Debating LEED's worth I
The editorial “LEED certification: Big Green's lie” takes a deceptive view toward the well-respected and widely used LEED green building program.
The editorial references a “study” from the Environmental Policy Alliance. This “alliance” was recently exposed as a front group for Richard Berman and his gun-for-hire PR machine.
Berman is known as a stalwart supporter of business and industry over consumer, safety and environmental groups. LEED is Berman's latest target.
LEED has spurred explosive growth in higher quality buildings. LEED supports millions of U.S. jobs and contributes billions of dollars to the U.S. economy annually.
Right here in Pennsylvania, LEED is used by thousands of schools, hospitals and office buildings. LEED saves taxpayer dollars by conserving energy and water, which reduces utility bills. There are thousands of proven business cases around the world that demonstrate that LEED works.
The analysis referenced in the editorial relies on energy use intensity (EUI).
Isolating EUI to measure building energy use ignores the importance of the number of people using a building. A large, unoccupied building would score very well, because its energy use is quite low relative to size.
The editorial also states the EUI of the U.S. Green Building Council's headquarters is 236, when in fact the LEED Platinum space's EUI is 40.
This editorial does a disservice to LEED and to all of us who live and breathe in buildings every day.
The writer is senior vice president of LEED for the U.S. Green Building Council (usgbc.org)
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 â 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.