LCA" = "Bad Joke."
Biobased: Without requiring biobased materials to be sustainably managed and harvested and 3rd Party Certified, what is the point of allowing this? I'm sure SFI is thrilled that even though the USGBC membership voted down this biobased scam to get non-FSC wood into LEED, and yet, like a bad penny, here it is again!
Chemicals of Concern: I bow to Tom Lent and his commentary on this issue, and I remind you that we are not scientists and whatever is done with this Credit it should be realistic and credible.
I would like to see the MR Credits enhance the sustainable value of my projects, to stand above the same ol' same ol', to move the market forward and upward, and to know that I, and my clients, can trust in the LEED's credibility.
I apologize if all this sounds harsh, but this is truely, truely disappointing.
William Buchholz
Specifications Consultant9 thumbs up
September 12, 2011 - 5:01 pm
I agree with Peggy's assessment of the state of affairs within the MR Credits. Here's another example of a basic structural problem within USGBC that I just uncovered in the LEED Homes rating system:
In LEED Homes, MR Credit: Environmentally Preferable Products, in their chart they list Concrete/Cement & Aggregate with an asterisk. The asterisk footnote says: “at least 30% fly ash or slag used as a cement substitute, and 50% recycled content or reclaimed aggregate OR 100% recycled content or reclaimed aggregate”
To anyone who knows anything about “green concrete” this description sounds like it was written by the cement industry at the request of someone at USGBC who was so naïve that they believed the industry’s greenwash. 30% fly ash or slag substitution is “business as usual”. I don't know a single batch plant on the West Coast that doesn't automatically substitute 30% fly ash for Portland cement in order to save money on the mix. And using recycled or reclaimed aggregates is more likely to require more cement usage to make the large dirty aggregates stick together properly. Everyone who has ever been involved in a green project knows that Portland cement is the biggest GHG culprit, emitting 1 lb of GHGs per every 1 lb of cement manufactured. And using recycled or reclaimed aggregates in lieu of virgin aggregates is a red herring, having little to no environmental impact whatsoever. For footings and slabs on grade, which is where concrete is used in Homes, there is no reason why a 50% or 60% Portland cement replacement cannot be used. I suspect that no one knowledgeable in sustainable concrete mixes was consulted.
This pattern of behavior is consistent with the ENGO community’s experience with the FSC wood issue, where USGBC has allowed the timber industry to do everything they can to marginalize responsible forest management and timber harvesting. This includes the use of LCA to "prove" the superiority of wood over steel or concrete - a ridiculous claim. This is a classic greenwashing technique to divert attention away from a product's major shortcoming by focusing attention on another less important or irrelevant feature. Remember how The Vinyl Institute, about 6 years ago, tried to divert attention away from the toxic materials in their product by producing an LCA that showed that vinyl had a low carbon footprint? Now the timber industry is following the same greenwashing diversionary tactic, except this time USGBC appears to be buying it.
I think USGBC staff is allowing industry to write the rules for them, and they are either so naïve that they are believing the greenwash that industry is feeding them, or they are unwilling or unable to stand up to industry pressure. Either way, the watering down of the MR Credits to become essentially meaningless is very disturbing. There appears to be a lack of oversight from design professionals, and/or poor communication with the TAG committees, or else USGBC has given up on market transformation and has caved in to industry pressure.