This is a very important move for LEED - expanding the scope of attention on extraction from the previous focus only on wood to other biobased and mined materials as well. Kudos for moving the discussion
The credit is a good start but does need some significant work yet. Currently it gives equal credit to
1) Simple manufacturer statements of commitment to general principles,
2) Commitments to somewhat more detailed consensus principles (i.e., the Framework for Responsible Mining)
3) Rigorous independent third party audited leadership standard programs (FSC and the Sustainable Agriculture Network’s Sustainable Agriculture Standard)
At this stage with development and implementation of standards robust in the wood industry and just beginning elsewhere, multiple pathways are relevant to incentivizing forward progress. But materials that are part of a program like FSC must be weighted much more heavily than those that are only covered by declarations of support for principles. A weighting system along the lines of that suggested in the analysis document that Jason links to above (http://www.fscus.org/images/documents/LEED2012_Analysis.pdf) is critical to insuring that this credit encourages continuous improvement and the development of rigorous sourcing standards and certification programs, not just commitments to principles.
Mara Baum
Partner, Architecture & SustainabilityDIALOG
674 thumbs up
March 19, 2012 - 2:29 pm
I totally agree. Wouldn't it be great if in 5 or 10 years we had an FSC equivalent for all major raw material industries? However, we still need a usable, justifiable version of LEED between now and then, so I totally agree with your concerns. Giving self-declarations equal weight as rigorous third party certified standards seems very un-USGBC and un-LEED. (Disclosure: I helped to author parts of the link you referenced above, though the specific weightings were not mine.)
I recently added a general comment on the main 2012 page suggesting that some credits look to be deeply laborious (e.g. costly) but without the clear promise of higher performance -- the raw materials credit is definitely one that I think has the potential to fall in that category. Of course, I can envision paths to performance that aren't laborious, but I think they would leave us with a meaningless "achievement".
Tom Lent
Policy DirectorHealthy Building Network
152 thumbs up
March 19, 2012 - 3:30 pm
The single standard reference to Sustainable Agriculture Network (http://sanstandards.org) for non-wood biobased products is problematic. It is a good standard, but unlike FSC, has virtually no certifications in the US yet (only one coffee farm in Hawaii) and not very extensive use in building product related crops elsewhere. The bioplastic and other non-wood biobased material industry is in a much earlier stage of development with no widely used clear best practices certification yet. To initiate change in bioplastics and other non-wood biobased applications, and take advantage of recent developments, we need to make use of the variety of certification programs that have been developed specifically for materials production in this country and elsewhere, such as Working Landscapes (http://www.iatp.org/working-landscapes) and the Global Organic Textile Standard (GOTS www.global-standard.org), as well as the role USDA Organic. Specific credit language should identify the principles that certifications should meet, either directly by listing them or indirectly through reference to lists of principles like those of ISEAL or iFOAM. Then a process should be set up for reviewing potential certifications and accepting them for listing in the Reference Guide. ... yes i know this sounds like the ill fated benchmarking we tried to work out on wood...
Lisa Britton
Alpar Architectural Products3 thumbs up
March 19, 2012 - 4:49 pm
Thank you Tom for bringing up the important point above. The credit as it stands would essentially eliminate the opportunity for any rapidly renewable materials currently grown in the US.
There are further issues related to biobased materials under this credit. "The credit currently reads, “Biobased products are those that meet ASTM Test Method D6866.” There are two problems with this:
1) It references an ASTM standard incorrectly
2) It does not define 'biobased' in terms of standard definitions
ASTM Test Method D6866 does not define “biobased.” It is only a standard method for testing the percentage of biobased content in a product. It does not set a content level that qualifies a product to be called biobased.
The USDA bio-preferred program is the most recognized program across all industry sectors for defining biobased, and references ASTM 6866 as the method for determining the percentage of content. The IgCC recently approved definition of acceptable biobased building products that establishes minimum 75% biobased content to call a product “biobased” when tested in accordance with ASTM D6866. The process of setting the IgCC definition was consensuses based. LEED should be at least as good, if not better, than IgCC and establish a level for biobased content.
I'd further challenge the system to determine the biobased content not only on production but disposal of material. Serious consideration should be given to requiring materials to be biodegradable or compostable. In the case of polymers, often adding a percentage of biobased material to an otherwise recyclable compound reduces the ability to recycle materials. Creating incentive for biobased materials to be either recyclable or compostable helps achieve the goal of reducing the impacts of production throughout the life-cycle.
Melissa Vernon
Director of Client EngagementNatural Capital Partners
50 thumbs up
March 20, 2012 - 2:38 pm
How could petroleum-based products contribute to this credit?
Petroleum is a global commodity and therefore it is virtually impossible to trace its polymers back to their origin of extraction and to identify exactly which company is conducting the extraction.
Recycled content is excluded from the calculation. Therefore for a product with high recycled content and the remainder of the raw materials derived from petroleum, it appears that there is no opportunity to contribute to this credit.
Tom Lent
Policy DirectorHealthy Building Network
152 thumbs up
March 20, 2012 - 2:44 pm
Good point Melissa. Petroleum is going to be pretty impossible to acredit. and on the other hand, shouldn't recycled content - by avoiding extraction completely - be inherently a recipient of this credit?
Mara Baum
Partner, Architecture & SustainabilityDIALOG
674 thumbs up
March 20, 2012 - 2:51 pm
I was thinking the same thing. Recycled content is awarded elsewhere, and LEED generally doesn't double dip -- but this is actually a better place for it than the Material LCA credit. The latter is about disclosure, whereas recycled content is really about performance, as are reuse and local materials, also in that credit option.
Susann Geithner
PrincipalEmerald Built Environments
1297 thumbs up
March 20, 2012 - 5:06 pm
Not sure if that is in the draft's language or not but how about excluding recycled content from the total material costs for that credit. It shouldn't count against you and recycling is a means of responsible sourcing, as is reuse.
Tom Lent
Policy DirectorHealthy Building Network
152 thumbs up
March 20, 2012 - 6:29 pm
Better yet, let's include recycled content in the numerator and denominator - that is let's call recycled content responsibly sourced. At least post consumer recycled content. Post industrial should probably remain responsible to its original extractive source.
I think Lisa's point is also important about looking at the potential to close the loop - that is how much of the product be recyclable or compostable at the end of life. This is an important part of making the most responsible sourcing - non extractive - possible as well.
Tom Lent
Policy DirectorHealthy Building Network
152 thumbs up
March 21, 2012 - 1:40 pm
I'm going to step back from my blithe suggestion to call automatically call recycled content responsibly sourced. It can be but as we've seen with electronics recycling, it ain't necessarily so. We need standards for responsible recycling just as we need them for responsible forestry, agriculture and mineral extraction. SCS has made a very interesting start on this path with their "Responsible Recycled Source Standard" released last year. http://www.scscertified.com/docs/DRAFT_SCS_STN_ResponsibleSource_V1-0.pdf . It is only being applied to precious mineral recycling in jewelry and electronics so far but i think has great potential for helping us insure that building product recycling of metals polymers and other materials is being done well with respect to health, environment and labor practices.