"But LEED-platinum houses in virgin subdivisions? That is the one thing that needs to be eliminated. No matter what standard, a 4,000-square-foot-plus home for a retired couple ... is unacceptable."
The report recommends several steps:
* Instead of a single "silver," "gold" or "platinum" certification, rank building performance within various categories - health, energy, site, neighborhoods, among others - on a 0 to 100 scale, correcting what the report calls a "common misimpression that certified LEED buildings perform well in all categories."
* Diversify LEED certification categories into health and other areas.
* Broaden the Green Building Council's board to include health and environmental science experts. Today just one director among 25 has formal medical or toxicological training - an imbalance, the report asserts, reflected in LEED's present priorities of energy conservation, site planning, and design.
* Encourage more federal testing of chemicals used in building products.
The authors conclude that the task of certifying green design and defining "sustainability" for the nation's houses, offices and communities is simply too large for one nonprofit.
Uncle Sam must step in, said Nancy Alderman, the group's president.
"The Green Building Council is setting the green building standards with no oversight," she said. "That's problematic."
Alderman called for a two-step solution: Improve LEED and let the Green Building Council continue to push standards higher, and get the federal government to oversee green standards.
But federalizing green standards creates other problems, cautioned Hubbard, the green building consultant. LEED's appeal - and growing popularity - as an international design standard comes in no small part because it is not tied to any government, he said.
"That's not to say government can't help raise the bar and ensure more buildings succeed," he said. "But I think it's that balance of public/private/(non-governmental organizations) that can help make (green design) thrive."
Owens, of the Green Building Council, said the council and the health experts "generally see eye-to-eye" on many of the points raised in the health group's report. LEED is being continuously upgraded, he said. The council is open to improvements on toxics, health and climate change standards.
Just don't expect a fundamental revision of the ratings system.
"They're asking us to modify one of the things that have made us successful," Owens said. Its simplicity has allowed LEED to lift sustainability to the forefront of the building industry.
"We can demonstrate that to anybody who wants to slog through what amounts to 10,000 data points. But asking an architect to do that on a 15,000 square-foot office building is pushing a rock uphill," Owens said.
This article originally ran at The Daily Climate, the climate change news source published by Environmental Health Sciences, a nonprofit media company.
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?