LEED Pilot Credit 43 and Product Disclosure: Right Direction, Wrong Weighting

Submitted by Web Master on Wed, 2011-07-06 12:34

There's already been a lot of excellent debate around the new LEED Pilot Credit 43. I find myself agreeing with both sides! Here's where I stand in what may be the eye of the storm.

LEED is supposed to be about buildings--and market transformation

On the one hand, LEED is fundamentally supposed to be about designing high-performing green buildings, and product and material selection is one integrated component. It's not supposed to be about cobbling together a building out of greener products and materials. If the core purpose gets lost amidst the debate surrounding one material (yes, I'm talking FSC/SFI), we all lose.

On the other hand, LEED is at this point a major market driver for green building products. We need to use all the levers we can find to create truly sustainable manufacturing and sourcing if we're ever going to make it through these pivotal times into a vibrant, thriving, truly sustainable world. So we ought to use LEED for all it's worth in pushing real substantive improvements down through the supply chain.

BG Blog ID: 
4
BG Blog URL: 
http://www.buildinggreen.com/live/index.cfm/2011/7/6/Pilot-Credit-43-and-Product-Disclosure-Right-Direction-Wrong-Weighting

Comments

Jennifer, I agree with you.

Submitted by Melissa Vernon on Thu, 2011-07-28 18:55.
Jennifer, I agree with you. There are parts of this credit that I agree with and parts that need improvement. But isn't that the reason for the Pilot Credit Library - to gather user feedback and ensure the credit will achieve real environmental impact reductions? InterfaceFLOR published our first EPD in 2009 and has been a lonely voice in advocating for product transparency. LEED is a powerful market driver and we hope others will finally join us in publishing their environmental impact data. EPDs can be published on an unsustainable product, therefore the Certifications Pathway is important as well. NSF 140 - Sustainability Assessment for Carpet, a 3rd party verified, multi-attribute standard provides the ranking and ability to compare products from different manufacturers. It is time for LEED to evolve and develop a life cycle based approach to materials. Right now, the materials evaluation in LEED is single attribute focused. As I joke in my "How Carpet Contributes to LEED" presentation, a manufacturer could have a toxic waste dump behind their factory but if their products have recycled content and are low emitting, they contribute. With a shift to life cycle based metrics, we may actually be able to reward projects for what they DON'T put into the building. Life cycle assessment has illustrated that 70% of the environmental impacts with carpet occur upstream in the raw materials phase. Nylon has a high embodied energy and therefore InterfaceFLOR has made it a priority to reduce the face weight and amount of nylon fiber, as well as to switch to post-consumer sources of nylon. There is no LEED credit for dematerialization. For a longer discussion on the benefits of EPD combined with a 3rd party multi-attribute certification, please check out my blog:http://interfaceflorblog.com/new-leed-pilot-credit-for-epds-rewards-tran...

I agree with most of this art

Submitted by Jason Grant on Fri, 2011-07-08 18:09.
I agree with most of this article, except the assertion that "[i]f the core purpose of LEED gets lost amidst the debate surrounding one material (...FSC/SFI), we all lose." Admittedly, I'm a partisan in this debate, but Sierra Club and other environmental groups genuinely believe that how USGBC ultimately comes down on the wood issue is about the "soul" of the organization and its rating system - another way of saying the "core purpose" of LEED. WIll USGBC move forward as a change agent, and will LEED remain at its heart a driver of market transformation to sustainability of the building industry and related industries? Or will the tidal wave of weak and greenwash certifications and standards, shallow LCA-based "thinking," and trade association/corporate lobbying water down those aspects of LEED that are controversial, resulting in a go-along-to-get-along type of organization that pushes the envelope only where it is politically safe to do so?

I agree that that asking a LE

Submitted by T.C. on Mon, 2011-07-11 07:59.
I agree that that asking a LEED design team to fully understand forest certification systems is like asking them to understand thermodynamics. Likewise, USGBC should not dilute any certification system, nor should providers, by not requiring the proper documentation. Further, even base understanding of forest certification is not widespread, and until it is, the argument for why one should specify certified wood is a difficult one. FSC, SFI, and USGBC need to facilitate widespread understanding of certification claims and how these are determined and documented.