Can a misstatement travel halfway around the world before the facts put on their (Army) boots? You bet your bazooka.
Last week, Green Building Law Update blogger Chris Cheatham posted an apparently stunning scoop alleging that the Army had abandoned its decade-long commitment to LEED certification in favor of the green building code recently promulgated by ASHRAE Standard 189. It didn't take long before this incendiary announcement made its way rapidly around the Twittersphere and blogosphere.
To be clear: No, Virginia (and Texas and Maryland and Florida and Washington, etc.), the Department of Defense is not, repeat, NOT abandoning LEED.
The erroneous conclusion -- Cheatham's own -- was reached after reading the testimony of a senior Department of Defense official who noted that after a year of investigation, the Army and the military in general were going to adopt standard 189 for all of its construction.
To his (partial) credit, Cheatham on Monday posted a correction admitting that he had misunderstood: The Department of Defense will simultaneously require 189 and LEED certification. He also wrote a new blog post today that retracted his earlier conclusion, but principally focuses on his confusion at the difference between the code and a standard like LEED -- and why-oh-why would the Army do such a silly thing?
A respected blogger like Cheatham shouldn't have posted such a sensational headline before even a rudimentary fact-check. Or, if he's unclear about what a comment means, he could at least have put a question mark at the end of a speculative headline.
Some cooler heads, notably those atop the good folks at BuildingGreen.com, mitigated the damage by actually picking up a phone and typing an email or two before printing the facts. As Dave Foster in the Pentagon's media relations division told BuildingGreen.com reporter Paula Melton, the Army "will continue to seek LEED certification for our buildings built to that standard and expect to get LEED Silver or better at no additional cost.”
But for many commenters responding to Cheatham's story, abandoning LEED seemed a logical conclusion: If you are using ASHRAE 189, why would you need (or want) to use LEED? To others, it was merely a vindication of a long-standing belief that either a) LEED had transformed the market and therefore was no longer needed or b) it was an expected, and long overdue, beginning of an epitaph for an empty, overhyped program that had run its course.
As a public service, I will attempt to clear up some of the confusion.
Perhaps we could just focus
Perhaps we could just focus on the content and at least give praise to the Law Update for acknowledging the error, as Rob says they do turn out some great facts and figures. In the bigger picture, of course everyone wants the Federal Government to lead from the front and make efficiency the byword through funding R&D and, yes, changing their light bulbs, but we all know this isn't going to happen any time soon and we’ll take even the small ASHRAE steps if that’s what it takes. All of us currently working with LEED already know the LEED is not the perfect tool in every situation….It’s just a tool, just as ASHRAE can be. The military however, is working hard to promote alternative energy supplies so that our forces are not imperiled trucking gas across the desert to run generators, so let’s at least encourage them to ‘turn’ that mighty machine of theirs in a new direction with LEED, ASHRAE, BREEAM or ‘Mickey Mouse’s’ latest Green Building Ordinance….whatever it takes.
Who cares? Most U.S.
Who cares? Most U.S. government buildings, including the Department of Energy, still use antiquated T12 fluorescent lamps and ballasts. When will the U.S. government "abandon" inefficient lighting to save energy
and taxpayer money?
It's easy to waste money.
It's easy to waste money. It's difficult to actually use money to make any improvements. Improvements take time and thought and risk oversight if you screwed up. It's easier to spend money on things that don't get anyone's attention. I was shocked walking into the immigration office in my state and feeling like the building hadn't been touched since the 70's. There's that small government people want. No money for renovations or any infrastructure improvements. Too dangerous to someone's career.