April 5, 2014 at 5:06 pm #152850Roland BeinertParticipant
I stopped paying attention to most anti-LEED arguments a long time ago, because most of the arguments seem to come from people working for chemical and lumber companies who want LEED to allow a bit of greenwashing into the system.
I agree 100% with this article, though. I guess Steve Mouzon isn’t really bashing LEED, like I said in the discussion title, just pointing out that it’s become too inflexible and focused on what he calls “gizmo green”.April 6, 2014 at 12:09 am #152859Jason T. RadiceParticipant
Totally agree, but the lumber and chemical companies have a point as well. There may be perfectly acceptable uses for their products, which may be greener than something else, but they are stigmatized because of generalizations about the industry.
As well, I always thought it was ironic that USGBC charged so much for their manuals if they want people to use them or become educated to take the exam. They should be free download PDFs like the Sustainable Sites Initiative guide is. USGBC is a business.April 6, 2014 at 4:21 am #152858Roland BeinertParticipant
I’m no expert on what should or shouldn’t be allowed in LEED, since I’m not even LEED AP. But I do know that some companies will say or do anything when their profits are threatened, and that includes spreading disinformation about how green their product is and bashing LEED when they can’t find a way to greenwash their product.
I agree the USGBC shouldn’t charge for their manuals. They should be accessible to anyone.April 6, 2014 at 4:15 pm #152857
I agree with common sense. If there was more of it we would not be worried about a point system at all.
You either do these things because they are the right things to do in your circumstance, or you do these things because you want to score points. If it is the former then LEED or any other point system is meaningless.April 7, 2014 at 2:42 pm #152856
If society doesn’t provide incentives to solve problems that we have collectively determined to be serious, then how do we progress? do we need the Building code, the Fire code – was the triangle shirtwaiste fire for naught, in your minds? And the trouble is, industry is ALWAYS making the money calculation, so the interests of the collective need to be represented somehow.
It is amazing to me how landscape architects can be so small minded, when our job is the big picture. A liscensed LA I know, who has a lot of authority, argues that there is no drought in the central valley, because “water is the same amount in the world it has always been, and do you believe that we actually let some of the water fall and go in the river right out to the ocean. !!!”
This registered LA has NO IDEA of the place in our world of esturarine marshes. None at all!!! And cannot distinguish a scientific estimate of drought from the man-made water conveyance systems we have. One is NOT contingent on the other!
Amazing. No on learned anything, Ian McHarg – – the value of the natural world you tried to show us has simply failed to impress us as a nation.
So I ask again, if you all are so against incentives, how does society move forward, to protect the commons.?April 7, 2014 at 4:08 pm #152855
Believe it or not, I agree with you. I wrote”IF” there was more common sense we would not need it. The fact is there is not more common sense. Regulation has to be there. LEED is a cottage industry rather than regulation. I think the article is making that point.April 7, 2014 at 5:43 pm #152854
yes, it is only not a regulation because our society has become victims of big business and have been fooled into thinking that environmental regulations act against us.
but thank you, Mr. Garulay, I am heartened by your support of a common sense simple thing we are asking developers to aim for – not even requiring it, like code and building codes. It should be required, end of story. IMHO. The price of development does not begin to reflect actual cost.April 7, 2014 at 9:55 pm #152853
It is not just big business. I’ve done several jobs for politicians who preach certain values and then don’t seem to have them when it is their own project. Some blatantly had vistas cut in wetland buffers after having construction done and been through the process, so absolutely knew what they were doing. If you know where I live, you know they were not the stereotype right wing whackos.
Everyone is great for applying the rules to other people, but seem to think there project does not have an impact.
The most annoying thing to me is environmental awards on construction projects in environmentally sensitive areas that did not need to be in those areas.April 7, 2014 at 10:01 pm #152852
The system works backwards. Every project should start with a certain number of points and then have points deducted for negative impacts. Instead, you can build whatever and then make yourself look good by filling it up with items that get you points whether the overall project has a negative impact or not.April 8, 2014 at 12:51 am #152851
I agree with that – the whole EIS system is a complete joke, including the visual Impact analysis garbage and ‘mitigation measures.” CEQR needs to be tossed, it has no way to say no to development at all, only yes with ridiculous mitigations. Ca. loves to use these fred flintstone looking fake stone stuff if they are required to ‘mitigate’ so the walls end up looking like crumpled cardboard that someone spit tobacco juice at for several hours. It is REALLY UGLY!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.