The American Chemistry Council (ACC) has opened a new front in its battle with LEED and the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC)—one with similarities to greenwash tactics we’ve seen before.

ACC has formed a group dubbed the American High-Performance Buildings Coalition (AHPBC), joining 25 other industry groups representing building materials and products interests. The coalition includes names like the Vinyl Institute, the Vinyl Siding Institute, the Windows & Door Manufacturers Association, the Treated Wood Council, and the Adhesives and Sealants Council, as well as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

As we’ve reported (see Chemical Industry Attacks LEED: BuildingGreen Checks the Facts), chemical and plastics trade groups have been making a recent pastime of claiming the federal government should stop using LEED and have been exerting their deep ties on Capitol Hill to pressure influential government groups like the General Services Administration (GSA) to stop using LEED.

The groups are apparently incensed over “arbitrary chemical restrictions” they perceive in LEED v4, the version of LEED currently under development, and are worried that LEED is “becoming a tool to punish chemical companies.”

According to its website, AHPBC:

"… is composed of leading organizations representing a range of products and materials relevant to the building and construction industry who are committed to promoting performance-based energy efficiency and sustainable building standards. We support the development of green building standards through consensus-based processes derived from data and performance-driven criteria."

Calling Ronald Reagan—come in, Reagan

In a statement on the development, USGBC said, “We welcome the announcement of the formation [of AHPBC], but as Ronald Reagan once said, we will ‘trust but verify.’”

USGBC’s policy strategy director Lane Burt explained to me, “The impact of LEED v4 is going to be positive on any of the individual sub-industries within the green building world, and that includes product manufacturers of all types.”

Burt ticked off numerous product areas—energy-efficient mechanical systems, green cleaning products, low-VOC paints, efficient water fixtures—where “over and over LEED has supported new markets and new products and brought innovation to the forefront.”

He claimed, “There has not at any time been a negative impact on any industry that has been touched by LEED,” and he notes that many chemical and building industry companies, along with the ACC, are USGBC members who have votes in its policy development and organizational direction.

About the ACC and its members and coalition partners, Burt acknowledged that “these are significant actors within D.C.” and he decried the “politicization of the development process” of green building standards. Burt noted that USGBC is “not going be able to do these very D.C. lobbying things,” and that in response to ACC’s efforts, it would focus on “be[ing] a conduit for the voices of the companies and the individuals that are doing this work, about what is and isn't true.”

The ACC has not responded to my request for comment, but ACC vice president Steve Russell was quoted in the National Journal as saying, “We're going to continue to work with policy makers, lawmakers and green building system purveyors to make sure they understand the opportunities that the materials and innovations in our industry provide.”

The 7th deadly sin of greenwashing

If the formation of an apparent competitor to a grassroots green group sounds familiar, we’ve noted this trend before as the 7th of nine types of greenwash: “Rallying Behind a Lower Standard.” In the 1990s and early 2000s, it was the “wood wars,” with forest products industry that has supported groups competing with more established environmental advocates.

What’s next, the Leadership in Energy and Chemical-Healthy Environmental Responsibility (LECHER) rating system? Or will AHPBC throw its support behind the Green Globes rating system? Perhaps AHPBC’s true color is green, adding itself to the ranks of industry groups (like the Regenerative Network, along with USGBC), that do forward-looking, transformative work. Stay tuned.

The U.S. General Services Administration (GSA), along with the Department of Defense and Department of Energy, today hosted a second “listening session” on which green building rating system it should recommend for federal government use. Public comments almost universally favored a GSA determination to continue with LEED as the government’s rating system of choice.

This rating system review is stipulated by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 and supported by a report from Pacific Northwest National Labs that compared LEED, Green Globes, and the Living Building Challenge. As reported in Environmental Building News, that report found that Green Globes aligned with federal guidelines slightly better than LEED for New Construction, while LEED-EBOM bested Green Globes in the contest over existing buildings.

The first listening session took place in Washington, D.C., in late June; today’s happened online, where 25 speakers each got three minutes to speak. What they said was almost universally in support of LEED.

The Tally:

• Pro LEED: 19
• Pro Green Globes: 1
• Pro Living Building Challenge: 1 (but many expressed support for it as stretch goal)
• Pro random other things: 4

Do we need a green building “moon shot”?

Richard Graves, until recently senior vice president at USGBC and now executive director of the International Living Future Institute (ILFI), kicked off the conversation with a call for a more visionary, “moon landing” approach to the choice of rating system. Several speakers who followed expressed strong support for ILFI’s Living Building Challenge, but suggested that it wasn’t appropriate as standard for all government projects.

Raving about LEED

By the end, the session felt like a LEED pep rally. Speakers from industrial giants UT Carrier and GAF endorsed LEED, as did two people from the real estate investment trust Boston Properties, Inc., who called LEED an “incredibly effective vehicle for training people.” On their recently completed LEED Gold Atlantic Wharf tower, they bragged: “Our innovations were off the charts because of our LEED certification.”

Vivian Loftness, Ph.D., of Carnegie Mellon University stood out for the way she added breadth and depth to the discussion. She and several others noted that the report comparing rating system “alignment” with federal goals lacked any metrics for the depth of infrastructure and community behind each system, a measure in which LEED is orders of magnitude above the others.

She also pointed out how effective LEED has been at promulgating government projects and standards into the private sector and at establishing the U.S. as a leader in green building standards internationally.

Stuart Kaplow, an attorney with experience in green building law and former chair of the Maryland USGBC chapter pointed out “the federal government is more than just a portfolio holder; it’s driving a larger marketplace.”

And Lois Vitt Sale of Wight & Company said: “LEED is more than just a plaque at the end of the road. We consider it a quality assurance process and use it even when the project is not pursuing LEED.”

Paula Vaughan of Perkins+Will and Jim Newman of Linnean Solutions, among others, made the case that LEED is the better choice because it will drive innovation. Vaughan cited the recent Chicago Tribune series on toxic flame retardants as evidence of the need for more progressive rating systems, while Newman called innovation “The essence of American industrial strength.”

And railing about other things

Of the few comments that were not glowing endorsements of LEED, Michael O’Brien, a mechanical engineer with Heery International expressed a preference for Green Globes for its “lower cost, speed of certification, and lack of prerequisites.”

And the random other votes? One argued that ground-source heat pumps should be considered renewable energy sources, and two—a lawn care labor association and power equipment trade association—complained about the 40% limit on lawn area in ASHRAE Standard 189.1. There are a few in every crowd…