Specifying metal with high recycled content?

Hi, this is less of a question but rather food for thought and feedback that could (should) be used for future addenda to LEED version 4: Many metals can be manufactured either from ore plus scrap or from 100% scrap. The global metals industries have issued a recycling declaration highlighting the environmentally questionable practice of specifying metal products on the basis of high scrap content. The reason is that metal recycling is already very economical and the recycled metal market is mature. Since there is strong demand for metals there is a limited supply of used metals available for recycling into new products. Therefore primary metal production generally fills the gap between the availability of secondary material and total demand (www.world-aluminium.org/media/filer_public/2013/01/15/fl0000130.pdf) What does that mean in practice? When high recycled content is specified for a specific project it would only direct recycled feedstock towards designated products and away from production where recycling is most economical. Therefore there is no global additionality in terms of environmental benefit. Researchers at the University of Bath in the UK broadly share this concern. They developed an alternative approach for calculating a balanced recycled content value for metal products that takes into account both recycled content and recyclability (INVENTORY OF CARBON & ENERGY, Version 2.0, Annex B: Methodologies for Recycling, 2011). It seems that for products with a well-established scrap material market such as steel, aluminium and other metals this value should be used for environmental lifecycle assessments. However, it seems that LEED version 4 encourages the use of metals made from scrap in a number of ways. There appears to be nothing to stop any LEED AP/LCA analyst assuming that all metals (mainly steel I suppose) in the baseline buildings are made from ore and scrap and then assuming metals made from scrap (i.e. 100% recycled content) in the design building to help achieve the points. Am I correct in that assumption, and if so, shouldn't this loophole be closed in future versions? I would very much welcome responses by relevant USGBC members and LEED User members. Meike Borchers, LEED AP (via Juliana Moreira)