Isn’t the Point to Have Less Toxic Buildings? Defend LEED
Kafka must be having a good laugh over this.
Since 2003, the General Services Administration (GSA)’s 91 LEED-certified and 219 pending buildings, totaling over 14 million certified square feet of space, can take credit for:
- Lowering emissions by 20 percent
- 20 percent lower energy intensity
- Switching 16% of overall energy use to renewables
- 14% reduction in water use since 2007
In and out of government, both the business case and the planetary case for LEED are clear:
In the last twelve years, LEED has aided the development of better products, better designs, better engineering, and better buildings. LEED has now grown into the most widely used high-performance building rating system in the world. Today more than 12,300 commercial projects and over 20,000 residential units have achieved LEED certification. An additional 1.6 million square feet of space is certified every day.
The business case for LEED is unassailable. It saves U.S. businesses and taxpayers millions of dollars every year. Furthermore, an organization’s participation in the voluntary LEED process demonstrates leadership, innovation, conservation stewardship and social responsibility, while providing a competitive advantage. All of these are reasons why small businesses, Fortune 100 companies, homeowners, governments and non-governmental organizations are using LEED to save money and save resources every day.
Now the latest idiocy in Congress is to try to force the GSA to abandon the well-respected LEED rating system. Why? To protect the interests of toxic chemical manufacturers whose products can’t qualify for LEED certification.
Earth to Congress: getting rid of toxics is part of how you get green buildings. Duh!
If you think Congress should allow the GSA to continue using LEED in its building design criteria, here’s a petition you can sign. It’ll be turned in Tuesday, so go and sign it now before you get distracted.