Whenever my wife or I bring up the subject of chores or anything faintly resembling work, my kids are quick to remind us that summer is for fun and relaxation. For me, so far, this particular summer actually fits the bill. And in no small part, this is because there seems to have been a lull in the industry-sponsored attacks on green building leadership that cause my blood pressure to spike. Last summer, there was the threat that the U.S. Senate would adopt a de facto prohibition on the use of LEED by federal agencies. Last fall, the General Services Administration, the federal government’s real estate arm, caved to a sustained onslaught of political pressure and approved the industry-backed Green Globes as an alternative to LEED for federal construction. This spring, Ohio, previously a national leader in building green schools, joined pro-timber states like Maine, Georgia and Mississippi in banning the use of LEED for public construction. And throughout 2013 and the first half of 2014, there was a steady PR cannonade of anti-LEED articles, op eds, and “studies”. So far this summer, though, the negative media campaign has quieted, and the only new LEED ban I’m aware of cropped up in a rural county in Virginia. Is the worst behind us? Or is this simply the eye of the storm? Jerry Yudelson, the president of the Green Building Initiative (GBI), the organization that administers and promotes Green Globes, seems to think that the hiatus in hostilities is temporary. In a recent article in the Portland Tribune: portlandtribune/sl/227470-86839-new-face-in-green-building-dust-up ...when asked if industry attacks on LEED will end, Yudelson said, “I have no idea [but] I doubt it. I think the battle lines are clearly drawn.” Since Yudelson has “no idea,” perhaps he should ask the timber, chemical, and plastics industry executives who serve on his board of directors and dominate the ranks of the GBI’s members and supporters? After all, these are representatives of the same interests that are behind the anti-LEED crusade. In January, Allen Blakey, a GBI director and the Vinyl Institute’s VP of Industry and Government Affairs, testified before the Ohio legislature in support of the LEED ban, citing LEED v4’s materials transparency credit as a prime example of “discriminatory and disparaging treatment of vinyl.” If Yudelson wants to locate the next front in the war on LEED, my guess is that Blakey’s travel plans are already made. It’s not just that Yudelson denies any knowledge of or responsibility for the attacks on LEED, even though his rating system and organization obviously benefit from them, for where LEED is banned, Green Globes fills the void. He goes even further, and seeks to justify them. Another excerpt from the Tribune article: LEED defenders question why the likes of Weyerhaeuser, the American Chemistry Council, and the vinyl industry are mounting such an aggressive national attack on LEED — lobbying states and the federal government to restrict its usage — when use of their products only pertains to a few points in LEED’s 110-point scoring system. Yudelson acknowledges those aren’t make-or-break points that determine how most buildings are rated. “It’s more like you’re telling us our products are no good,” he says. “You step on Superman’s cape, eventually Superman’s going to get pissed off.” It’s telling and troubling that Yudelson apparently identifies so closely with producers of clearcut timber, toxic petrochemicals, and poison plastics that he would say us and our products. Is it possible that in the space of less than a year, the so-called ‘Godfather of Green Building’ has wholly gone over to the mafia that has a contract out on LEED? In assuming the presidency of the GBI, Yudelson has placed himself on the horns of dilemma. You can’t simultaneously maintain your reputation as a respected leader in the green building movement and carry water for industries that are dead set on thwarting and subverting that movement. Not for long, anyway. It’s time for Yudelson to stop justifying industry attacks on green building leadership and to speak out forcefully and unequivocally against them. His board chair, Ray Tonjes, is willing to stand on principle in this regard: “[a]sked if states should enact outright bans on the use of LEED, Tonjes didn’t waver. “Absolutely not,” he says. “We think there needs to be choice.” If Yudelson thinks that choice is important, then he too should say so. Yudelson told the Portland Tribune that he is diversifying his board, adding “a prominent Chicago architect and the CEO of a national environmental group.” At the same time, he should show the door to board members who engage in anti-LEED lobbying like the Vinyl Institute’s Blakey. Whatever Yudelson says or does, what matters most is that the anti-competitive efforts to restrict or ban the use of LEED cease. Personally, I don’t see that Green Globes brings much value to the green building movement, but I think most of us can live with it if its proponents can agree to compete fairly on a level playing field and stop using their lobbying power to shove it down our collective throats.
Posted on: Tue, 12 Aug 2014 22:08:54 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015