I don’t know if anyone has been following this:
http://finehomebuilding.taunton.com/item/5872/is-the-leed-program-a-fraud
but it’s interesting to see what others think.
I tend to be skeptical of most things that I think may be over-regulated OR susceptible to profiteering through guilt or fear.
I don’t know if that’s going on with the LEED stuff, but it sure seems like they’ve got a lot of work to do.
Edited 6/19/2009 12:55 pm by doorboy
Replies
A good description I heard recently is that LEED is only what, 6 or 7 years old at this point? Building codes have been around for almost a century and we're still working on those. LEED is just in its infancy--saying it's a fraud is like saying a baby is worthless because it's not productive. We all need to contribute and help LEED grow up. OR help a competitor of LEED grow up, if it seems like that's a better solution.
Another point to consider before we arrest all of the members of the USGBC is that this study is two years old. So these buildings listed were designed in the first few years of the LEED Process. Additionally Energy efficiency is just one part of the equation. <!----><!----><!---->
FYI: The most recent version of LEED 3.0 puts more emphasis on energy efficiency. <!----><!---->
LEED¯ Buildings Show Mixed Results
OTTAWA—A recently released report on the post-occupancy performance of LEED¯-certified buildings found that on average LEED-certified buildings used between 18% to 39% less energy per floor area than their conventional counterparts. However, 28% to 35% of the LEED-certified buildings studied used more energy than their conventional counterparts. A team of researchers from the National Research Council of Canada's Institute for Research in Construction used measured data from 100 LEED-certified commercial and institutional buildings in the U.S., and compared their energy use to that of the "general stock" of buildings in the U.S.
http://irc.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/pubs/fulltext/nrcc51142/
There are some energy savings to be had. There are incompetent practitioners in every field of endeavor. LEED encompasses many elements that have nothing to do with saving energy. The program and process is imperfect, but no fraud.
I tend to agree w/ the other poster. Fraud is a pretty strong word. But I've seen LEED used on the commercial side as a sales buzz tool while playing it fast and loose w/ the process and the compliance.
However LEED certification undergoes scrutiny from the USGBC who reviews the design and the construction for compliance. Don't know if they tend to be 'soft' on compliance to generally encourage participation or if they scrutinize it with care. I've heard they are tough. Maybe on only silver and higher levels?
I routinely have seen (IMO) architects who boast certification of staff and use that to secure a project and 'strut their stuff' while at the same time thumbing their nose at simple, good ideas to improve the design. MY OPINION ONLY. I've worked around the LEED system since the beginning ... but have only had a few opportunities of working with designers on projects ... I'm not 'experienced'.
LEED can be a good thing. An easy concept of demonstrating better design through a simplified checklist. For seasoned designers ... they may tend to scoff a bit ... or simply shoot for platinum with their designs ... piece of cake. The LEED system was designed to enable/encourage designers to more easily move designs to 'green' and certify them using a kind of prescriptive approach.
i vote fraud....LEED & Green make me pukeMike Hussein Smith Rhode Island : Design / Build / Repair / Restore
i vote fraud....LEED & Green make me puke
If you puke I will turn greenDue to the recent state of the economy, the light at the end of the tunnel has been turned off
Fraud? Perhaps not a bad word, and I have trouble finding the right words.
LEED is flawed from the very start, in that it has absolutely no interest in 'building a better environment,' or any such thing. Rather, it is a vague umbrella to insert every touchy-feely social engineering idea into our lives.
That most of the things thaey encourage are in contradiction with each other, and deliberately discourages desires that have been proven by history, ought to tell you something. If not, the rapidly mounting fees and endless paperwork should get the message through.
LEED is simply about control. Control of every aspect of our lives, by unelected, self-appointed, unaccountable tyrants.
Since even the dumbest of us would object to such an agenda, they dress it up in all manner of nice-sounding pap.
Fraud is a criminal practice. These folks go way beyond simple criminality.
I don't see how "LEED is simply about control" when there's no one holding a gun to your head to make you get anything certified. It's a 100% voluntary program.
Your post about LEED being a "vague umbrella" is a much-more-vague rant than anything in the LEED program, which is chock full of codes, percentages, and the like. If you want to complain, at least mention specifics.
It's definitely an evolving program (too slowly, many complain) and it has flaws and room for exploitation. It's also bringing lower-impact products to a wider marketplace, and getting more engineers/architects/builders/trades up to speed on designing and building more energy efficient structures. I don't see where that hurts us as a nation.
My main observation is that no one should mistake USGBC's nonprofit status for small-scale. The certification and professional accreditation programs are big business, and it sends their CEO and staff home with sizable paychecks. I still shake my head when many of the steps in the process being with "send your check to..."
I have no intention of letting this thread get bogged down in semantics, or quibbling over specific provisions, or going off on tangents.
Instead, I presented my conclusions. Whether someone agrees or not is there business. I am confident that anyone who looks into LEED will find the conclusions sound.
As for 'voluntary,' that is just so much nonsense. The entire thrust of LEED is to impose itself, by, for example, mandating that buildings have certain scores. This is one of the problems: the GBC endeavors to put itself in position to tell the various authorities what to do - without any of the checks and balances that limit governments.
The entire premise of LEED goes beyond simple fraud, into something much more sinister. Having minute details of a project dictated by an anonymous, unaccountable party resembles the practices of the worst governments ever known to man.
It would be bad enough were it based on something even resembling science .... but not a single of their assumptions are without controversy; even if such basic concepts as 'global warming' are occuring, it is neither established that such is a bad thing - or that anything we can do would change it a bit.
LEED presents itself as if it were just another building code, when it is nothing of the sort. There are no specific rules to challenge or ammend or debate - just a variable point system, with many of the criteria having nothing to do with the building itself.
LEED is better understood as a political party, an organized group attempting to hijack the political process, without having to worry about such trivia like elections or open debate.
As a political group, it can only be about power. As to whether good intentions on their part are a 'plus' or a 'minus,' that is another discussion. Personally, I'd rather deal with venal motives than religious fervor.
I'll say that most of the criteria I have had to accommodate in LEED in the design of ventilation/heating systems are well thought out and good measures for energy efficiency, or health. and if you want an independent third party verification of the steps you are taking to make a building tread more lightly on the earth, this is how it is going to have to happen.This is like complaining that any certification group is "about control". Of course they are about control. Someone wants to know what they are buying: having a set of criteria established to make apples to apples comparisons based on is the only way to do that, and that would of course control the process.It's not perfect, but it is one big boatload better than the fat squat zero zip nothing we had before it. This system instead places control in the hands of the professionals involved in the building process to a very wide degree while making sure many good practices are followed.If you don't like it, use a different certification. There is R-2000, for one quick example. But paranoid ravings about control and political parties is ridiculous. You think anyone who wants to create a competing standard should have to go through the government to do it? Isn't that kind of anti-free-market?-------------------------------------
-=Northeast Radiant Technology=-
Radiant Design, Consultation, Parts Supply
http://www.NRTradiant.com
i am not leed certified..... and have not built any energy star
of course, i'm pretty sure we would fall in the top 25% if we were trying for certification
i am disturbed to see who appears in the forefront on the state level.. it seems like all the crooks i got to know in the '80's , when the solar industry was corrupted and hijacked by the energy tax credits, are now leading the charge for leeds, energy star and "green building"
a lot of what i see is one big crock of shid
however.... there are people involved who do have my respect ( like you for instance ) and some others i have known since the '70's
but separating the wheat from the chafe is very time consuming and i have a business to run and a life to live
ever see or hear from old what's his name ... robert riversong ?
how did that new glazing technology fare ? haven't heard any more about it for a year or so Mike Hussein Smith Rhode Island : Design / Build / Repair / Restore
Mike, Robert Riversong posts frequently at greenbuildingadvisor.com. The format there seems to suit his style. It would be great to have your input over there if and when you have a chance.
I see yet another person who disagrees with me has resorted to personal attack. I consider that further evidence I'm on the right track.
Now ... would someone be kind enough to tell me where the Constitution assigns the responsibility to 'save the planet?'
No matter how you slice it, LEED is all about government attempting to insert itself into areas where it has no jurisdiction. That alone makes it odious.
If my words are personal attacks, it's because your position is ludicruous.LEED is not a governmental agency. If it becomes so, it would be because the market has demanded and valued a third party accreditation for the standards it wishes to uphold, and just like BOCA or any number of other third-party codes that have been adopted by municipalities it serves a need for standards by inspection/permit authorities. Your comments are, quite simply, FUD. Perhaps you have some good points in there, but it's hard to see what with all the misdirection and hand waving about "political parties" and whatnot.Let me say this slowly again so you understand: USGBC is a non-profit. Not a governmental agency. Constitutionality does not apply. If LEED is adopted as a supplementary building code in any jurisdiction, though, it would be on the same grounds as any building code is: public safety. Energy security, pollution issues, and health issues are all a part of our public safety. VOCs, poor ventilation, pollution from power plants and a million other things are killing people in this country every day, and addressing them in a building code is not even remotely controversial in my opinion.You don't have to like LEED, but right now whining about government in this is like claiming "consumer reports" is all about "government control". The two have about exactly as much to do with the constitution as the other. and if the town of Jefferson Maine decides that all of our town purchases, where applicable, must be 5-star ratings on a consumer reports index, I wouldn't necessarily fight that either.-------------------------------------
-=Northeast Radiant Technology=-
Radiant Design, Consultation, Parts Supply
http://www.NRTradiant.comEdited 7/18/2009 12:52 pm ET by NRTRob
Edited 7/18/2009 12:53 pm ET by NRTRob
I hope you didn't have to remove your tin foil hat to type that. Wouldn't want "them" to get control of your brain while you were responding to me.
I'd don't see where LEED gets to mandate or impose anything unless the Owner decides they want to participate. If your local government decides to legislate a policy that "all new buildings will be LEED certified," and you don't like it, vote your preference next election day. Otherwise, it's the Owner's (home/high-rise/retail/muni/whatever) call.
And they do have a process to do updates and take input, one that many complained was too slow in developing the just-released version 3.0. But I doubt that "get rid of your fascist/commie/pinko rating system" is really a viable option.
NRTRob has it just right- it beats the #### outta the big load of nothing that was out there before.
I can see that we have great differences in our approach to life - and that's perfectly fine.
I also graciously accept your surrender - as expressed by your descent into personal attacks.
Ih your heart, you know I'm right.
Say something substantive and I'd be happy to respond. Otherwise, what you've written comes across as so fundamentally ill-informed and confused about what exactly LEED is and how it works that I don't begin to know how to respond.
LEED is a voluntary building certification program. USGBC is a non-governmental, nonprofit corporation. Neither is government.
LEED is not mandatory unless an Owner says it is. Since they generally have the power of the purse, that's within their purview.
If you don't like it, opt out. Go work for an Owner who doesn't see the need. If the market (i.e. a whole lot of Owners) decide they all want to build things differently, then get on board or find another line of work. It's that simple.
I recently earned the LEED AP credential and am very, very familiar with all of the aspects of LEED as concerns new construction, major renovations in commercial buildings.
I disagree with all of your conclusions. I agree the system and the concept are imperfect and will continue to evolve and improve over time.
Do you have any examples for any of your assertions? If the entire process is flawed as you have concluded, examples should very very easy to provide.
Which Prerequisite(s) or Credit(s), for instance, "deliberately discourages desires that have been proven by history"?
LEED provides credits for locating in an urban core, along mass transit routes, restricting parking, and in planned developments. History has shown a continual desire by people for exactly the opposite ..... people would much rather live in a noce house in the suburbs, and find plentyful parking at the Mall.
Likewise, there's a simple reason contractors don't "mine" the trash heap for 'recoverable" materials; history has shown this is a very poor use of the contractor's resources.
I've yet to attend any LEED function that was not chock full of assertions as to just how terrible the American way is; an assumption that adopting the Kyoto accords is wise, just, and inevetable; considerable criticism on Nevada's energy laws (with an exhotration to work to change them), and the obligatory speach about global warming.
These other parts of the presentation are clearly political, and an attempt to get you to legislate their ideas into use. The "green building council" can claim to be a private party all they want, but they are attempting to exert political power.
So, fat dumb and happy is good enough, right? We've always done it this way, so why should we change? Cheap and fast is best? Look for the union label? Buy American? Ignorance is bliss, so it seems.
I don't agree with every part of LEED, but much of it makes sense. Much more sense than burying our collective head in the sand and going poo poo on everything we don't understand or like.
Contractors do what is good for contractors. Period. You have to make a profit to survive, but many already b1tch about having to comply with simple building codes to keep them from killing their customers. Not exactly the historical precedents to take us into the future.
Urban flight is a different issue, but you have a good "Frenchy" logic going there. Interesting.
BTW, the basic provisions of the Montreal and Kyoto Protocols are law in this country. Not going to be, not being considered, but are right now.
Practical applications of the concepts must apply. Blindly wasting time and money, "stepping over a dollar to pick up a dime", is stupid. But the ignorant statement that it is all a scam and has no merit whatsoever, is more so. You have to fully understand them before you can apply them.
All fine and well ... for one to pursue what they consider good design is a right. It is not the role of government to make those decisions for us - and most certainly not the role of government to assign the task to a third party.
It is specifically the role of the government to step in and force decisions that are accepted to be for the general benefit of society - i.e. requiring construction conform to the adopted/amended building codes. No one would voluntarily comply unless there were consequences (enforcement, fines) otherwise. Those building codes, in many juridictions, have included minimum energy efficiency requirements for years if not decades, and all have some minimum ventilation requirements. These are very similar to some of the credits and prerequisites contained in LEED certifications.
Seeking LEED Certification is completely and entirely voluntary. Its like peeing yourself in a dark suit: it gives you a warm feeling, but no one else really notices or cares. The USGBC has created a collection of guidelines, all produced, published and sold by other organizations like ASHRAE, and a way of "keeping score". If I were the owner of business and was going to pay for a new building, I would seek to acheive many of the better ideas that are covered in the LEED certification requiremens, but not all.
In my opinion, for a professional NOT to persue what they consider good design is negligent, at the very least and probably incompetent.
I am curious ... where does the Constitution say that it is the role of the government to force decisions for the benefit of society?
As best I can tell, our entire society is founded upon the principle of limiting government, rather than following the rest of the world in limiting the governed.
I submit that it is our unique, truly revolutionary approach that allowed us to progress from colonial backwater to world power in 200 years. During that same time, we have seen several world powers fade into obscurity; that Spain, France, and Britain faded in direct proportion to their acceptance of statism is not coincidence.
If government did not force decisions for the benefit of society, there would be no reason to have a government.It starts with forcing people to pay taxes for armies and governance. It goes from there.I submit it is a continent full of massive amounts of natural resources, a good climate range, and a distinct lack of nearby enemies that allowed isolationist policies to dominate a america from 150 to 250 years ago and set the foundation for america's ascendance to the world stage starting in the early to mid 1900's. But don't mistake what worked then for what will work forever. Britain learned that lesson during the industrial revolution. Perhaps we too could be smart enough to learn from history.Or you can bury your head in the sand and pretend that life is like the old west if it just weren't for those danged politicians trying to control everyone. either way.-------------------------------------
-=Northeast Radiant Technology=-
Radiant Design, Consultation, Parts Supply
http://www.NRTradiant.com
I appreciate your passion, and thank you for further illustrating my claim that environmentalism is a religion, and a political movement ... but certainly not science, and has no place in law.
There are numerous places as blest, some even more so, with resources ... and they wallow in poverty. If natural resources were the key, North Korea would be thriving, and the Japanese would be starving.
When building codes were begun, the reasoning was solid: don't follow the load tables, and something will break. Or disease will spread.
Now though ... how do we tell if the sky is falling? It's not a fit topic for legislation.
hey, we're governed better than north korea, imagine that. I agree it's a combination of factors that led to our rise as a world power, but those factors are not going to carry us in perpetuity if we do not protect ourselves in terms of keeping our environmental toxicity down, and our domestic energy security guaranteed. Especially as cheap exploitable resources dwindle. But what worked before will work forever, of course. Ask the Easter Islanders.-------------------------------------
-=Northeast Radiant Technology=-
Radiant Design, Consultation, Parts Supply
http://www.NRTradiant.com
Environmental toxicity .... domestic energy devurity .... now, if those arren't textbook examples of wonderful political issues. Let's keep politics out of building.
Not being poisoned by someone else's profit generation is a political issue? Environmental toxicity is not a legitimate concern?If that's "political" then I don't see anything that we should keep politics out of. That's one step from saying it's "political" to stand in the way of someone choking me to death in my sleep. Toxicity has direct victims and direct perpetrators. That's about as political as a mugging."Free markets" reigned on that issue for a long time. Rivers caught on fire in those days, remember? And what cleaned it up? I'll give you a hint... it wasn't 'market demand'. because there is always a market not near the burning river who will gladly pay you to keep on keepin' on. Building is political. Everything is political. Your actions affect others. If you want to take radical propositions such as "municipalities and states cannot stop people from polluting", then hey, good luck to you. the future isn't looking too bright for your philosophy, and I'm glad for it. It had its day and failed.
-------------------------------------
-=Northeast Radiant Technology=-
Radiant Design, Consultation, Parts Supply
http://www.NRTradiant.com
If you think that central control by an all-powerful, all-wise burearcracy can provide us with solutions better than the free market, good luck!
Look at any -and I do mean any- such place, and you find the absolute worse environmental practices.
Not to be forgot is all the disproven environmental crusades; perhaps the easiest one to research is the totally unfounded banning og DDT - leading to millions of unnecessary deaths to disease.
Add to that the extremely questionable assertions regarding today's cause celebs, and it's all the more reason to keep the heavy hand of government away.
Also, do not overlook that only a small part of LEED has anything at all to do with what most folks consider 'environmental' issues. Centrally planned communities, politically directed development, and support for more massive, failed mass transit projects are integral to LEED. Heck, driving an econobox isn't enough; these folks want us riding bikes and busses.
As for the scope of governmental involvement .... that debate was settled over two centuries ago. Yet, I fail to see even the smallest attempt made to ammend our Constitution to allow these agendas to proceed. rather, there is an underhanded attempt to impose them by lawsuit and administrative fiat. This is yet more proof it's about power - and not 'saving the planet.'
again, there is no constitutional issue. states can do whatever they like unless they violate a constitution: they don't need a constitutional permission to do anything they are not prohibited from.The feds can't make laws, but they can withhold funding. That too is completely constitutional.I would have much more esteem for your arguement if you could at least understand the basics of the situation you are complaining about.and I will still hold up the burning river issue as indicative of the type of problem that required government involvement to fix. and it always will. the problem is here, ah, but the money is over there and doesn't care what's happening here. "here" being ground zero.Energy reduction through building quality or lifestyle facilitation (mass transit and planned development) directly affects all of this. But you go ahead and keep stomping those feet.Riddle me this: what state in america uses the least energy per capita?http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/states/sep_sum/plain_html/rank_use_per_cap.htmllook on the right side at total energy usage per capita. top of the list? A who's who of states who have the least regulation. The bottom? A who's who of states with more regulation.Huh. It works. Go figure? Oh right, this is a government study, obviously they are just trying to justify their own funding.-------------------------------------
-=Northeast Radiant Technology=-
Radiant Design, Consultation, Parts Supply
http://www.NRTradiant.com
One can always conjure up 'factoids' and irrellevant, unanswerable paradoxes; that this is considered 'logic' by some always puzzles me.
The tenth ammendment has been applied to enforce many constitutional limits on the states. If private property, the right to due process, and the seizure of property without compensation are not civil rights, I don't know what are. Without private property, you have no rights.
Or, as one commentator has opined, a government that can dictate what toilet we use is a powerful government indeed.
It is amazint the various parties that are arguing that the issue is not Federal, as it invloves states (etc) or 'customer choice' - as the entire thrust of the movement is to make their desires universal; witness the efforts exerted on 'model codes,' the use of Federal tax credits, and the Federal rules applied to utilities. There's nothing 'local' or 'free choice' about it.
As for the witholding of funding; let's just say we have a basic disagreement on that issue. As far as I'm concerned, that's just another area where we have got away from our constitution.
No matter, though. We're talking abour 'fraud' in LEED. The 'fraud' is inherent, and would still be present if LEED were administered by angels and interpreted by Solomon. How?
It is fraudulent as it askes for government to excercise powers in areas where the governemnt has no role.
It is fraudlent as the very assertions that form its' foundation are -to put it mildly- far from established science.
Finally, it is flawed in it's very precept that we are wrong, the rest of the world is right, and that the way to improve the rest of the world is to handicap or harm us.
You making all of this up. I won't bother responding to the several points you are simply reduced to repeating the same, unfounded assertions on with no supportive evidence regarding "motivations" and "requirements" that do not exist and are not relevant in any case.But you should probably realize at some point, "Private Property rights" are not universal or absolute in any country. the words "eminent domain" should prove that. The fact that refusal to pay taxes forfeits your land should also prove it. You, at best, lease it for the duration of your payment of land taxes for the parcel in question. I don't know what you think private property is, but it does not and has never existed in the history of man in any pure form such that you own something forever with no obligation beyond that. .-------------------------------------
-=Northeast Radiant Technology=-
Radiant Design, Consultation, Parts Supply
http://www.NRTradiant.com
Edited 7/30/2009 12:03 pm ET by NRTRob
I'm not making any of it up. I can't help it if you have not been exposed to it before; perhaps your teachers owe you a refund.
As for the rhetoric thar some concept has never existed in a perfect form ... applying that yardstick leads to nothing but the thugocracy of mob rule.
The value of private property? South Africa (pre-Mandela) had it - and reaped the harves of some of the greatest mineral riches, built a thoroughly modern society.
Other countries - Uruguay, Paraguay, Argentina, Brazil - are made of exactly the same rock that compses South Africa. These countries have remained in serfdom in direct proportion to their adoption of "the earths' resources belong to the people" ideology. Or, if you prefer, they have prospered in direct relation to their adoption of private property rights.
There's a message there.
But, feel free to kneel at the alter of your choice. Just don't try to force your faith on the rest of us. Our Constitution was written specifically to prevent that. I submit that is what makes us different from all other nations, and is why we have prospered far beyond Caesar's wildest dreams.
Nice examples. Brazil is the world's tenth largest economy. Argentina is in the G-20. Man, they are really hurting! Focus on more 3rd world nations next time. Or, update your world economic research to the current century.Private property rights... as in, some private property rights... are necessary. we do agree on that.I do not agree that private property rights are absolute. Building codes, for example, are legitimate public policy measures. LEED is, at most, a building code. If you are not against all building codes, then throw everything about your argument out except attacking the science of LEED, because nothing regarding the "constitution" in this case applies to LEED but not other building codes. If you are against all building codes, then we have nothing to discuss. They are undeniably a victory of public policy, and places without them suffer the consequences. That is not to say they are perfect any more than any aspect of human life is; just that they work.-------------------------------------
-=Northeast Radiant Technology=-
Radiant Design, Consultation, Parts Supply
http://www.NRTradiant.com
Even attempting to consider LEED as a building code is misleading.
Building codes have specific requirements, and the consequences of not following them are certain. Exceed a load table, for example, and something will break. Moreover, one can point to a design and say 'that beam is loaded too much.'
LEED is inherently corrupt in part because it has no such clear criteria. Rather, one is supposed to amass all manner of paperwork, which is then 'scored' according to various social agenda. Moreover, the party doing the scoring is accountable to no one, in a process completely without check or balance.
As for the various asserted social agenda, those are themselves open to great debate. The LEED approach certainly smacks of coercion; we'll make you take the bus, because there won't be a parking space when you get there! That ought to make grocery shopping a real joy. That's just one example.
Nothing to discuss? Between you and I, perhaps. I certainly know where I stand: LEED is the devils' spawn, not fit for human society. You may feel differently, and that is your right.
I'm not about to sit back and let the LEED missionaries preach their heresies unopposed, though. Everything about LEED is contrary to the way we do things - a way built upon thousands of years of history, and a way that has left everyone else in the dust. The USA adopting LEED is comparable to a champion runner tying his legs together; kiss those gold medals good-bye!
I'm coming into this discussion way too late but I'll give you my 2 cents anyway.
LEED as it is currently may not be perfect but it's a good start. It needs yet a few more years to mature.
I know you are an electrical guy so I will compare LEED to a "UL Listing". Both are non-government and non-profit. Both are voluntary programs. To get a UL Listing manufacturers submit their electrical device along with a big check. UL does some tests and if it passes it gets a UL Listing label. But it is not mandatory to get that label; you can sell a non-UL listed electrical device if you want. But the label may give some people a comfort level that the device is "safer" than a non-UL listed device. Same with LEED; it gives some people a level of comfort that the building designer made an effort to consider the environment.
LEED certification is to buildings what UL Listed is to electrical devices.
That might seem a decent comparison: LEED certification vs. UL listing, but I don't think it holds up.
First of all, UL is a NRTL, which means that anyone can test to the UL standards. UL standards are derived from industry standards, most of which are either ANSI or ASTM standards. Whatever the test, it's polain to see what passes and what fails.
Contrast this to LEED, where a deliberate effort is made to distance their certification from anyone else's. Then there's the matter of testing: just how does one test for 'green?' You're out of the realm of engineering and into social planning.
Considering the heated debates in progress over the basic premises behind 'green' proposals - where the basic assumptions are in doubt, and the conclusions are weak - I don't think you can say LEED is a 'step in the right direection.' It's very possible that today's 'solutions' will be seen tomorrow as the worst things we could have done. There is no shortage of examples where government 'help' has done nothing but cause misery. That's why the founding fathers were so careful to hobble ours.
Great! So we then agree that you can throw out all your hand waving about "constitutionality" which just muddies the waters. Nothing there could possibly apply to LEED but not building codes in general.Now it's just about the science that LEED is based on. So let me ask. What is the "definite consequence" behind current code minimum insulation levels that is ok, vs the other energy-reducing measures in LEED?Or do you think that building codes should not have any energy usage standards in them?And if the insulation in the walls is ok to mandate, why not the other aspects of the building such as site, landscaping, and mechanical systems which all do exactly the same thing as the lack of insulation in a wall, which is, use energy?I might at least not see you as a raving hypocrite if you are against insulation standards in buildings too, at least then your arguement would be logically consistent. But the problem is, a LOT of homes... nearly all of them.. are built to code minimum. Without insulation standards the already sad state of most buildings from an energy usage standpoint would be even worse, no doubt whatsoever. But since we built buildings uninsulated for "thousands of years of history" I guess that's just fine with you?-------------------------------------
-=Northeast Radiant Technology=-
Radiant Design, Consultation, Parts Supply
http://www.NRTradiant.com
Nice try, no cigar.
What I may prefer in my life is completely unconnected with the role of government.
We have limits on government for history-proven reasons. Circumventing them by creating ostensible 'private groups' that have the functions of government - but completely without the safeguards - is a dire risk to our liberty as well as our prosperity.
Misery loves company - which is probably why the 'save the world' types are constantly trying to make us all miserable.
LEED is inherently wrong. It is wrong from a governemnt viewpoint, wrong from a social viewpoint, wrong from a scientific viewpoint.
Save your rhetoric. It's safe to say that any agreement we may have is purely accidental.
I'd still like to know if you are simply a raving hypocrite, or whether you are at least consistent.So are you against energy provisions in all building codes, or just LEED?-------------------------------------
-=Northeast Radiant Technology=-
Radiant Design, Consultation, Parts Supply
http://www.NRTradiant.com
I'll give you credit for determination. I don't think he's as unstable mentally as his posted beliefs indicate. I think he's just trying to see how it feels to be Frenchy, or enjoying pushing buttons.
Wonder all you like, and feel free to continue to cast personal insults. I'll take those as signs of concession on your part.
What I might be;lieve as to any building code provision - or any type of code in general - is irrelevant to this topic.
LEED is the topic. I maintain that LEED is directly contrary to the principles upon which our country was founded. It is anti-freedom, anti-liberty, and anti-private property rights. The entire process is careful to avoid all of the 'checks and balances' that history has proven are necessary. As if that were not enough, it is based upon false premises.
For those who believe that LEED has anything at all to do with 'protecting the environment,' I submit that they have been sadly misled. It's no accident that LEED has its' roots in one of the most radical environmental groups (the Natural Resources Defense Council). It is no accident that environmental groups, as a whole. are particularly hostile to the USA, while ignoring totalitarian countries with absolutely disasterous environmental and development results. It is no accident that Gorbachov, during his stay in the USA, headed an environmental group.
It's not about science, clean air, or bettering our lives. It's all about power, and reducing us to the level of the third world.
Hypocracy? To take a line from Lincoln, if I wanted tyranny, I would move to Russia, where I could enjoy it pure, undiluted by the base alloy of hypocracy.
Mentioning LEED together with building codes is in itself misleading. Not only does LEED lack specific requirements, the vast bulk of LEED criteria are focused purely on social criteria (such as building on toxic waste sites). LEED is in a class all its' own, and is truly diabolical.
You insult yourself when all you can do is continue to repeat the same tired claims which have no relevance on any specifics in the system. I can claim that apple pie has it "roots" in the radical terrorists who started this country, but that doesn't actually mean any more than anything you are spouting here. Your arguements about constitutionality and "the foundations of our country" are total BS, unless you are willing to apply them equally to other aspects of our governance such as building codes. to suggest otherwise is cognitive dissonance, plain and simple, and that's the most charitable interpretation possible. If it's ok for building codes to tell people how much insulation they need to install, it's twice as ok for LEED as a private entity to do it, and there is no arguement whatsoever for not considering the placement of the building in the first place in the energy usage prescriptive standards in the system.You complain about personal insults then fall right back into ad hominem attacks on the USGBC in the same post. Again, cognitive dissonance. Consistency of thought apparently doesn't mean much when there is mud to sling. when you can debate the specifics of the actual program rather than waving your hands with double standards and wild generalities about decent into third world authoritarianism, please feel free to do so. But you can't do that, because you aren't basing these arguments on anything like facts.-------------------------------------
-=Northeast Radiant Technology=-
Radiant Design, Consultation, Parts Supply
http://www.NRTradiant.com
What ad hominem attacks against the USGBC?
They certainly are not elected, or subject to any limits at all.
They most certainly are an off-shoot of the National Resources
Defence Council. As for the NRDC being radical, that's an opinion, founded by comparison of their positions as contrasted to, say, Ducks Unlimited - and other long-time conservation groups.
Private group? Yea, right ... which is why so much of their 'point' system revolves around things like your State's 'alternative energy' policy, your area's dedication of roads to mass transit only, and other purely political factors .... that have absolutely nothing to do with how a building is built. The points assigned if the place is part of a 'planned development' is an endorsement of that particular abrogation of private property rights.
Follow the road to its' end, and it is clear that everyone claimes the right to tell you how to use your property; the one opinion that doesn't count is yours.
It's as simple as looking at the point system - and how few have anything to do with the building itself. It's as simple as identifying all the social causes those points embrace.
It's all laid out quite nicely in the point system .... and the lack of proven governmental checks is quite clear in the administrative procedures. I surely am not making this up.
Nor is there any inconsistancy in my refusal to go off on unrelated tangents. This thread is about LEED. if you want my opinion about the plumbing code, look to threads about the plumbing code. That there are imperfections elsewhere - as you assert - has no bearing on this discussion. A 'wrong' on another topic does not make a 'right' on this one.
As for personal foibles .... I may very well be the most flawed person in history .... but that does not change the facts of LEED one whit.
To attempt to pretend that LEED is 'only a private party' is dishonest. This is evidenced by the associated political efforts. Codes, tax credits, whatever ... the 'green' crowd is exploiting every opening to foist their dogma on everyone else, and LEED is but one arrow in their quiver.
That the 'green' crowd has the USA in particular, and the Western World in general, as their 'great Satan' is clear at any environmental forum. There is no shortage of degreed fools babbling on about their latest way to prove how bad we are. Oddly enough, what they consider evidence of our depravity I consider proof of our progress. Use more than our "fair share?" We also feed far more than our 'fair share.'
Nor is it about 'the environment,' It's all about power. There is no shortage of 'environmental' actions that have since been proven wrong, or surpassed by events, and yet the 'environmental' restrictions remain - though the justification for those restrictions is long gone. Those instances are worthy of threads of their own.
I would guess that local climate conditions would have a substantial effect on per capita energy use. State laws will hopefully reflect the values of its citizens so the states with more regulation may have people who are more energy conscious anyway.
I would guess that too, but the usage list would seem to disagree. I don't see any clear correlation there between climate and energy usage. the high users tend to be more southern, but not necessarily the southernmost, so it's not just about cooling intensity or Florida, Missisippi, Louisiana and south carolina would be edging out some of the other states here. And the low users include such "mild" climates as alaska, maine, and vermont.I would also note that as far as energy usage is concerned, personal concern is generally vastly trumped by code requirements. Code requirements affect everything: personal concern is a relatively small section of the building market comparativley.-------------------------------------
-=Northeast Radiant Technology=-
Radiant Design, Consultation, Parts Supply
http://www.NRTradiant.com
"I am curious ... where does the Constitution say ..."
Look it up.
Edited 7/22/2009 4:06 pm by Tim
I am not able to find any reference in the Constitution that can imply that it is governments' role to force compliance for our own good.
Indeed, I find much to the contrary.
The very body of the Constitution is one strictly limited to restraining Governemnt power. It plainly states that powere not specifically assigned to the (Federal) Government belong to the States, or the people.
This specific limitation within the Constitution is ignored by those who assert that the 'Interstate Commerce Clause" or the "General Welfare Clause" allow the governemnt to act where it will fail to carry their logic a step further: that such an unlimited Government would need no Constitution at all.
Going a 'document back,' we see that the Founding Fathers, in their Declaration of Independence, plainly assert that it is the role of Governemnt to preserve liberty ... and the obligation of the citizens to stop said government when it becomes a means of denying liberty.
So .... dare I point out .... many responses to my posts express attitudes and beliefs in direct opposition of those helf by the Founding Fathers, ratified by the States, and embraced by the people.
America is but one of many countries. Nearly all of the rest share your beliefs; too bad they have not prospered as we! Still, feel free to move to the 'workers paradise' of choice, where you can ne comfortably surrounded by fellow party faithful.
I have expressed no beliefs here, your understanding the words I posted notwithstanding.
LEED is implemented as law and enforced in no jurisdiction in this country. Read this closely: LEED IS A VOLUNTARY PROGRAM.
You believe that laws in place to preserve public safety are unconstitutional?
I'm all for free markets, despise unions and want as limited a government as possible. But, I also realize that some regulations are necessary to prevent personal and institutional abuses. That is the reality of the world in which we live. I'm not interested in teaching you the basics of our government and high schooli civics, nor will I attemt to do so.
There is absolutely nothing voluntary, apolitical, or 'free market,' about a program whose acolytes positively dance with delight as all the 'stimulus money' that will be coming their way. The organization is based upon political action and the coercion that ensues. The various training seminars are rallies where the masses pay dearly for the latest marching orders.
Even when looked at through the rosiest of glasses, LEED remains corrupt and fraudulent. It is based entirely upon flawed science and unprovable assertions. It embraces very many social causes that go directly against what the market has shown that people want - and then tells it's proselytes that having a LEED certificate makes the property more economically competitive.
If LEED did make things more competitive, there would be no need for activists to try to compel adopting their ideas by regulation, subsidy, and tax credit.
It is no accident that LEED is a spin-off of the most radical environmental group around, the national Resources Defence Council.
The customer can choose what they want? Not a chance of that when governemnt projects are involved. That entire process is wide for individual politicians and pressure groups to compel the useless spending of other peoples' monies, the condemnation of private property, and the usurpation of personal rights.
I really like your bringing up the concept of 'public safety.' When Caesar said 'the public safety is the first duty of governemnt," he was talking about invading armies - not whether we use the right light bulbs!
Perhaps it is the result of such hyperbole, such an endless quest (by both tyrants and well-meaning zealots) that we have deliberatly placed limits to our government.
I assume your reference to 'public safety' is a reference to my mentioning that our Constitution clearly stated that powers not specifically assigned to the Federal governemnt belong to the States, or the people. This may surprise you, but our Federal government has very little in the way of 'police powers.' Under our system, the primary police powers rest with the States and the Counties. That's why you won't find general Federal laws addressing murder, prosttitution, or fraud. "Public Safety" is clearly a local matter.
Excellent points all around, aside from some mild insults. Let's stay focused on the topic rather than going after the poster--
I know a block wall when I see one.
Good day!
People will also build coal power plants with no scrubbers on them if not required to do so. History shows a continual desire for people to do what is best for them regardless of the cost to their neighbors. It might be cheaper to let mercury fly into the atmosphere, for the ones using and generating the energy, but it creates problems for everyone else not even involved in the transaction. Likewise a contractor may not find salvaged material to be the cheapest. But it causes less pollution and problems than producing new timbers. so if you want to reduce energy usage and pollution, salvaged materials make more sense. It is undoubtedly more energy efficient, and producing less pollution... that's pollution, not even carbon... to build near mass transit, in an urban core, than it is to promote urban sprawl. Having a green rating attached to any of this is not controversial in the least. It sounds like your problem is that some local municipalities have adopted the LEED standard on public buildings. Well hey, the free market of ideas, known as a democracy, allows you to fight that. It just takes votes. But "it's not what people want" is not an argument. If that's true, fight it at city hall. If you just mean some people want to gripe about not being able to do the cheapest, messiest thing anymore even though it's "not what people want", well hey... sorry. This world has six billion plus people in it and we can't keep pretending like we have no effect on each other.-------------------------------------
-=Northeast Radiant Technology=-
Radiant Design, Consultation, Parts Supply
http://www.NRTradiant.com
You're not going to affect the issue pf 'six billion people' by building a 'green' city hall. You might affect that 'problem' if you could stop the Chinese from making babies. Where's the LEED point for that?
You're making my point ... LEED is scientifically flawed, economically insane, and contrary to a free society.
I'd prefer simple corruption ... God save us from 'true believers.'
Regarding which ... considering the religious aspects of LEED, and the beliefs upon which it is founded ... it just might violate the Constitutions ban on the government instituting religion.
wait, because chinese people have babies, what we do doesn't matter?congrats. you win the king of the cop out competition.even in the most self-congratulatory mood you might be in, america would be the world's second largest polluter and consumption of energy. Certainly not absolved of any and all responsibility for our actions.-------------------------------------
-=Northeast Radiant Technology=-
Radiant Design, Consultation, Parts Supply
http://www.NRTradiant.com
Actually the scrubbers on coal fired power plants also have bypass ducts incorporated and a switch that can be thrown to turn off the pollution controls for optimum power should the need arise for various reasons.
The big thing the last few years has been the addition of "SCR's" which stands for Selective Catalytic Reduction. The Selective part directly refers to the switch that can bypass the whole thing.
"LEED provides credits for locating in an urban core, along mass transit routes, restricting parking, and in planned developments."
The new v.3 of the credit system includes 5 possible points for one credit based on siting in an urban setting and with access to public transportation. And 2 possible points related to parking capacity. That's out of ~110 possible points, with a minimum of 40 required for certification. It's certainly very possible to certify a project without those points.
"history has shown... "
You make a couple of sweeping generalizations that I think lack basis. Recent history where I live, with $5 gas and urban revitalization (admittedly stalled by the economy) has shown otherwise. This time last year, people were driving as little as possible, and my city is growing rapidly with an influx of people who don't want an exurban paradise. I spent a while talking with a cousin last night about his different experiences living in suburban ATL vs. our intown neighborhood. Night and day- the 'burbs were very insular, petty, and isolated. Our neighborhood now is very close knit. YMMV- and that's the point.
As for "mining the trash heap," the credits available are for diverting waste from the landfill and for using salvaged materials. The former involves a little more effort to separate materials, but the evidence on commercial-scale projects is that it's a break-even prospect (before the wild swings up then down in material prices). The salvage credit is an opportunity to exercise creativity- if you choose. Doesn't mean you have to.
Like I said before, it's the market, and how choose to react and whether you get left behind is all in your court.
If it was 'all in the market,' then there would be no need for LEED, tax credits, subsidies, or any of the other efforts that are used to encourage favored by the environmental crowd.
The market still, clearly, tells us that these 'green' efforts codt money, and are not economically justified.
Other issues raised are also the direct consequence of environmental activism. Oil prices, for example, can only go up when the market is limited by artificial constraints. When it come to oil, we are like someon starving in a supermarket; we have artificially created a 'shortage' by refusing to use the oil that lies literally beneath our feet.
Everything in LEED is accomplished a few points at a time; it's all too easy to brush aside any specific complaing by asserting that the example is but a tiny part of the 'big picture.' My point is that the 'big picture' is made entirely of such points, each furthering a specific part of the "Green Movement's" political agenda.
That point system is also part of the corruption inherent to LEED. Unlike a conventional building code, you're not able to say something is, or is not, required. Re-do, re-document, re-submit, re-pay ... and some absolutely anonymous, unaccountable party will pass judgement.
The political agenda, flawed "science," and circumvention of proven political safeguards are all what makes LEED such a corrupt concept.
I Could Not AGREE more. When LEED started the first thing they did was promise everyone they would be stand alone and LEED would never become required. Recently they have begun to contract with municipalities to become part of the permit process. That was out and out fraud on their part. Recently I had a new client come into my studio who wanted her spec mansion in the Palm Desert LEED certified as a marketing tool but also because she was a New Ager who wanted to make lots of money and feel good about the planet at the same time...Anyhow, her prior architect got this turkey of a house LEED certified but the estimates were coming in some 30% over budget. We knew each other socially over a long period of time and she had the impression I was a "green Architect". I always was until all this LEED sillyness began. Anyway I reviewed her plans and noticed something odd- She was planting imported Austrailian drought tolerant exotic plants and installing an expensive and complicated emitter system. I asked her why she wasn't just leaving the natural landscape of the desert and not planting anything. She responded that the four points she got for the Aussie plants and emitter system finally got her over the LEED hump. She got almost no points for the recycled insulated wall panels and framing steel she used. Almost nothing for the hyper expensive recycled glass flooring and on and on it went. she was spending money needlessly not based on any potential real world environmental performance, but on a point menu.I re designed the house. We left the desert alone, did the floors in maple (its lighter AND there is a once every 70 year die off going on now that they regularly go through so removing the dead free standing trees is good for the forest...) I broadened the overhangs to the width of the existing framing members to shade the place, and used inexpensive G.E. thermoclear for much of the glazing instead of triple glazed glass.She didnt sell that house. She sold her house in town and moved into the one in the Palm Desert. It performs better and was cheaper than it would have been had it been LEED certified.LEED is a manufacturers association and its about selling so called "green" products that no one was willing to purchase before they became required. It may not be fraud, but it is a scam,and one that is being codified into law.
The issue I have with your example desert house is that it sounds like you were handed a very un-savvy application of the rating system.
I don't believe there's anything that would drive you to buy expensive plants or put in expensive irrigation at all. I actually think that doing those things in a desert environment, just to earn points, ought to keep you from earning points. I'm more familiar with the NC system, but using native desert plants and no irrigation should get you credit. Same as planting drought-tolerant native plants withoug irrigation should qualify here in GA.
The NC system gets you points for recycled materials (steel studs, flooring, insulation in your example). It looks like LEED-H also does under credit MR2.2. And if your maple floors were really produced sustainably, I'd think you could have found an FSC-certified product.
But the bottom line is that you don't like the system, so you chucked it overboard rather than try to meet the client's goal of certifying the house. I think that reflects more on your outlook than on the project or the rating system.
I'm not as sure on houses, but I really believe that the availability of the products, growing familiarity with the documentation requirements on the vendor side, and growing base of experienced contractors makes certifying a building less and less of an adder.
I think the assertion that "LEED is a manufacturers association" is baseless. There is representation from all parties involved in the process (owners, designers, builders, and yes manufacturers, etc). And I'd have a hard time throwing stones at some of them- Toto and Interface are GA-located examples of manufacturers that are walking the walk in their operations in addition to selling high-performance/sustainable products.
But hey, I'm not evading that the system is bureaucratic and checklist-y. The ideal and reality have a gap. Hopefully, the gap is closing.
I was handed a house designed by one of the leading LEED architects in Santa Monica. I think the whole LEED process is "Checklisty" as you say.
Thats the problem with it and the very goal of it. The attempt is being made to substitute a list of menu items(all approved by what really is a manufacturers association) for THOUGHT.In the meantime my local code agencies are now demanding I use strategies and devices they as little as four months ago forbade me to use (In this case on the same house so I went back a revision and resubmitted with the red marks what they rejected a scant four months ago)But they really don't understand what they are demanding or how it works in terms of the whole building as a system. Again it's on a list and it will be done and they havn't the slightest freaking clue that doing one thing calls for and demands another. You have to go to the top of the department to find anyone who MAY be able to think in those terms, but by the time you get there there is already an idea that you are a troublemaker and resistant to proper authority...(True in my case, because its so difficult to find a human I can reason with)It's not like I'm some tract home developer who is only interested in the bottom line. I've been doing Green Building since long before it was a fad, and long before LEED was a gleem in any idiots eye. I should be having a party, except of course green building is now being mandated by the same bone heads who have prevented it all these years and its being implemented in a bone brained manner
Got an example of what was forbidden a short time ago and is now a requirement?Thanks, John
yes.
Got an example of what was forbidden a short time ago and is now a requirement?
Just got word from our inspector that the new book will have a lot of energy codes in them. Not sure if their from LEED but if not then who else?
I can remember the last book of the century having very little on metal studs but now there's almost 200 pages. But we have been building with metal studs a looonnnggg time.
Who's putting the rush on the energy codes?
Just sayingDue to the recent state of the economy, the light at the end of the tunnel has been turned off
energy codes predate LEED."Code Minimum" insulation has been around for quite awhile now, even though reno would say the "science" behind it does not exist. But without code minimum insulation, you can easily imagine what all those code minimum buildings built in the last 30 years would have been otherwise.-------------------------------------
-=Northeast Radiant Technology=-
Radiant Design, Consultation, Parts Supply
http://www.NRTradiant.com