LEED Not Without Criticism |
| Friday, 22 February 2008 | |
|
Some feel that buildings may be using LEED and other “green” buzzwords to help sell properties without any real significant benefit in terms of resource and energy efficiency. LEED certified buildings often are said to have the ability to save water, use less electricity and also improve occupant comfort and well being through improved indoor air quality. But how can anyone guarantee such savings or improvements will occur? Are people being lured into a false sense of security when purchasing or leasing a LEED certified building? While some post-occupant studies have shown improvements in energy and resource use in buildings, they have yet to be conducted on a very large scale, providing for weak statistics on the matter. Once a LEED certification is granted, it does not have to be renewed. If the energy use of a building does not change even after certification, should the building be allowed to call itself LEED certified? One large problem lies in the fact that post-occupancy results do not play a role in granting the certification. This may allow many individuals to market their properties as “green” without the building having any significant reduction in electricity usage. Members of the legal community have also stated that liability issues may arise due to builders and developers calling their buildings “green” or “eco-friendly”. If a tenant realizes that no curb in energy usage is occurring, would they have the right to sue the builder? In our lawsuit happy society, this may become a serious concern for many developers, causing more problems than just financial loss. If the potential for liability from making promises about the eco-friendliness becomes too high, a reduction in such developments may occur, casting a pall on the entire notion of green building. LEED has also been criticized because its standards are perceived as too vague. While the standard is updated regularly, it may require even faster updates or more stringent certification to make sure that buyers of property get what they pay for and the “green” movement is not damaged by poor public perception.
|
(1) Comments| < Prev |
|---|