Good to know

The statements by Paula Melton about industry influences on Green Globes are both unwarranted and unfair. In fact Green Globes has its roots in BREEAM and provides a sorely need alternative to LEED, which itself has received enormous criticism for its shortcomings. I have been involved in both LEED and Green Globes projects and I find little difference between the two in terms of assessment outcomes. In many respects Green Globes, which gives credit for LCA, integrated design, and superior acoustics, reflects more advanced thinking than LEED. Building Green's unflagging support of LEED as being the arbiter of what constitutes green building in the U.S. is not in keeping with its tradition of neutrality and fairness. I totally disagree with the attempts by politicians to ban LEED, which is unacceptable. Competition among competing products, including building assessment tools, is good, advances the state of the art, and results in much better green building rating systems. Unprofessional and rash statements about either LEED or Green Globes are counterproductive. Supporters of green building, no matter their rating system of choice, should work together. After all, the next step by our erstwhile politicians will be to ban all green building rating systems!

Charles, lots of people are doing very good things with Green Globes, and I definitely agree that competition keeps everyone honest. That's the whole idea behind market-based, volunteer rating systems in the first place. I don't want to paint Green Globes itself with the same brush, but GBI is not being transparent about its rating system development process nor its lobbying practices. I don't think it's unfair or biased to say so. I hope that GBI hears supporters like you, thinks twice about working with big industry players to craft anti-LEED lobbying messages, and focuses instead on developing its rating system above board and on a level playing field with others.

Charles, I appreciate your comments. However, I hope you can be more specific about any aspects of Paula's article that you consider "unwarranted and unfair," or "unprofessional and rash"?You defend the substance of the Green Globes rating system, but that's not the topic of this article. The article focuses on the lobbying effort of an interconnected web of moneyed interests who are portraying Green Globes as a consensus standard, and LEED as not. And furthermore, trying to write LEED out of federal buildings with the stroke of a pen, even as the GSA has been in the midst of a deliberative process involving studies, testimony, and public comment, that would answer the question of what rating system(s) to use in federal buildings in a transparent way.BuildingGreen's mission is to support transformation of the building industry toward environmental sustainability—not to support LEED. This recent article on LEED v4 is an example of how we bring to light criticism of LEED that otherwise might not be covered in the media. If you can point to any unfair reporting on our part, please do.

Charles,

I believe the general part of the article is the money trail not being entirely transparent. Without clear transparency people will always believe it is being influenced and will change after clear government mandates are in place. Great now but possibly interesting later after we start treating it like the golden egg. Competition is good and I am sure LEED is working hard for success and better start paying more then .5% on lobbying.

Fear not Charles! I honestly believe the younger generation has no backwards ideas about how we are treating our planet and a total disregard and "ban" on environmental construction won't happen in our future.

Although I’m a larger supporter of LEED, I believe Green Globes is an alternative. The concepts are the same between both systems. "Integrated Design" is a credit offered in the soon to be released LEED V4. LEED is not any less advanced thinking than Green Globes. I can point out several aspects of LEED that make Green Globes less advanced.
Personally, I support LEED for the fact that it requires contractors to produce documented proof that they are installing the actual product and the harmful VOC or technical data to meet the credit requirements. Yes it cost a little more to get the docmented proof and have someone verify each element, but worth it. Green Globes requires less documentation and "takes the contractors word for it".
Unfortunately, with my over 200 projects of field experience, some contractors or subcontractors cannot be trusted to purchase the proper materials to meet the certification criteria.
As a Construction Manager, and Architect, I see people trying to by-pass the LEED credits when required to supply documentation.I see Green Globes as by-passing the detailed information and a "too loose" of a certification process.

Does it have a nice integrated design process element to it? Yes it does. Does it keep people accountable to require documentation proof? No. That what I consider one big difference.

If you want to take LEED to the next level, Living Building Challenge is what I call "LEED on Steroids". It's an excellent certification process, but requires a more sensitive to chemical review via the "Red List".
I tell people LEED isn't perfect, but it's the best thing out there from a true consensus based group of volunteers.

Dr Kibert, congratulations on your appointment (election) to the Green Building Institute's (the "parent" of Green Globes) Board of Directors: http://www.thegbi.org/about-gbi/who-we-are/board.shtml

Charles Kibert, I would suggest editing your post to state for transparency that you are on the board of directors for the program you talk about.

Thanks for this excellent article, Paula - and for sounding the alarm! I contacted both of my Senators and all of the members of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Several of my colleagues have done the same.

I've been following the Energy Savings and Industrial Competitiveness Act for a long time now. I am thrilled about the strong bipartisan support. I am impressed by the focus on logic, processes, and outcomes. I am pleased that baseline will be ICC codes and ASHRAE standards.

It makes sense that the Act doesn't refer to voluntary programs at all. Federal legislation should not dictate voluntary programs. Instead, the market should determine which energy efficiency and green building programs will survive.

I know that Green Globes has become a viable alternative to LEED over the past decade, but I am DEEPLY DISAPPOINTED by the 11th hour, behind-the-scenes, political shenanigans that GBI and Strategic Advocacy Solutions have engaged in to derail LEED.

LEED is the most effective sustainable building market transformation tool that I've seen in my 30+ years in this business. LEED is making serious impact today - and now a gaggle of supposed sustainability professionals want to derail it with backroom lobbying? Unbelievable!

The covert lobbying efforts show that the GBI/SAS mission is tainted. Their primary goal is obviously NOT promoting sustainability in the built environment. Instead, their apparent goal is for their program to "win", by hook or by crook, even at the expense of enhanced efficiency and sustainability.

I am disgusted.

Just a quick update: the scuttlebutt now is that the energy bill won't come to the floor until early June. However, we've also received word of another amendment currently being pushed by the gas industry: an attempt to undo the 2030 net-zero targets established by federal law in 2007. We'll continue coverage of this bill to the extent possible here and over at BuildingGreen in the next few weeks.