LEED

The U.S. Green Building Council’s (USGBC) Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED)TM program is the most widely recognized green building program in the United States. While LEED is noble in its intent, AF&PA has identified several flaws in its science and procedures. LEEDTM is neither consensus-based nor grounded in objective, scientific criteria with appropriate consideration of life cycle impacts. Therefore, as currently developed and implemented, LEED should not be used by governments to ensure green buildings.

With some substantive and procedural changes, the LEED rating system could achieve its stated goal of improving the environmental performance of the entire building industry.

The LEED rating system discriminates against the use of wood products: Through several of its specific credits, certain wood products are put at a significant disadvantage. This is a disservice to “green” builders, architects and the government. Wood products are a vital component of sound architectural design and facilitate ease of quality design and construction. Wood is among the most environmentally benign of all building materials, because, among other things, it is a renewable resource that sequesters huge amounts of carbon.

LEED discriminates against the two largest sustainable forestry programs in the U.S.: The LEED rating system provides a specific credit only for forest products that have been certified by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC). No credits are given for wood products produced by companies independently third-party certified to the Sustainable Forestry Initiative® (SFI) Program standard or the American Tree Farm System® – the two largest sustainable forest management systems in the U.S.

LEED fails to give due consideration to life cycle analysis (LCA): Without a grounding in objective, scientific criteria based on life cycle impacts, a rating system or standard is more likely to reflect the subjective biases of those who have crafted or are implementing the program. Objective criteria, like LCA, help ensure a rating system or standard will not yield inconsistent results, arbitrary thresholds, an emphasis on cost rather than environmental impact measures, a lack of appropriate baselines and measures of improvement, or an inability to compare buildings in different locations on equal terms. USGBC has recently begun a process to study how to better incorporate LCA into LEED.

The USGBC has not developed LEED in a consensus process open to all interested parties: The process USGBC uses to create and maintain LEED does not meet any generally accepted criteria for the development of a consensus standard. The USGBC fails to meet most of the measures of a successful standards development process as set out by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI).