Interested to See What Happens!

Consensus is critical when establishing an agreement that a large number people can live with. Can better green building rating systems than LEED be arrived at without consensus? Perhaps that depends on how one defines better. Would a green building rating system developed without consensus be effective at being transformational? Would it be implementable on a wide- spread scale? These are two of several linked elements that have lead to LEED’s success.

I have been involved with green building and planning for over 30 years and I can say that the LEED Green Building Rating System has been phenomenal for what it has accomplished and for what it promises to do as it continually evolves and raises the bar. To those that say they can develop a better system I say, “Go for it”. If it is better and can truly accomplish more than LEED it can serve to raise the bar and improve green building rating systems.

LEED has clearly been transformational. The nature of building design and construction has changed due to LEED. Over 10.6 billion (yes, billion with a “b”) square feet of commercial building floor space have been certified and registered under the LEED Green Building Rating System. Green building has been one rare growth industry over the last several years of very depressed design and construction activity. The nature of building materials has changed due to LEED. Building products across the board have been changed due to LEED and products with existing positive environmental characteristics have enjoyed greater success due to LEED. And I will point out that green product rating systems such as SMaRT have been developed and continue to evolve that support further green product development and growth –in contrast to the very negative push of the American Chemistry Council and its lightly veiled sister organization AHPBC. I have trouble imagining the hypocrisy in the full name of this chemistry sponsored ‘club’ (club in the sense of a caveman’s club); the American High-Performance Buildings Coalition.

Can the LEED consensus process be improved? Probably! And I suspect it will be improved over time. But I think it is pretty darn good. The development of the LEED criteria is rigorous and so is the vetting process. The group of people developing the LEED criteria and the people on the technical committees are among the best in the industry. The vetting process for LEEDv4 was the most rigorous process that I have seen. The membership which is large and broad has spoken (over several review periods). The danger is that if was much more involved new versions of LEED might never been issued – or take 10 or 15 years – far to issue evolutionary changes instead of 4). I may not agree with everything; every rule, every standard, every criteria in LEED but then again I don’t feel I have to. With the exception of the Prerequisites we all have the option of deciding which of the other credits make sense for the particular project. I do agree LEED is the best thing going to accomplish the goals of the USGBC and its members. That again points to the balance LEED has struck. It must remain rigorous and continually raise the bar on environmental and energy performance – as it has been doing. And it must remain consensus based without caving in to special interest groups like the American Chemistry Council, the AHPBC and some in the timber industry. I am very disappointed that Senator Mary Landrieu (D–Louisiana) has succumbed to this pressure. Her amendment is not representative of the needs of the people of Louisiana or of the United States as it serves to deny the environmental and job producing benefits that green industry bring.

Cheers!

I read a book a few years ago called "The Goal" that I like and was thought provoking. The goal of business is to make money. Anything that leads to this goal is good for the business and anything that doesn't is a distraction. It does not matter the quality of board members, training hours of staff, how rigorous the development pocess is for new products, or how efficient they can produce something. If they can't make money the business is a failure. It has not reached its goal dispite all the good things going for that company.

USGBC’s vision is that “buildings and communities will regenerate and sustain the health and vitality of all life within a generation.” USGBC’s Mission, “to transform the way buildings and communities are designed, built and operated, enabling an environmentally and socially responsible, healthy, and prosperous environment that improves the quality of life”

Has USGBC reached this goal? USGBC has 4 years of data on LEED v2009 projects. The only thing I've seen is a statement that 7.4% of LEED certified buildings have earned a 90+ on Energy Star. That's not worth bragging about. A 90+ score for Energy Star means that the building is in the top 10% of energy efficient performers. By only getting 7.4% of LEED buildings in this range means they are doing less than average.

The billions (with a B) of square footage certified or only registered (which is meaningless because any building can register) does not matter if these buildings are not going towards the goal. You say that LEED is the best thing going for green buildings. I say look at the Energy Star score above and that average construction appears to be the best thing going for green buildings.

LEED's sucess is not the goal. LEED should be a tool towards attaining the goal. If it is not then it has become a distraction.

LEED has been transformational in the way buildings are designed and has changed how products are made. But have these attained the goal? Just any transformation of the industry is not the goal. It should be "enabling an environmentally and socially responsible, healthy, and prosperous environment that improves the quality of life". Without data the transformation cannot be shown to be going towards the goal.