I would like to commend Jennifer Smith and the Capital News for the excellent article “The higher cost of building green” (Aug. 3, 2008), which dealt with some of the challenges of constructing environmentally responsible buildings. The article suggested that LEED Gold is quickly becoming the standard for buildings and will likely be made a requirement for all new structures by the new B.C. Building Code.
But LEED is not without its critics who say that although well-intentioned, it has many shortcomings in its execution such as that the LEED point system motivates developers to look for the easiest and most inexpensive way to accumulate enough points to get a certification for public relations purposes rather than to build structures that are genuinely best for the environment. Some other criticisms of LEED that have been made are that the benefits that come with LEED certification remain uncertain and that buildings that earn more LEED points than other buildings do not necessarily provide more environmental benefits.
Yet perhaps the most compelling criticism of LEED is that it does not contribute to the goal of environmental sustainability because LEED certified buildings are merely less harmful to the environment than non-LEED buildings and, for example, still result in a net increase in energy use at a time when we should be reducing our energy demand altogether. Despite these shortcomings, some local bodies such as the Advisory Planning Commission unquestioningly accept that LEED buildings are good for the environment, and thereby are regularly hoodwinked by developers into voting for some pretty dubious projects because they come with LEED certification.
Also see: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/05/13/CMGA7PCMDH1.DTL
Save Paradise 