LEED competition 4

Comments View as Flat

1. 

   CrosbyMacDonald Posted 6:33 am
   10 May 2007

   up here in Canada..actually the article gets it slightly wrong, as Green Globes is not "Canada's version of LEED"...
   We actually have LEED Canada, licensed from the USGBC, administered by the Canada Green Building Council (caGBC) and modified for Canada-specific needs.
   I don't know enought about either to make a judgement, but from the developers I've spoken to, there are clearly areas for improvement in LEED (and any other rating system).  Ie. there are certain things that aren't recognized, and many innovative green builders are ahead of LEED.
   Still, there is value in having a comprehensive standard that can be applied, so maybe these two initiatives should learn from each other.
   Green building is really a no-brainer in many cases, certified or not...
   With sustainable building designs and technologies, about 30 percent of GHG emissions from buildings could be avoided by 2030 "with net economic benefits", says the latest IPCC report.

   Permalink

2. 

   CrosbyMacDonald Posted 6:34 am
   10 May 2007

   Green Globes is...from GreenGlobes.com:
   "Green Globes Canada was developed in Canada with support of federal and provincial ministries and public utilities and in the UK, by the RICS foundation and Faber Maunsell.  Green Globes is the newest addition to the BREEAM/Green Leaf suite of environmental assessment tools."

   Permalink

3. 

   GreenEngineer Posted 7:46 am
   10 May 2007

   Green GlobesI am not intimately familiar with Green Globes, but the things I do know about them to not give me much comfort.
   The program was started with funding from the Sustainable Forestry Initiative, a timber industry greenwash group that was created to compete with the independent Forest Stewardship Council.  LEED, on the other hand, was created through a process of consensus councils through the US Green Building Council.  The USGBC is an independent nonprofit that, for the first ~8 years of its existence, did not even permit membership by industry trade organizations, in order to preserve its objectivity.
   (This policy was recently changed, on the theory that the USGBC is now sufficiently well established to resist undue influence from industry, and that the value of being maximally inclusive outweighed the danger of undue influence.  Which is a sound position, I think.)
   More on this debate here.

   Permalink

4. 

   Green in Portland Posted 10:40 am
   10 May 2007

   Timber Industry influenceActually, according to the GBI website, http://www.thegbi.org, "The GBI has benefited from the early support of a core group of industries that are committed to advancing the green building movement by creating a variety of credible options for their mainstream builder customers. Organizations like the Wood Promotion Network, as well as interests from such sectors as financial services, retailers, wholesalers, appliance manufacturers and other building material providers have all stepped forward to offer early support for our efforts. The GBI plans to increasingly diversify its financial base with similarly committed companies and organizations.
   The GBI is governed by a multi-stakeholder board of 15 directors featuring representatives from industry, NGOs, construction companies, architectural firms and academic institutions. Each board member has one vote, so no single entity or individual has more control than any other."
   So it appears that the rumor that it was funded by SFI is inaccurate, although the Wood Promotion Network is listed as a donor.
   According to GBI executives, the donors have had no influence on the standard setting process, and the GBI has turned its standards over to the ANSI Technical Committee for review and approval, making it impossible for GBI, its Board or its donors to unilaterally change any of the standards.
    

   Permalink