WANT TO REDUCE GREENHOUSE EMISSIONS: CONSIDER NOT BUILDING TO LEED STANDARDS

Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design, commonly known as LEED is a set of privately established building standards established by an activist non-profit, the U.S. Green Building Council, to promote “green building” through a system of points theoretically designed to allow a building to be constructed in a way that enhances the environment.

As a way to promote elitism in the environmental world, LEED works well.  It costs architects, contractors, and the manufacturers of “green” products thousands and tens of thousands of greenbacks to become certified for LEED.  Governments and others with the money to pay to achieve a variety of “grades” offered by LEED get to brag about the wonderfulness of their buildings; “Look at me, ordinary people can’t afford this so I’m special.”  And, of course, the cost be damned.

But consider:

One of LEED’s big efforts is the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions to the environment.

The problem is, in many ways, LEED’s standards work to increase greenhouse gas emissions rather than reduce them.

As just one example consider, trees removed from a power line right of way project then milled into lumber using the most environmentally advanced equipment (very thin kerf sawmilling) do not qualify for LEED even if the milling company is willing to go through the huge extra cost needed to qualify as a provider of LEED certified materials then do the chain of custody tracking necessary to qualify for LEED points.

Lumber acceptable to LEED mostly must come from healthy forests, certified as being managed for long term sustainability (exceptions include some salvage or recycled lumbers).

That means lumber created from trees removed as the result of right of way clearing, removal of danger trees and for other, similar uses, cannot be substituted under LEED's system for lumber harvested from healthy forests. 

So, consider the millions of acres of trees killed in the intermountain west by pine beetle, mistletoe and other epidemics.  Lumber milled from the trees is perfectly usable and, absent being utilized for things like construction, will rot or be burned in catastrophic forest fires, emitting thousands and even millions of tons of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere.  Why shouldn’t lumber from those trees not only be eligible for LEED points regardless of the custody chain?  Where's the LEEDership in that?

A Colorado Home Built Entirely From Beetle Killed Pine Trees - This Would Not Qualify For LEED Points Except Those Available For "Locally" Produced Materials

Well, allowing those kinds of substitutions (lumber milled from dead, but not certified, trees for lumber milled from healthy trees wouldn’t bring in much money, would it?

And all that begs the question regarding LEED’s apparent love affair with concrete, one of the major sources of greenhouse gas emission in the world.

The LEED program was so elitist, and thus so restrictive in excluding many of the greenest green approaches to construction that California took the remarkable step a couple of years ago of establishing its own green building provisions using the California Building Code.  CALGreen, as the new program was dubbed, went into effect in January of 2011.  Many believe CALGreen has made LEED irrelevant in California as a result of its broader approach to green building.

As one pundit, writing for Reed Construction Data put it,   “Prior to CALGreen, some forward-thinking building departments seeking to improve energy efficiency and other building performance criteria, had required LEED certification for certain types of buildings. Los Angeles has now taken the step of replacing LEED standards with CALGreen, and has even extended the green building code to include renovations, going beyond the baseline requirements of CALGreen. Many experts and pundits in the green building industry have wondered if USGBC's LEED certification (a third party program) would remain relevant in light of government initiatives. For Los Angeles, the answer is now clear.”

As put forward by Wayne Engebretson, writing for Reed Construction Data, “A key result of the code is that it will allow designers, contractors, and owners to plan and build to a certifiable green standard without having to go through the submittal process, and pay, for third-party certification. The CALGREEN Code mandates required field inspections using a public, transparent infrastructure. The advantage is that one code covers all occupancy types, while various third-party certification systems require a different set of guidelines for each occupancy type covered.  There isn’t a point-based system, standards and regulations replace a measurement system. The regulations were developed by consulting with both the California building industry and environmental groups. Additional provisions were written in case local jurisdictions wanted to adopt even more stringent code. CALGREEN also provides design options that will allow the designer to determine how best to achieve compliance for a given site or building condition.  In other words, the state of California is eliminating the need for third party, proprietary certification standards by establishing a tiered system.”

When the owner of a thin kerf band portable sawmill buys a truck load of firewood and mills it up into very high end lumber for use in remodeling a home, that owner has performed a remarkable service to the community in terms of environmental enhancements. 

All the unpainted wood here was milled from firewood or untreated poles destined to be chipped or burned but, instead, milled into high value but low cost products by Pony Boy Gilbert of Veneta, Oregon.  Pony Boy also did the remodel and, provided the photo.  The lumber cost a fraction the cost had it been purchased through conventional channels and, does not qualify for LEED other than the points available for local production of materials.

LEED might not allow credit for that but the purchasers of goods and services who are interested in actually building green should be.