Taking The LEED with Green Buildings
An op-ed piece in Thursday’s The New York Times provided an interesting perspective on green buildings and LEED certification, a topic we’ve covered in this space and in The MHEDA Journal before.
The Times article, titled “Don’t LEED Us Astray,” talks about how LEED certification (a U.S. Green Building Council certification given for incorporating eco-friendly design) has become a bit misguided. “While the standard is well-intentioned, it is also greatly misunderstood. Put simply, a building’s LEED rating is more like a snapshot taken at its opening, not a promise of performance.”
The article suggests that because once a building is built, it’s so difficult to predict what it’s actual green impact will be—after all, a bike rack doesn’t make people ride bikes—follow-up requirements should be implemented. “A number of local, state and federal agencies require LEED certification for their new buildings — so why not have them institute follow-up requirements as well? Buildings that efficiently generate on-site power should be able to claim tax credits. Tenants who reuse paper or install efficient lighting could claim rebates. At the same time, agencies should conduct regular energy-use checkups to ensure that landlords and tenants live up to the promise of their LEED certification—and those that don’t should lose their subsidy.”
I don’t really know enough about LEED to have an opinion, but I did find the argument compelling. I’ll throw it out to all of you: what do you think?
Tags: distribution, green, material handling, storage & handling
September 24th, 2010 at 4:13 pm
[...] that has little to do with material handling. But it does remind me that the green movement is still in full force out there, and material handlers and warehouse integrators should still be [...]