Debating LEED's worth II
As The New York Times reported five years ago, LEED-certified buildings often suffer from poor energy efficiency. I agree with the editorial “LEED certification: Big Green's lie” on that point.
LEED certification belongs on the blueprints, not the building itself. A new building should demonstrate efficiency for several years after it is occupied before a plaque gets attached. Prove it — then earn the gold star.
Regardless of your opinion on environmental issues, there is nothing wrong with doing a good job on energy design.
Efficiency is a long-term investment strategy that reduces costs throughout a building's long life. It is a strong bet that energy costs will continue to rise over the long term, increasing the initial value as the years go by.
The LEED program has earned constructive criticism. The LEED goals of quality, craftsmanship and frugality are American virtues we all share.
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.
- Foley & Obama II
- Rushing to judge
- Foley & Obama I
- Bring back ‘eagle cam’
- LED sign: Negative ad
- Self-serving & corrupt
- Missing WJAS
- Life Care Center a jewel
- Monopoly’s markup
- Oberdorf firing incomprehensible
- Holder no help President Obama …