The latest skirmish in a decade-old battle broke out this week, as 20 trade groups announced a new coalition to challenge the U.S. Green Building Council’s LEED rating system as the dominant standard for buildings. In many respects it’s déjà vu all over again.
The new coalition, the American High-Performance Buildings Coalition, includes the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the American Chemistry Council, the National Association of Manufacturers, the Vinyl Institute, the Vinyl Siding Institute, the Flexible Vinyl Alliance, the Society of the Plastics Industry and 20 other industry associations. The group is lobbying the U.S. General Services Association, which requires the LEED standard for all federal buildings, to reconsider, opting instead to require the Green Globes standard (“The Practical Building Rating System,” according to its website), considered to be friendlier to industry, including the plastics industry, which has invested heavily in the building products space.
The members’ make a wide range of materials and products widely used in buildings, including heat-reflecting roofing membranes, PVC piping and foam insulation.
LEED is the most-used green building standards globally, as well as in the United States, where more than 400 cities and communities, 39 states and 14 federal agencies currently require builders to meet LEED standards. LEED is voluntary, but it has been adopted by the GSA and other government agencies as the required building standard for new construction. Government agencies have been critical to LEED's success: roughly a third of LEED projects are government-owned.
Both GSA and the U.S. Department of Defense are reviewing green building rating systems and codes, assessing their alignment with federal government goals, including energy and cost savings as well as toxic chemical avoidance.
The latest skirmish is over the chemical and plastics industries’ objection to LEED’s proposed fourth-generation standard, known as LEED v4, which originally allowed buildings to score points for avoiding certain chemicals of concern, such as polyvinyl chloride, or PVC. The chemical-plastics industry coalition complained that these are “arbitrary chemical restrictions” and claims that LEED is “becoming a tool to punish chemical companies.” But the draft has since been changed, to provide only credit for using "good" materials, not avoiding "bad" ones. Still, the chemical and plastics industries seem to find this threatening. The industry group also claims that LEED v4 is not “science-based” and does not use a “true consensus approach” to development.
Among the industries’ concerns is a proposed credit that applies to the construction of schools, stores, and data centers, among others. It is meant to encourage the use of materials that disclose chemical ingredients and encourage builders to use products that don’t exceed a certain level of lead, mercury, hexavalent chromium, carcinogens, and other toxic substances.
Next page: Consensus or not?
I dont think so that plastics
I dont think so that plastics industry kill LEED.I have already do a lots of research on this topic.Fast shipping on sofabed mattresses
The brewing battle has been
The brewing battle has been long overdue but certainly is opportune. LEED's original platform after endless discussion was generally welcomed. However, their machinations in revised standards have been increasingly viewed as dictatorial with a general disregard for the financial impact on industry and construction. The recently proposed version may be 'the straw that broke the camel's back' or, at least, slowed it down.
LEED has ridden the coat-tails of GSA while branching into other high-profile markets. Energy conservation and sustainability are important aspects of future progress; however, many code bodies and conservation groups have typically recognized that those aspirations must be achieved over time....not over-night. Industries and yes the workforce upon which they rely must have time to re-tool, re-formulate, re-market, re-train, etc. and that can take longer than a year especially in a soft marketplace.
And let's face it...LEED has had very little to no competition in describing, prescribing, and at times dictating the path of sustainability while losing sight of sensibility. Sustainability and sensibility must go together to achieve viable long-lasting solutions. Maybe LEED will get the clue.
If not, then a death knoll may be appropriate.
The chemical industry is only
The chemical industry is only part of the issues with USGBC and LEED Ap titling. Vut more power to them! Engineers and architects are the partys responsible to the public for energy and environmental standards in buildings. New organizations such as the USGBC too often promote a self-fulfilling make-work agenda overcomplicating design and construction processes by achieving an unofficial status as a source of standards. This is often accomplished through offering accreditation and a right to append letters to a member's name, at a cost. The danger shows up in litigation when contracts are agreed that contain questionable specifications.
The sustainable business
The sustainable business movement has a reputation (sometimes even a self-image) of being a “kinder gentler” capitalism. The truth is, the fundamental shift to incorporate environmental and social impacts as part of business strategy is equivalent to a disruptive technology that will be a life or death issue for companies. Those who innovate (and I hope that’s most of them) to find new solutions will thrive. Those who believe that sustainability is about “trade-offs” – and try to explain their actions/products in terms of “less harm” will likely loose.
Big entrenched companies and industries will not slip quietly into the night. Defenders of conventional wisdom have been quick to recognize the life or death nature of this challenge. We can hope the pressure will inspire new thinking and innovative solutions – but the opposite can also be expected, a natural reaction of any organism that feels threatened.
Ultimately I believe innovation will win. The very companies and industries that look like the bad guys for defending status quo today, are most likely to be the ones to bring the new generation of products to market – but until then, we need to keep raising the flag, calling the question and pushing for higher bars.
This reminds me of a key
This reminds me of a key point repeatedly emphasized by mentor and professor John Ehrenfeld at the Marlboro MBA in Managing for Sustainability: "reducing unsustainability, although critical, will not create sustainability."
Radically new innovation and approaches are needed to create the possibility of sustainability. This will be incredibly disruptive.
Nice post.
If chemicals cause harm to
If chemicals cause harm to professionals during construction, to the people who occupy buildings (like you and me!), or to the environment at 'end of life' then clearly there are problems to be solved.
Rather than trying to turn the clock backwards through government lobbying this new coalition could heed the lessons of "Cradle to Cradle" innovators and apply it's creativity, financial muscle and marketing savvy to doing more good, not just a little less bad. They could make a world of difference, if that is their intention.
Great I just completed all
Great I just completed all the training and am currently studying for the test. Guess I will wait and see what happens.
My humble advice: Don't wait
My humble advice: Don't wait and see, keep on. I think LEED will overcome this one. Cheers, Jim
I don't think so this time,
I don't think so this time, LEED will prevail.
Go here, and see if your representative is in the pocket of the chemical industry, then let them know how you feel:
http://pompeo.house.gov/UploadedFiles/LEED_Letter.pdf
when in doubt, bet on
when in doubt, bet on corporate influence winning the day. every single time. LEED is likely toast.