Oh my goodness. I work in the architecture industry at a firm that does a great number of LEED projects, and there is not a shred of truth in this claim.
Yes, it's true there's no LEED "decertification" process, but everything else the parent comment claimed or implied is false, including the implication here that "LEED decertificaiton" is a thing that's needed due to any sort of prevalent LEED fraud.
Once you have certification, you could build literally anything else...
true
If you buy a LEED certified building, you could convert it to be heated and powered by burning tires and endangered animals- still LEED Certified...
speculative
There is no decertification process,...
true
because that would mean spending money to reduce the number of buildings with the very-public name on it....
speculative
The parent is right to call me out, I'm a bit of a dickhead when I get onto topics like this. And you're also right in that some of my claims are speculative.
I don't think anyone has tried the 'burning tires and endangered animals' move quite yet. I should give it a try!
Okay. I'm going to respond in more depth to the original nay-sayer here, but will use your reply as a jumping-off point as you've succinctly summarized it. Hope you don't mind.
> LEED is a private entity...
And? The AIA, which administers licensing exams for architects, is also a private entity. What is the actual criticism here? That the US Green Building Council (the administrator of LEED) should be a government program? That would have given them the delightful opportunity to be defunded by Trump right now...I'm good with the current situation.
> that you pay to get LEED certification...
If the implication here is that it is a pay-to-play system, that's patently false. Yes, you pay for the certification - if you demonstrate meeting the lengthy list of requirements for the certification you are seeking.
>based on your planned designs...
>Once you have certification, you could build literally anything else...
This is where this so-called critique really goes off the rails. For clarity, LEED certifies architectural projects. Those outside the industry may not understand this, but the only thing architectural firms produce is plans. We call them Construction Documents. Architecture firms do not create buildings, unless they are a design-build firm (a small minority). The post I was replying to here was clearly implying that these 'plans' are just some non-binding byproduct of the process with no real impact on what gets built, which is the opposite of the truth. the plans produced by an architectural firm, not the built product, are what is subject to building code approval and are the artifact which carries all legal liability. LEED criteria direct the content of these plans. The accusation that firms are or could be putting 'LEED-y things' in their plans and then building something else is preposterous and baseless. This would be fraud and malpractice. Please provide some evidence if you're going to continue making this claim.
>If you buy a LEED certified building, you could convert it to be heated and powered by burning tires and endangered animals- still LEED Certified...
This is quite true, and admittedly is not a use-case traditional LEED is designed to address. But again, it's your onus to provide some examples of the system being abused in this way. The certification is intended to apply to the design documents and subsequent construction project; casually it is extended to a 'building', but of course buildings are things which can change all the time and even are ill-defined (you can get LEED certification for a campus development project, for example, which does not necessarily imply all buildings in that development are individually LEED-certified projects). The plaque which is provided for a LEED project and granted for use in marketing the project has the year of certification on it, and generally the certification is sought by developers or owners as a marketing effort at the time of their construction effort. I'm not generally aware of any companies purchasing LEED-certified buildings so they can use the certification for their marketing benefit, even leaving aside how faithfully they maintain the LEED-applicable elements. In fact I believe the first ever LEED-certified speculative property development (meaning a building explicitly built with the intent of selling to commercial occupants other than the developer) was just certified this past year.
>There is no decertification process,...
Again, the only reason a de-certification process would seem prudent is if the problem of people buying LEED-certified properties, "de-LEEDing" them, and continuing to promote their LEED-certification for marketing purposes, is a real thing. Just like voter fraud, you'll need to provide some evidence before I'm going to be convinced USGBC needs to start worrying about this. While they are not "de-certifying" legacy projects, one of the new components of the latest standard is a 'Performance Score' (which is currently optional but heavily encouraged), which measures exactly the kind of ongoing metrics you seem to be concerned about, and gives you a fancy digital status board to display these stats in your lobby. [https://www.leedon.io/faq.html]
>because that would mean spending money to reduce the number of buildings with the very-public name on it....
What are you suggesting to be the ulterior motives of the USGBC here? Because I was able to divine the ulterior motives of your LEED scare site in the course of like, three clicks. I'll summarize how I see it as someone who has a bit of familiarity with its history. Look, LEED is a deeply-flawed system. This is a topic discussed ad-naseum in the industry. But what's the alternative you're proposing? Because the system LEED replaced was...nothing at all. Back in the good old days, "green building" was mostly an idea made of marshmallow fluff and good intentions, with some grass on a roof here and there. Aside from the true pioneers who were generally working in obscurity, the sum total of a "green" architectural project of any significance generally was some planters and a showy geothermal system that didn't actually work, maybe some dubiously-"sustainable" material with no actual credentials used in a prominent application. Greenwashing was pretty much all that ever happened, because large clients by and large were only interested in "green" for its marketing value and not willing to spend more than the bare minimum on it. Now, I'm not saying the system we have today is too much different! But what's significant is it provides a framework that practitioners can defer to. Now when a client says "we're interested in green", we can direct them to LEED, thanks to its brand recognition, and LEED comes with rules. Rules you have to spend to meet, and rules which are influencing the products vendors put on the market. Not to say exceptions don't get made (they have a system in place to petition for them), and not to say the point system is particularly equitable, and not to say that even the most aggressive LEED certification is anywhere near where we need to be. But it's providing a framework which is pushing the industry forward in observable ways, on a mulititude of levels. And most admirably, they are aggressively (in architectural timelines) deprecating prior certifications and rolling out new, more stringent ones, including things like the ongoing performance metrics I mentioned above.
I don't know if LEED is the ultimate answer. There are certainly better standards out there, gaining traction (Green Globes, Passive House are a couple notable ones). But LEED is on the ground, with tens of thousands of certified projects, and is pushing its standards higher every year. I'm not going to sneeze at that.
Really? I had heard that from a few sources, and done some cursory research that seemed to confirm it.
Can you provide sources to the contrary? I'd rather admit to being wrong and then become right than go around sounding like I know shit when I don't.
(My main source is my wife, who's a civil engineer for the city approving building construction. She has strong opinions on LEED because she's had to approve buildings that met city standards but basically fucked off with their LEED promises).
As another reply said, their own website[0] says there's no decertification process: "No, projects will not be decertified for performance."
There's the fact that many LEED certified buildings are less energy efficient than other buildings, even after spending hundreds of thousands or more to get their LEED certification[1][2].
There's even a LEED Exposed website dedicated to calling out their organization[3]. Primarily, the fact that they are a non-government organization whose rules many governments say buildings must follow.
There's lots of reasons to be suspicious of LEED, and I'd love to hear counter-arguments.
This isn't a counter-argument, just an observation:
"LEED Exposed" is run by the Environmental Policy Alliance[1], which is "devoted to uncovering the funding and hidden agendas behind environmental activist groups."
It looks like the Environmental Policy Alliance is a shell organization run by Berman & Co.[2][3], a PR firm for everybody's favorite lineup of corporate bad guys: cigarettes, soda and fast food, and (presumably) some company that benefits from lessened pressure for environmental design.
The Forbes source you gave is written by someone at Berman & Company.
I don't want to make any particular claims about LEED or the USGBC, because I just don't know enough about them. However, the origins of the criticisms against them suggest that there's more at play than just LEED being a bad or ineffective standard.
I think overall, I'd prefer to see proper government regulated standards. The EPA's energy star stuff has worked pretty well at enforcing home appliances meet certain criteria for efficiency.
There needs to be some bite behind these rules, and not just good intentions.
I agree; I think that government standards (and enforcement) for efficient building design would go a long way.
That being said, Berman & Co. (or any number of opaque lobbying firms) don't stop at LEED - it's just low hanging fruit. They're also running "EPA Facts" [1], "Green Decoys" [2], and so forth.
My worry is that with LEED out of the way, the EPA's replacement will become the new target. With Scott Pruitt in charge, that may be easier than ever.
