HEALTHY LIVING: LEED's downplaying of human health should be corrected as the gold standard for sustainable design becomes more accepted, environmental health scientists say in a new report.
Image: Natural Resources Conservation Service
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
The gold standard for certifying "green" buildings fails to place enough emphasis on human health and needs to be upgraded, according to a new report from an environmental health group.
The standard - Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design, or LEED - is weighted more heavily toward energy conservation and not enough toward health protection, skewing green-design criteria, concluded Environmental and Human Health, Inc., a Connecticut-based nonprofit dedicated to protecting human health from environmental harms.
"They have to be given great credit for work on energy conservation. And there clearly are environmental quality and health benefits that will accrue from conservation efforts," said John Wargo, professor of risk analysis and environmental policy at Yale University and a lead author of the report, released in May.
"But (LEED) has got some serious problems with respect to environmental quality and human health."
The LEED system provides third-party verification that a building or community is built according to several metrics aimed at promoting sustainability: Energy savings, water efficiency, CO2 emissions reduction, improved indoor environmental quality, stewardship of resources and sensitivity to their impacts.
Municipalities and states increasingly are incorporating LEED criteria into their local building codes; the standard is gaining traction oversees.
The nonprofit U.S. Green Building Council, which administers LEED, acknowledged gaps in the standard and welcomed both collaboration and improvement. But it warned that the health report missed or understated fundamental aspects of the program's efforts to improve human health and the environment.
In their report, the Environment and Human Health scientists point to several blind spots in what is often seen as the "gold standard" for sustainable design.
For starters, increasing evidence suggests several compounds commonly found in homes and building products harm human health and the environment, including bisphenol-A, polyvinyl chloride, plastic additives know as phthalates and many of the chemicals found in rubber infill used in artificial turf. LEED neither restricts the use of these chemicals in building materials nor awards credits for projects that avoid these projects, the report's authors noted.
And while LEED encourages reduced water use and conservation of energy necessary to acquire, distribute and sanitize it, the protocol offers no credit for drinking water quality and establishes no goals for testing or filtration.
Yet criticism that LEED fails to protect human health misses the mark, countered Brendan Owens, vice president of LEED technical development for the Green Building Council. The Environmental and Human Health report, he said, discounts health benefits that accrue from reductions in energy and water use or from LEED's emphasis on integrative design, where builders must consider a number of disparate elements in concert rather than independently.
"When you reduce the amount of electricity being pulled off the grid, you're reducing the amount of coal being burned and reducing the amount of mercury being burned," he said. "There's a direct result to human health."
Some designers caution that LEED is simply a tool. It has, they note, pushed the building industry in important directions and raises the bar for designers and builders.
"As in any tool, it can be used poorly and for the wrong reasons, or correctly and for the right reasons," said Gunnar Hubbard, principal at Fore Solutions in Portland, Maine, one of the nation's leading green-design consulting firms. "As we learn, LEED is intended to work with that knowledge."
But others on the green building frontier say LEED is part of a larger and more intractable problem: The American lifestyle as a whole is unsustainable. Building large green houses in the suburbs - even if the homes themselves are energy-sipping, chemical-free and LEED-certified - is by no means environmentally benign.
"LEED is not going to save us. It's good. It's better if that guy who's walking to work, instead of living in an inefficient old house, lives in a small and efficient house," said Florian Maurer of Allen+Maurer Architects in British Columbia.
See what we're tweeting about
8 Comments
Add CommentI think this is an excellent example of the positive nature of LEED. That it has become the a standard and that now people are looking to add their environmental and health concerns to the program is great. One thing I like about LEED is the link to testing the efficacy of implemented design features. A concern I have about the approachability of including health concerns is the cot of this testing. A blower test is one thing sampling air and doing a toxicological assessment of low levels of contaminates may become too expensive; but, then again maybe it would stimulate market development of new testing techniques.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisB Saville
I think this is an excellent example of the positive nature of LEED. That it has become the a standard and that now people are looking to add their environmental and health concerns to the program is great. One thing I like about LEED is the link to testing the efficacy of implemented design features. A concern I have about the approachability of including health concerns is the cot of this testing. A blower test is one thing sampling air and doing a toxicological assessment of low levels of contaminates may become too expensive; but, then again maybe it would stimulate market development of new testing techniques.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisB Saville
Well, I was discouraged to find that the lamp florescents develop a elec-mag field at their base which the book Electromagnetic Fields B Levitt scarily notes is not on the ceiling 6 foot above your head but at your head a foot away. In this rush to be green, electro-mag fields have been swept under the wool carpet on the bamboo floor.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlthough it is impossible to quantify, EMP are definitely a factor in health. And almost impossible to build in unless you are doing a planned town from scratch. I went back to incandescents. I think feng-shu is a modern way to define the most uninterruped currents. Direct, not pulsed. And we live in an AC world.
This lady proves that she is a nitwit by mentioning PVC in the same light as Bisphenol A.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPVC is not harmful and ALL scientific evidence proves it. The only reason that PVC is considered harmful is because, of misinformation about the product spread by people like this. Get the facts, on your own. Don't believe the hype.
PVC is one of the smallest contributors to Dioxin emissions of all building products. Wood is the biggest contributor. If anything, as PVC becomes more prevalent in building construction the amount of Dioxin emissions have decreased inversely.
There has not been ONE single instance of any kidney malformations or any other illnesses PROVEN to be linked to PVC production in over 25 years now. Just check out the statistics of nasal and oral cancer for woodworkers and lung cancer rates for Ironworkers and welders and tell me that metal and wood are safer alternatives.
PVC IS recyclable based on its ability to last a long time. Should it be used for plastic bags, probably not as it is a misuse of its benefit but, for windows, floors, plumbing, roofing, siding, wall panels, etc. etc. etc it has proven to be worth its wear.
These arguments are so well intended and I commend their efforts to look out for the better good of our health, Unfortunately, many of these people have their own agendas to protect and also are horribly misinformed and do nothing but just spew and regurgetate other peoples misinformed "facts" about certain "toxic" products.
Kaiser Permanente claims that we shouldn't use PVC but, they haven't stopped using it themselves because, they recognize that there isn't a better product out there. It's a joke.
This lady proves that she is a nitwit by mentioning PVC in the same light as Bisphenol A.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPVC is not harmful and ALL scientific evidence proves it. The only reason that PVC is considered harmful is because, of misinformation about the product spread by people like this. Get the facts, on your own. Don't believe the hype.
PVC is one of the smallest contributors to Dioxin emissions of all building products. Wood is the biggest contributor. If anything, as PVC becomes more prevalent in building construction the amount of Dioxin emissions have decreased inversely.
There has not been ONE single instance of any kidney malformations or any other illnesses PROVEN to be linked to PVC production in over 25 years now. Just check out the statistics of nasal and oral cancer for woodworkers and lung cancer rates for Ironworkers and welders and tell me that metal and wood are safer alternatives.
PVC IS recyclable based on its ability to last a long time. Should it be used for plastic bags, probably not as it is a misuse of its benefit but, for windows, floors, plumbing, roofing, siding, wall panels, etc. etc. etc it has proven to be worth its wear.
These arguments are so well intended and I commend their efforts to look out for the better good of our health, Unfortunately, many of these people have their own agendas to protect and also are horribly misinformed and do nothing but just spew and regurgetate other peoples misinformed "facts" about certain "toxic" products.
Kaiser Permanente claims that we shouldn't use PVC but, they haven't stopped using it themselves because, they recognize that there isn't a better product out there. It's a joke.
The biggest problem I have with the LEED certification system is that it doesn't give any credit for building structures that truly fit their environments.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am a Facilites Engineer for the Forest Service. We along with all other Federal Agencies are required to design and construct new facilities to the LEED standards. We know that poorly thought out construction in the urban/wilderness interface is a major issue, and we are spending a great deal of effort and resources to encourage "fire smart" construction in the interface, the LEED standards actually penalize forthe design features we are finding to be the most beneficial in making structures "fire smart".
I find it particularly frustrating, that because Congress has bought into the LEED concept, it has been pushed forward onto all Federal Agencies, even when it doesn't meet the needs of the Agencies.
Green design and construction focuses on the Triple Bottom Line: People, Planet and Profit.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLEED is a green building rating system (a tool) that provides a commone framework to evaluate the design and construction of a building, home or neighborhood from a whole-building perspective. It deserves to be recognized as "the tool" that has changed the slow moving "good ol' boy" industry. I applaud the professionals who created it AND continue to improve it.
For those of us who have spent our entire careers working on LEED buildings, it is amazing to see how a simple green design and construction roadmap intended for buildings has changed the behavior of people in their professional and personal environments. It has changed the way people think, therefore behave, hence people are taking responsibility for their own health and well-being and making choices to continuously improve it.
LEED will not, nor is intended to, solve all of the world's health and environmental issues, but it certainly has had a positive impact, for which I am greatful. It is the personal stories that I hear from my clients that keeps me motivated and continue to volunteer to enhance the LEED rating system. Most recently a teacher at a WI school was able to go off of his allergy and asthma medication after 20 years. He contributes this to the substantial improvement of the indoor air quality that is a result of the renovation of the school.
If you don't like something, it's great to voice your opinion, but, if change is what you want, then do something about it. All talk and no action is just talk. If you think you have solutions or ideas to improve the LEED rating systems that carries out the vision and mission of the USGBC, then contact them and share, or better yet, volunteer and help make the changes.
LEED is intended to enhance the health and well-being of people, reduce environmental impacts...but also needs to make financial sense or it doesn't happen. It's all about minimizing waste and minimizing resources. Like it or not, money is the universal language, and obviously THE resource we all focus on. Finding cost-effective solutions that enhance the health of people and reduce environmental impacts is all of our responsibilities and the great thing about LEED is that it has become the fundamental cornerstone that has pushed the design/construction industry to provide innovative solutions.
YOUR health is YOUR responsibility and so is OUR environment. Do something about it!
Interesting article. I have worried for quite a while (thats probably too strong a term, lets say been concerned with) the problems of sealing a house so well that there is little, if any, fresh air and indoor pollution can build up (sick buildings, I have heard them referred to). I am a great believer in open windows; really dislike most office buildings that have none, regardless of the amount of glass they may have for views.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am not sure that drinking water quality is appropriate for LEED consideration; that is something that is regulated by town codes, monitored by state DEPs, if I am correct. Water management is something else, however.
I understand the frustration of the commenter who has found LEED not to work in all situations; it is a failing of bureaucracies, including Congress, to latch onto an idea and not acknowledge exceptional cases that dont fit into the standard mold. Presumably, those who make the standards will let them evolve as new situations are encountered.
Electromagnetic fields are a problem that the U.S. doesnt want to acknowledge in any form, including cell phone towers and use (some countries have discouraged children from using mobile phones; I read that in the U.S. companies are designing phones for preteens; whose brains are penetrated more deeply than adults brains).
Bottom line for meif we dont start learning to live below our means, we will simply use up the earths resources, making it increasingly difficult for each human generation. Who knows when the tipping point will be reached?