Given the skepticism surrounding the measurability and long-term impact of LEED standards, and the sheer costs of obtaining LEED certifications, it seems that building codes should be kept a safe distance from all things LEED. Building codes are meant to promote safety, not positive social, economic, and environmental impact. That is the purpose of LEED. And it should be a choice of the free market investor.

While LEED buildings may fetch higher bids on the open market, the premium for a LEED building is almost universally less than the costs the developer incurred to become LEED compliant. Value is destroyed. Requiring LEED certification on all new construction would level the playing field between social-minded and profit-driven developers, but the result would merely be a tax on development borne by all investors.

I don’t see any threat in making LEED certification the building codes in order to make our environment more safe and sustainable. Potential legal actions here should be low because people are beginning to realize that green initiatives have both social and economic benefits.
A good example is the issue of periodic bills – electronic bills versus paper bills – as in the case of utility companies and banks. More people are changing from paper bills to electronic bills willingly because of the benefits. Also, there are several incentives out there to drive this initiative of paperless bills. I do not foresee any serious implication that might lead to litigation in this initiative.
I would rather say that cities should focus more on how to craft good management policies to support LEED certification requirement for construction, because good management strategies can drive initiatives without necessary setting stage for any legal repercussion.

The threat of litigation is not a persuasive argument against requiring minimum certification requirements (nor do I think it's an "apocalypse"). I would argue that the chart actually illustrates the idea we should mandate LEED because it raises the bar for building requirements over time. If tomorrow's Gold standard level is twice as good as today's, why is this a problem?

In theory, the free market should drive these building standards; however, we are not yet at a tipping point where green building technologies are dramatically more profitable than traditional building techniques. Until then, government support of a private certification will assist progress.

The downside I see lies in property values, which LEED enhances in the market. I would prefer builders meet LEED certifications because of financial incentives than to meet legal requirements, but again, I don't think the green building market is mature enough for said incentives to be highly motivating.

This article is not very persuasive, if it came from a lawyer. I don't see how Green Building standards dictate designs, they certainly don't mean that all buildings will look the same (the point of the picture?) What is green about the buildings in the picture, by the way??

Meanwhile the graph makes it clear that the Platinum, Gold and Silver standards have been moving targets over time, but they have constantly helped us to raise the bar toward sustainability, always above the minimums in the building codes as far as insulation and other efficiencies... to the point soon where the "gold" rating will supposedly equate to a neutral footprint. To which I say, "Great!!"

So what if the LEED/USGBC ratings aren't meant to replace building codes. They will never replace the need for competent architecture and design. Site-appropriate, climate-appropriate, use-appropriate. The materials and embodied energy content in the building (beneath the surface appearance) are also going to matter.

Green building ratings should go hand in hand with evolving codes to help us put better buildings in place for the future, buildings which are appropriate for continued use in a sustainable world.