LEED certification: Big Green's lie
The “green” — as in supposedly energy-efficient building design — has lost a lot of its sheen in the nation's capital. A free market group's analysis of LEED-certified buildings reveals they use more energy than buildings without such certification.
In its study, the Environmental Policy Alliance compared buildings' energy use intensity, referred to as EUI. The higher the EUI number, the more energy used in relation to a building's size, The Daily Caller reports. And Washington, D.C., probably has the most LEED-certified buildings in the country, as defined by the U.S. Green Building Council, a private environment group. LEED stands for Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design.
Most embarrassing is that the council's own headquarters showed a considerably higher EUI — 236 — than the average for uncertified buildings in the capital, which was 199.
Of course, defenders of all things green will argue that this is but one survey. But Anastasia Swearingen, lead researcher on the project, tells The Caller that studies of “LEED-certified buildings have consistently shown that LEED ratings have no bearing on actual energy efficiency.” Nevertheless, D.C. mandates LEED certification in public building construction.
And at what additional cost — aside from the additional energy expense?
Just goes to show that despite the claims (and demands) of those hellbent on “saving” the planet, all that's “green” does not glitter.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Obama’s Cuba deal: More appeasement
- The Thursday wrap
- Pension reform should not be linked to a natural gas extraction tax
- An NLRB ambush
- Season of giving: A deserving recipient
- The Uber downside: Tracking matters
- The gift
- Election 2015: Local leaders needed
- Easy-money mortgages: Not worth the risk
- The Kane chronicles: Meaningless moves
- Union ‘fairness’: The dues racket