Part 2 of the article does talk about v4

"The only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about"...said Oscar Wilde. Right now we have reached the 'main stream' where we are being talked about, critiqued, protested and generally being given a 'good shake', and really, that's OK. We've all know for some time that the data showing that buildings actually do reduce impacts has been missing from the equation...well, let's change that, just as we have been making changes to LEED over the last 10 years and more. We have to have a solution (LEED) that delivers and it's right there..it's called LEED EB!

I agree that being part of the mainstream dialogue is a good thing but NOT when the message is so clearly one-sided. There's nuggets of truth in the articles' content of course but you get the feeling that the author was sensationalizing for effect, even though he had many more balanced facts at his disposal. The fact that this is what the public will read and not recognize how much is mis-construed is troubling.

Agreed. If we talk about the "what" and "how" we become mired in the political mud. As my buddy Kevin from Arkansas says: "Never roll in the mud with a pig 'cause you both get dirty and the pig likes it!" :
So even though green movement is mainstreamed I think we still need to speak to media about WHY we do what we do, not how. To wit:
Berkebile calls LEED "the most transformative force in the design and construction industry in my lifetime by a factor of four. For the first time, (designers) are starting to consider how a building affects the life and well-being of the occupants and the vitality of the system in which it operates."
To place the USA article in context, here are the recommended "Other Stories" at the bottom of the article (I just read it).
"Pippa Middleton Surprised by fame of her "bottom""
"No Amount of Clorox Will Kill These Viruses:..."
"Amazing Picture of Kim Kardashian"
"22-year-old Who Won $30.5 Million Dumped By Girlfriend"
LEED in that context is not very sexy. The editors probably asked the author to pump up the article with casinos, cash, cynicism, and controversy so loyal USA Today readers would pay attention.

It's an attack dog piece sprinkled with a few good points about LEED so the writer can claim he was trying to be fair. I think the USGBC response was unnecessarily restrained.

In regards to part two of the article:
What the EPA says "Most vinyl chloride is used to make polyvinyl chloride (PVC) plastic and vinyl products. Acute (short-term) exposure to high levels of vinyl chloride in air has resulted in central nervous system effects (CNS), such as dizziness, drowsiness, and headaches in humans. Chronic (long-term) exposure to vinyl chloride through inhalation and oral exposure in humans has resulted in liver damage. Cancer is a major concern from exposure to vinyl chloride via inhalation, as vinyl chloride exposure has been shown to increase the risk of a rare form of liver cancer in humans. EPA has classified vinyl chloride as a Group A, human carcinogen."

What the American Chemistry Council says "(LEEDv4) will reward builders for avoiding common chemicals and materials such as vinyl, which is used in windows, roofing and insulation to help energy efficiency."

This article inspired me to look into a related industry that claims to benefit the public. I found a number of parallel conflicts (millions of federal money spent on low cost, common actions, product manufacturers sitting on committees promoting policies that would eventually benefit them, researchers profiting from a new technology that became law) that left me absolutely shocked.

In the first-ever public analysis of 7,100 records on the NHTSA (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration) website I found similar clues of conflicts of interest, lobbyists, and pay-outs to manufacturers, advocates and non-profits. Ralph Nader, who taunted the auto industry with “Unsafe at Any Speed” one of the first PR campaigns to talk about car safety, has called the NHTSA “nothing more than a “consulting agency to Detroit.”(1)

If you follow the money, you’ll find that millions of federal highway money and tax dollars was threatened to be withheld from state budgets and law enforcement agencies if the states didn’t fall in line with the PR campaign built up around “safety” and such shock tactics as gruesome drivers-ed class films. These campaigns have created regulation that mandates low-cost or common practice actions, generates millions of dollars for the groups that promoted this cause or have the authority to enforce the laws (police departments), and were often championed by individuals and companies that developed the technologies or conducted the research that supported the public safety claims. The public benefits were often unproved, or based on questionable data, and were opposed by industry experts for many years until they were overcome by the PR efforts and lobbyists. (2)

For example, Dynamic Science, a company with annual sales of $14 million, is an off shoot of the work of Hugh Dehaven who was issued a patent for a “combination shoulder and lap safety belt” in 1955. Manufacturers of plastics and compressible foam have benefited from the multi-million dollar car restraint industry. Beam’s Seatbelts is privately-held company founded in 1953; founder Tom Beam was an early advocate for seatbelts and had $11 million left over to fund a foundation (3).

It's just shocking to see how much some companies have profited, how many federal subsidies have been tied to, and how much regulation has been pushed forward by people with ties to the seatbelt and child restraint industry, with so much statistical uncertainty about the benefits and the known risks of using the technology improperly.

(1) http://www.allgov.com/departments/department-of-transportation-dot/natio...
(2) http://www.fiberpipe.net/~tiktin/Documents/seatbeltskill.htm
(3) http://www.icochotnews.com/?q=node/148

?

And the point you are trying to make is what Dave?...

Very apt, David... but maybe a little too tongue-in-cheek.

I thought there was a hint of sarcasm in there somewhere?

Yes, perhaps not sarcastic enough to be obvious! Can you imagine an article talking about the seatbelt or child seat "industry" and only talking about the costs, incentives, profits, or lobbyists without giving serious discussion to lives saved and injuries avoided? Oy.

Gentlemen, you are of course aware that your exchange is valuable, but not really how valuable. We, from developing countries, see you blazing the path. Sure, first efforts left room for much improvement and some peolpe made a lot of money. I have no problem with people making money for benefitting us all, even if profit was the real motor.

Frank´s article pushes us in the right direction, even if I do not like it and it was not his motive.

By the way, in my country there are no tax incentives tied to LEED compliance, but developers still go for certification in an effort to capture international companies.

For the record, I believe more emphasis should be given to actual perfomance.

As an LEED international user, I’m really happy my client’s do not read USA today. There are too many positive aspects of LEED that Frank doesn’t mention… or sadly, doesn’t understand. LEED is a roadmap to sustainability. The concepts of integrated design, triple bottom line is eye opening for many of my clients. LEED gives building owners the tools they need to truly understand their building’s performance.

Since it’s so easy, I would challenge Frank to certify his USA Today building. EBOM should be a walk in the park for him. lol

excellent point, Shawn!!!